# Cut the dole to cut higher tax rates



## Duke of Marmalade

_Boss_ you're in form today in the _Sindo_, watch your back  Broadly agree with you except I'm not sure there is any silver bullet for the pension crisis we face.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

Thanks Duke

My article in today's Sunday Independent: 

*High earners pay more than their fair share in tax, while others get a free ride*

A significant part of the difference between the tax rates in Ireland and the UK is due to social insurance. An employee earning €40,000 in Ireland pays €1,600 a year in PRSI. A UK employee on £35,000 pays £3,283 a year in social insurance. That is right - they pay twice the social insurance in the UK.

But an Irish married man with a dependent wife gets weekly dole of €312.80, while his equivalent in the UK gets only £114.85.

So the Irish man pays half the social insurance but gets twice the dole. That is unfair to the general Irish taxpayer who has to fund the difference.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Broadly agree with you except I'm not sure there is any silver bullet for the pension crisis we face.



"The PRSI system here should be changed so that a person's contributions should go into an account in their own name. This account would be used to pay their pension and their healthcare. They could also draw on the account during any periods of unemployment. The more they put into the account, the more they would get out. If someone earning €80,000 a year loses their job, they would get a dole payment based on their salary, but it would be drawn from their own account. They would not be getting some State handout, they would be getting their own money back. And it would always be in their interest to work. While they are working, they are building up their retirement account. While they are unemployed, they are depleting it.

When they retire, they would get a pension based on the amount in the account.

Such a system would go a long way to solving the pensions crisis we have. If people paid for their pension through a PRSI account in their own name, they would not need a separate, privately funded pension. They would be prepared to pay higher PRSI if they could see a direct link between what they pay in and what they eventually draw out. There would be no more arguments about the age at which a person should be able to draw the Old Age Pension. The amount of the pension they would get and the age from which it could be drawn would be decided by the amount they have in their PRSI account."

I think it would be a move in the right direction. But the current system is so completely dysfunctional, that it will take years to fix. 

I think a personal account system would be a good first step in the right direction. 

Brendan


----------



## Steven Barrett

Good article Brendan. A problem with Irish society is that we want everything provided for us but we don't want to pay for anything. Irish Water is a classic example. 

Then there is the way the Exchequer is run, it is like a giant Ponzi scheme. As long as there is money coming in, we will continue to fund the expenditure. There will come a time when those taking will far outnumber those giving, so what are they going to do then? Absolutely nothing is ringfenced by the government, every penny that comes in is put in the general exchequer. And that's before getting to how much over the odds government departments pay for outside tenders etc. It's a gravy train. 

Steven 
www.bluewaterfp.ie


----------



## TheBigShort

Brendan Burgess said:


> Thanks Duke
> 
> My article in today's Sunday Independent:
> 
> *High earners pay more than their fair share in tax, while others get a free ride*
> 
> A significant part of the difference between the tax rates in Ireland and the UK is due to social insurance. An employee earning €40,000 in Ireland pays €1,600 a year in PRSI. A UK employee on £35,000 pays £3,283 a year in social insurance. That is right - they pay twice the social insurance in the UK.
> 
> But an Irish married man with a dependent wife gets weekly dole of €312.80, while his equivalent in the UK gets only £114.85.
> 
> So the Irish man pays half the social insurance but gets twice the dole. That is unfair to the general Irish taxpayer who has to fund the difference.



Oh dear, oh dear oh dear! Where to begin?


----------



## TheBigShort

SBarrett said:


> A problem with Irish society is that we want everything provided for us but we don't want to pay for anything



Speak for yourself, the vast, vast majority want to earn a living and pay their own way in the world. 
Its mindsets like yours that costs Irish workers dearly.


----------



## Gordon Gekko

TheBigShort said:


> Speak for yourself, the vast, vast majority want to earn a living and pay their own way in the world.
> Its mindsets like yours that costs Irish workers dearly.



I don't think he's talking about himself!


----------



## TheBigShort

Gordon Gekko said:


> I don't think he's talking about himself!



Of course not, its everybody else that wants everything provided for them, with the exception of _SBarrett. _A model of self sufficiency no doubt, in a country of spongers.


----------



## Steven Barrett

TheBigShort said:


> Speak for yourself, the vast, vast majority want to earn a living and pay their own way in the world.
> Its mindsets like yours that costs Irish workers dearly.



Hold your horses there mate. Ok, let's look at Irish Water. Every country in Europe pays for their water. We don't but we expect the pipes to be paid from the general exchequer. We also expect a top class health service, more schools, better standard of education, better roads, better infrastructure, help the disadvantaged. The list goes on. Where is the money going to come from to pay for all these services that we want? It has to come from taxation, and people don't want to pay any more than we current are. 

Steven 
www.bluewaterfp.ie


----------



## ppmeath

Good article, well done Brendan - saying it like it is.


----------



## KOW

SBarrett said:


> Hold your horses there mate. Ok, let's look at Irish Water. Every country in Europe pays for their water. We don't but we expect the pipes to be paid from the general exchequer. We also expect a top class health service, more schools, better standard of education, better roads, better infrastructure, help the disadvantaged. The list goes on. Where is the money going to come from to pay for all these services that we want? It has to come from taxation, and people don't want to pay any more than we current are.
> 
> Steven
> www.bluewaterfp.ie



What people want from our great leaders is a country no bigger than the size of greater Manchester to be able to access housing a decent health service and employment opportunities for our young people. I have gone to every water protest because I believe that our water was been lined up to be sold off. Look what has gone on with  bins/charges. Siteserv, Nama, mobile licences to name a few.
I work for a little above the average industrial wage. I have paid PRSI for over 30yrs. I have paid private health insurance for years now. I go to a consultant  I pay my 150 euro. So in reality I am paying 3 times firstly through my PRSI then my private health insurance and I still have to hand out a further 150 euro. What other country would put up with this nonsense. This is one example of our great system.
People in Ireland through past experience dont like paying out any more because it is wasted.
Countries like Canada have a Finance Minister who actually has a back ground in finance and a minister for health who has a comprehensive background in health.Here we have a group of burnt out teachers who are given a portfolio because simply the head of the country thinks its a good idea or likes them.
The size of greater Manchester- families living in hotels, hundreds sleeping on the streets. Hundreds dying every year because they cant get a hospital bed. Over 100k to keep a prisoner in Mountjoy. Over 370k to keep a young offender in Oberstown. The list goes on.
Fool me once shame on you. Fool me twice----.
When the tax payer is confident their taxes are spent properly and not on 135k pensions for ex-ministers they might be willing to contribute more.
dont hold your breath.
Rant over time for glass of wine.


----------



## TheBigShort

SBarrett said:


> We also expect a top class health service, more schools, better standard of education, better roads, better infrastructure, help the disadvantaged. The list goes on. *Where is the money going to come from to pay for all these services that we want? *It has to come from taxation, and people don't want to pay any more than we current are



But this topic is not about raising more taxes to pay for the things that you have presented. It is, at its worst, about cutting welfare rates in order to provide tax cuts for higher earners and at best, it is about transferring the taxation burden from higher earners onto lower earners in return for zero services.
Either way, the argument presented in the Indo article is devoid of any impartial analysis, full of contradiction and skewed calculation.


----------



## TheBigShort

"_If the couple in Ireland has two children, they will pay €5,143 in taxes and receive €3,300 in child benefit. If you view child benefit as a negative income tax, the net tax falls to €1,843, or 4.6pc of their gross income."_

The question I have here is, does the author view child benefit as a negative tax? As someone who has two children with a childcare bill of €11,000 pa, not to mention the cost of food, schooling, extra circular activites, etc, such a sentiment is devoid of any understanding of society and economy.
In a nutshell, cut child benefit and it will disincentive at least one parent to go out and work, delay family planning, and reduce family sizes.


----------



## TheBigShort

_According to the OECD, the tax take on low earners is the lowest in the OECD._

Is this a bad thing? Really? Is the author advocating high tax take on low income earners? Perhaps not, perhaps a higher tax take than what is currently applied. But astonishingly, this extra tax take is not to used to provide for improved public services but rather to provide for a tax cut for higher income earners!


----------



## TheBigShort

_An employee earning €40,000 in Ireland pays €1,600 a year in PRSI. A UK employee on £35,000 pays £3,283 a year in social insurance. That is right - they pay twice the social insurance in the UK.

But an Irish married man with a dependent wife gets weekly dole of €312.80, while his equivalent in the UK gets only £114.85.

So the Irish man pays half the social insurance but gets twice the dole. That is unfair to the general Irish taxpayer who has to fund the difference.
_
Whatever about the amount of dole for an the Irish couple, the UK equivalent amount is dismal.
But the analysis is based on the contributions of one earner on €40,000 pa and doesn't consider the tax take in the round. For instance, in the UK the higher tax rate of 40% doesn't kick in until £43,000!. In Ireland its €35,000.


----------



## TheBigShort

_What about high earners? An Irish couple with two children earning €80,000, which just puts them into the top 10pc of earners, pays €22,272, or 27.8pc of their income, in net taxes after deducting child benefit. So a moderately well paid couple pays €22,272 whereas our friend on €40,000 pays €1,843. Where is the fairness in that?_

Where to begin with the inaccuracies and contradictions in this statement?
First, apparently a couple on €80,000 pa are regarded as high earners in the top 10%. But a couple of sentences later they are reduced to "moderately well paid".
In reality of course, an _individual _earning €80,000 puts that person in the top 10%, but a couple earning €80,000 puts them in the average earnings bracket of...oh dear, €40,000 a piece each, or €80,000 between two.
This is surprising as the author posted the income brackets and associated taxes in another topic also.

Its not clear either, but it does appear, the author has _excluded _the child benefit from the higher earners tax liability but _included _it in calculating the lower earners tax liability.


----------



## TheBigShort

_According to the latest figures from the Revenue Commissioners, the top 20pc of earners pay 75pc of all income tax and USC paid in the country. The bottom 50pc of earners pay less than 4pc of the total tax and USC take. Some 750,000 low earners pay no income tax or USC at all._

These type of statistics (% of a %) are worthless. They are open to manipulation and misinterpretation. For instance, using the stats presented, the top 20pc pay 75pc of taxes. This would imply that the bottom 80pc only contribute 25pc of taxes. Meaning the top 20% are heavily burdened, while the bottom 80% are getting away lightly.
However another stat used by the author in the very same paragraph is that the bottom 50% only pay 4%, implying the top 50% contribute a hefty 96% of taxes.
But the top 50%, who contribute a hefty 96% also consists of taxpayers in the previous bottom 80% bracket! And those guys only pay 25pc of the tax!!
So, at any one time, a taxpayer could be categorized as both an overly burdened taxpayer (in top 50% bracket contributing to 96% of the tax) and simultaneously a tax payer who could contribute more (in bottom 80% bracket contributing to only 25% of the taxes).


----------



## TheBigShort

_This is not fair. It's not fair that low earners get a free ride on the backs of the top 20pc. It's not fair that those on social welfare get among the highest welfare benefits and payments in Europe at the expense of a minority of taxpayers._

This is bizarre. 
First, a low earner is a working person. They get up and do a job, for minimum wage or not much more. 
How is working full-time for minimum wage ever to be considered as a free ride?
The only reason a low paid worker doesn't pay any tax is because their income is so low, allowing for personal tax credits, that the tax liability is calculated as zero.
On the other hand, the higher earner who is complaining about the amount of taxes ALSO receives equally the same amount of personal tax credits as a €20,000 a year worker.
In other words, even a person that earns €1m a year, will receive at least the same personal tax credits as the minimum wage worker. And as such, the €1m a year worker will pay the EXACT same amount of tax on the first €20,000 of their income as the worker whose entire income is only €20,000.

It is an absolute nonsense to compare the % amount of tax of two workers with different incomes as the tax rates differ on different levels of income.


----------



## TheBigShort

_Fine, push up the top tax rate and, while we are at it, cut the tax relief we give them on private health insurance._

At this point I think it's fair that I should agree that the tax system is somewhat skewed. But where I disagree is that it is skewed in favour of low paid. Where I see the unfairness is in the corporate tax system, and recent events with Apple, I believe just scratch the surface.
Also I am not inherently opposed to minimum wage workers paying extra tax. I am opposed that such a tax may be used to offer tax cuts for higher earners. This would be complete nonsense.


----------



## TheBigShort

_it's not good for the dole recipients themselves. If you have very high social welfare, people will become dependent on the State. They won't look for a job and try to get on in life. _

And here is where it all goes pear-shaped for the author again. The implied assumption is that those on the dole could not command a higher income than what is offered on the dole. I mean why take a €900 a week production manager job when you can get your €180 dole, €400 rent supplement too?
Why would a 23yr old graduate, living with mammy and daddy, take a minimum wage job in a reputable when they can get €100 for doing nothing?
The implied sentiment inherent in the Indo article is that those on low incomes and welfare are lazy, unreliable and costly to society.


----------



## Steven Barrett

DCD said:


> What people want from our great leaders is a country no bigger than the size of greater Manchester to be able to access housing a decent health service and employment opportunities for our young people. I have gone to every water protest because I believe that our water was been lined up to be sold off. Look what has gone on with  bins/charges. Siteserv, Nama, mobile licences to name a few.
> I work for a little above the average industrial wage. I have paid PRSI for over 30yrs. I have payed private health insurance for years now. I go to a consultant  I pay my 150 euro. So in reality I am paying 3 times firstly through my PRSI then my private health insurance and I still have to hand out a further 150 euro. What other country would put up with this nonsense. This is one example of our great system.
> People in Ireland through past experience dont like paying out any more because it is wasted.
> Countries like Canada have a Finance Minister who actually has a back ground in finance and a minister for health who has a comprehensive background in health.Here we have a group of burnt out teachers who are given a portfolio because simply the head of the country thinks its a good idea or likes them.
> The size of greater Manchester- families living in hotels, hundreds sleeping on the streets. Hundreds dying every year because they cant get a hospital bed. Over 100k to keep a prisoner in Mountjoy. Over 370k to keep a young offender in Oberstown. The list goes on.
> Fool me once shame on you. Fool me twice----.
> When the tax payer is confident their taxes are spent properly and not on 135k pensions for ex-ministers they might be willing to contribute more.
> dont hold your breath.
> Rant over time for glass of wine.



DCD, I also raised the point about the inefficiencies of the public service and how money is spent. If a private company and the public service put out a tender for the exact same job, you can bet your bottom dollar that the public service job would be more expensive. Why? It's not their money, they think it's a bottomless pit of money, when it's not. Is there any world class public service provided in Ireland? Everything is just kept ticking along. No need to try to excel at any public service. You would think with a country as small as we are, it would be easier to provide a world class service in for example, broadband. That would attract internet based companies. Or how about great rail links? Or town planning? Not a chance


Steven
www.bluewaterfp.ie


----------



## Brendan Burgess

Hi Shortie

First of all, this is an newspaper article of 1,300 words.  I had edited down from the first version.  Had it been an academic paper or presentation, I would have gone into a lot more example and a lot more statistics.  For example, I had a big bit in it about how the "squeezed middle" is a myth and the reality is that married people and people with kids are not squeezed, whereas single people are squeezed a bit.  But I am hoping to do a separate article on that issue alone.

I will come back to you on the interpretations of the various statistics and I will double check my calculations.

But, first, can you tell me if you agree with any of the following core facts in the article.  For the moment, let's leave aside the question about whether it is fair or not.

1) The higher paid, whether you define them as the top 10% or the top 20%, pay most of the income tax and USC in Ireland?
2) The lower paid, again, however you define them, pay virtually no income tax or USC in Ireland?
3) Irish lower and middle paid, pay around half the rate of PRSI as their equivalent in the UK, but Irish people get far higher social welfare? 4) The Irish higher paid - pay around the same levels of social insurance in the UK but get much lower benefits? (This is a summary of a very complex scheme in the UK, but I think it's generally a fair summary for people earning from €80k up to about €200k.)
5) The higher the level of social welfare benefits and payments, the less incentive there is for someone to work?  This is not a moral comment, it's just something which I think is self-evident.  But I would like to know whether you agree with that or not.


----------



## jim

I think it would be very hard for anyone to reasonably argue against any of those 5 assertions.

For what its worth my tupenceworth would be that whilst the populist opinion would be that it would be socially unjust to cut the dole to cut income tax, it would in fact be fairer on those who pay the tax and shoulder the burden.

It might also incentivise dole recipients to obtain employment.


----------



## Delboy

Brendan Burgess said:


> Hi Shortie


----------



## TheBigShort

Brendan Burgess said:


> Hi Shortie
> 
> First of all, this is an newspaper article of 1,300 words.  I had edited down from the first version.  Had it been an academic paper or presentation, I would have gone into a lot more example and a lot more statistics.  For example, I had a big bit in it about how the "squeezed middle" is a myth and the reality is that married people and people with kids are not squeezed, whereas single people are squeezed a bit.  But I am hoping to do a separate article on that issue alone.
> 
> I will come back to you on the interpretations of the various statistics and I will double check my calculations.
> 
> But, first, can you tell me if you agree with any of the following core core facts in the article.  For the moment, let's leave aside the question about whether it is fair or not.
> 
> 1) The higher paid, whether you define them as the top 10% or the top 20%, pay most of the income tax and USC in Ireland?
> 2) The lower paid, again, however you define them, pay virtually no income tax or USC in Ireland?
> 3) Irish lower and middle paid, pay around half the rate of PRSI as their equivalent in the UK, but Irish people get far higher social welfare? 4) The Irish higher paid - pay around the same levels of social insurance in the UK but get much lower benefits? (This is a summary of a very complex scheme in the UK, but I think it's generally a fair summary for people earning from €80k up to about €200k.)
> 5) The higher the level of social welfare benefits and payments, the less incentive there is for someone to work?  This is not a moral comment, it's just something which I think is self-evident.  But I would like to know whether you agree with that or not.



Yes I would agree with the core facts as outlined but I would disagree with your analysis of what all of it actually means.
Taking 1) for starters. The first thing to note is that in any progressive taxation system, higher earners will always contribute a higher amount of taxation than lower income earners. If the tax rate is 50% on all income and you earn €100,000 and I earn €20,000, then you will contribute €50,000, I will contribute €10,000. That sounds fair does it not? Total contribution €60,000.
Between the two of us, the top 50% of earners (you) contributes a whopping 83% of the total take whereas the bottom 50% of earners (me) only contribute 17% of the tax take. Even though we both contribute 50% of our incomes, using the "top 10%", the "top 20%" etc is open to manipulation and misinterpretation.


----------



## TheBigShort

Brendan Burgess said:


> 2) The lower paid, again, however you define them, pay virtually no income tax or USC in Ireland?



The lower paid that pay virtually no income tax or USC is a cause of their incomes being so low. There may be scope for cobtributions under USC, but as far as income tax goes, it is their personal tax credits, when applied to their tax liability, that ultimately returns a zero sum tax liability return.
But the thing to note here is that those same personal tax credits are applied to higher earners also. So even if I earn €100,000 and pay thousands in income tax, I can understand that the level of taxation applied to the first €20,000 of my income will be the same as someone who only earns €20,000.


----------



## TheBigShort

Brendan Burgess said:


> 3) Irish lower and middle paid, pay around half the rate of PRSI as their equivalent in the UK, but Irish people get far higher social welfare?



If you take this in isolation it would appear that something is wrong. But you would need detailed analysis to determine what is actually wrong. 
For instance, taking that point in isolation, it is equally valid to suggest that welfare rates are far too low in the UK, as it is to argue welfare rates in Ireland are too high.


----------



## TheBigShort

4) 
There is simply not enough detail here to come to any sound position.


----------



## Purple

jim said:


> I think it would be very hard for anyone to reasonably argue against any of those 5 assertions.


Having read the posts since your post it turns out you were right


----------



## Delboy

TheBigShort said:


> The lower paid that pay virtually no income tax or USC is a cause of their incomes being so low. There may be scope for cobtributions under USC, but as far as income tax goes, it is their personal tax credits, when applied to their tax liability, that ultimately returns a zero sum tax liability return.
> But the thing to note here is that those same personal tax credits are applied to higher earners also. So even if I earn €100,000 and pay thousands in income tax, I can understand that the level of taxation applied to the first €20,000 of my income will be the same as someone who only earns €20,000.


The lower paid in Germany pay many multiples of what they do here in Ireland according to a debate I heard on national radio recently. Sweden also.
Are they not the countries the Irish Left aspire to...'the Nordic model' we hear so much praise of?


----------



## TheBigShort

Brendan Burgess said:


> 5) The higher the level of social welfare benefits and payments, the less incentive there is for someone to work?



True, to a point. But as most people want to work, as most people want financial independence over welfare dependency, then the availability of suitable employment will act as detterent to this.
For sure, there are instances of low paid part-time work in receipt FIS, rent supplement etc. But in the main this applies to a small portion of welfare recipients.


----------



## TheBigShort

Delboy said:


> The lower paid in Germany pay many multiples of what they do here in Ireland according to a debate I heard on national radio recently. Sweden also.
> Are they not the countries the Irish Left aspire to...'the Nordic model' we hear so much praise of?



But this is not what is being proposed here. What is being proposed is to cut welfare benefits and tax low paid workers in order to provide tax cuts for higher earners.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

TheBigShort said:


> The implied sentiment inherent in the Indo article is that those on low incomes and welfare are lazy, unreliable and costly to society.


Not at all.  Economics is the dismal science of how human beings react to financial dynamics.  The most dedicated brain surgeon, if offered the same level of income from the State for doing nothing, would probably opt to improve her golf handicap


----------



## TheBigShort

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Not at all. Economics is the dismal science of how human beings react to financial dynamics. The most dedicated brain surgeon, if offered the same level of income from the State for doing nothing, would probably opt to improve her golf handicap



Yes, perhaps. But we know the state is not affording such levels of income. In fact JSA starts at €100 for U25's of which there are some 40,000.
Are you suggesting that this €100 is deterring young people from taking up employment?


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> Yes, perhaps. But we know the state is not affording such levels of income. In fact JSA starts at €100 for U25's of which there are some 40,000.
> Are you suggesting that this €100 is deterring young people from taking up employment?


You are a great man for the false dichotomies!


----------



## Purple

The majority of minimum wage earners in Ireland are women from middle-income families.
Can we stop the nonsense that young people entering the workforce are on the minimum wage or that they will stay on the minimum wage. Less than 5% of the workforce are on the minimum wage. It is not relevant in the context of this discussion.
The problem is that welfare provides a viable alternative to work for some people while hard work and innovation is punished with 52% marginal employee payroll taxes.


----------



## Purple

High marginal rates of tax have a multiplier effect on the real taxes paid.

Here’s an example;


My Landlord, a higher rate tax payer, has to pay property tax in the house I live in. The tax bill is (for example) €600. He has to earn €1250 to net the €600 so he increases my rent by €100 a month, taking a net reduction of his income of €50. I have to earn €209 to end up with €100. That’s an annual cost of €2500

The bottom line is that a tax bill to my landlord of €600 costs me €2500.


I should be allowed to pay the property tax directly and save myself €1250 a year.


If both my landlord and I were both earning €18000 a year then the cost of the property tax would be €600. Then again if I was earning €18000 a year I would have a house provided for me by my higher marginal tax paying neighbours and I wouldn’t have to pay property tax at all.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> You are a great man for the false dichotomies!



Yeh, but brain surgeons being offered welfare rates equivalent to their incomes misses your radar.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> The majority of minimum wage earners in Ireland are women from middle-income families.
> Can we stop the nonsense that young people entering the workforce are on the minimum wage or that they will stay on the minimum wage. Less than 5% of the workforce are on the minimum wage. It is not relevant in the context of this discussion.
> The problem is that welfare provides a viable alternative to work for some people while hard work and innovation is punished with 52% marginal employee payroll taxes.



We've been through all this before. For sure, there are anomalies in the welfare system that provides viable alternatives to work. But in the main, this will be toward the thin end of the wedge. The notion of cutting dole, or imposing tax increases on low paid workers in order to offer tax cuts for higher earners, is simply absurd.


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> The notion of cutting dole, or imposing tax increases on low paid workers in order to offer tax cuts for higher earners, is simply absurd.



This is not reflected in the article as far as I can see, but only in the title of this thread?


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> High marginal rates of tax have a multiplier effect on the real taxes paid.
> 
> Here’s an example;
> 
> 
> My Landlord, a higher rate tax payer, has to pay property tax in the house I live in. The tax bill is (for example) €600. He has to earn €1250 to net the €600 so he increases my rent by €100 a month, taking a net reduction of his income of €50. I have to earn €209 to end up with €100. That’s an annual cost of €2500
> 
> The bottom line is that a tax bill to my landlord of €600 costs me €2500.
> 
> 
> I should be allowed to pay the property tax directly and save myself €1250 a year.
> 
> 
> If both my landlord and I were both earning €18000 a year then the cost of the property tax would be €600. Then again if I was earning €18000 a year I would have a house provided for me by my higher marginal tax paying neighbours and I wouldn’t have to pay property tax at all.



This is all over the place.


----------



## Sarenco

TheBigShort said:


> The notion of cutting dole, or imposing tax increases on low paid workers in order to offer tax cuts for higher earners, is simply absurd.



Why absurd?  You may consider it undesirable but it's hardly absurd.


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> This is not reflected in the article as far as I can see, but only in the title of this thread?



Ah c'mon, the article is littered with claims of unfairness for income earners compared to lower income earners. 
And if the author was not intending to reflect this, then unfortunately, the OP took it to mean that. 
As do I.


----------



## TheBigShort

Sarenco said:


> Why absurd? You may consider it undesirable but it's hardly absurd.



No its absurd. Driving people closer to poverty in order to provide a extra income to those that have higher incomes is absurd.


----------



## Sarenco

TheBigShort said:


> No its absurd. Driving people closer to poverty in order to provide a extra income to those that have higher incomes is absurd.



No, that's just your political judgment - it doesn't demonstrate that the opposing view is absurd.

I assume you have heard of the parable of 10 men in a bar?

http://www.irishexaminer.com/viewpo...-parable-for-the-times-we-live-in-108946.html


----------



## orka

TheBigShort said:


> No its absurd. Driving people closer to poverty in order to provide a extra income to those that have higher incomes is absurd.


You're assuming that the status quo is fair to the higher earner and reducing their taxes is some sort of present to them.  

High earners were hit first and hardest in response to the recession (which is fair enough and there wasn't much grumbling).  But unfortunately what goes up is very difficult to bring down without the squealing of the shrill left.  What is proposed here is a rebalancing of our tax structure which has skewed to be far too progressive.  That looks like robbing the poor to pay the rich but it isn't.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> This is all over the place.


Yes, it's very common.


----------



## TheBigShort

Sarenco said:


> No, that's just your political judgment - it doesn't demonstrate that the opposing view is absurd.
> 
> I assume you have heard of the parable of 10 men in a bar?
> 
> http://www.irishexaminer.com/viewpo...-parable-for-the-times-we-live-in-108946.html



Yes I have read it before, and it has no bearing on what we are talking about as at no point does it state what the disposable income for each drinker is after they buy the drinks. 
So really it is a waste of newspaper ink.


----------



## TheBigShort

orka said:


> You're assuming that the status quo is fair to the higher earner and reducing their taxes is some sort of present to them.



No I am not. I know only two well the difficulties imposed through taxes and charges on working people. 
What I am against is tackling the notion that for instance, a €40,000 a year earner has an unfair tax advantage over a €80,000 a year earner. And that the resolution to this is to transfer some of the tax liability from the higher earner onto the lower earner.


----------



## Sarenco

TheBigShort said:


> Yes I have read it before, and it has no bearing on what we are talking about as at no point does it state what the disposable income for each drinker is after they buy the drinks.
> So really it is a waste of newspaper ink.



The point of the story is pretty obvious - if you attack high earners (by taxing them at punitive levels), they may simply decide not to show up at all.  Or they may decide to drink their beers in another country where they won't be attacked to the same extent.  The subsidised lower earners ultimately lose out in those circumstances.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> Yes I have read it before, and it has no bearing on what we are talking about as at no point does it state what the disposable income for each drinker is after they buy the drinks.


Are you suggesting that equality of outcome is desirable? I thought we'd sorted that one out.
My disposable income is very low because I've a large mortgage and as a separated father of 4 children I have to rent a large-ish house. I have €60 a week to spend on groceries and cycle into work because I can't afford petrol. I still pay 52% income tax when I try to earn more to ease the burden.  Should my tax be reduced because of that?


----------



## TheBigShort

Sarenco said:


> The point of the story is pretty obvious - if you attack high earners (by taxing them at punitive levels), they may simply decide not to show up at all. Or they may decide to drink their beers in another country where they won't be attacked to the same extent. The subsidised lower earners ultimately lose out in those circumstances.



Yeh I get the point it is _trying _to make but it fails dismally. First thing to note is that the cost of providing the drinks (ignoring for a moment the absurdity of using alcohol as the example of a public service necessity) has reduced and each drinker carries on drinking as before. Its hard to see where a problem would arise where everyone was still receiving the public service.
I could imagine that a difficulty would arise if the barman had reduced the number of beers available between the men for the €80 (ie cutbacks). 
But as it stands, reading the article again, it could be equated to reducing the 20% tax rate to 18% on first €33,500.
Someone on €33,500 will benefit more than someone on €25,000.
But hard to see higher earners being ganged up on in this instance where taxes are being reduced for all.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> Are you suggesting that equality of outcome is desirable? I thought we'd sorted that one out.
> My disposable income is very low because I've a large mortgage and as a separated father of 4 children I have to rent a large-ish house. I have €60 a week to spend on groceries and cycle into work because I can't afford petrol. I still pay 52% income tax when I try to earn more to ease the burden.  Should my tax be reduced because of that?



No I didnt suggest that. I suggested that the parable failed to identify the disposable incomes of the men.
But its ok, Ive just emailed them and drinker 1-9 have a disposable income of €1 to €10 each after the drinks. The tenth worker, paying the hefty €66, has €500 a week after the drinks.
Detail like that may put a different perspective on the story.


----------



## orka

TheBigShort said:


> No I didnt suggest that. I suggested that the parable failed to identify the disposable incomes of the men.
> But its ok, Ive just emailed them and drinker 1-9 have a disposable income of €1 to €10 each after the drinks. The tenth worker, paying the hefty €66, has €500 a week after the drinks.
> Detail like that may put a different perspective on the story.


You know a lot of imaginary people...

It doesn't help the potential outcome though - that the tenth man leaves (the country) taking not only his €66 contribution to the drinks but also his €500 that he has been spending locally on goods and services.


----------



## Sarenco

TheBigShort said:


> Yeh I get the point it is _trying _to make but it fails dismally.



I'm afraid you are not getting the point at all.

Increasing tax rates beyond a certain point (or retaining tax rates at that point) is counter-productive for raising further tax revenue.  The disposable income of various taxpayers after they've paid their taxes is simply not relevant in this regard.

Say incomes above a certain level attracted tax at a rate of 100%.  Nobody would have any incentive to earn an income above that level so the economic effect of a 100% tax rate is to decrease the tax take at that level to zero.  As such, tax revenue is maximised a rate that is somewhere between 0% and 100%.

I would suggest that a marginal tax rate above 50% may not be the rate at which revenue is maximised.  If that is the case, then (subsidised) lower earners are actually being disadvantaged by high marginal tax rates on higher earners.


----------



## TheBigShort

orka said:


> It doesn't help the potential outcome though - that the tenth man leaves (the country) taking not only his €66 contribution to the drinks but also his €500 that he has been spending locally on goods and services.



And why would he leave again? I think it more probable that the other 9 would be more inclined to leave through mass emigration given the poor incomes. 
Anyway, we could talk around the houses on this article which is nothing more than a simplistic whim to suit a particular agenda. 
It is open to all sorts of interpretations which cannot be resolved in the absence of finer detail.
In a word, its garbage.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> And why would he leave again? I think it more probable that the other 9 would be more inclined to leave through mass emigration given the poor incomes.
> Anyway, we could talk around the houses on this article which is nothing more than a simplistic whim to suit a particular agenda.
> It is open to all sorts of interpretations which cannot be resolved in the absence of finer detail.
> In a word, its garbage.


The words of Jonathan Swift come to mind; ‘There are none so blind as those who will not see. _The most deluded people are those who choose to ignore what they already know’*_

*The second bit is a bit harsh in the context of a friendly conversation. It's only included because it's one of the few quotes I know and I'm trying to sound smart.


----------



## ashambles

It would be interesting if middle and higher income earners start a serious campaign to match Swedish income taxes and services in Ireland as it would call out the many bluffers of the Irish left.

If you're earning say above 50k-60k or so you've nothing to lose - you get better services and have more disposable income. You're already paying taxes that are on a par with Nordic countries. Overall you're likely to have less disposable income taking everything into consideration - childcare, health insurance, pensions.

The reason Ireland can't move to a Nordic model is because such the trade unions will not allow it, vast swathes of their members would suddenly have to pay a huge amount more in income taxes.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

I will be debating the issue with Father Seán Healy on Matt Cooper at 5 pm.

And I hope to speak from the audience on the Claire Byrne Show on RTE 1 at 10.30 pm tonight.

Brendan


----------



## Purple

Try not to bring up any facts when talking to Seán Healy as they get in the way of his narrative.
You could tell him you are proposing these things because you believe in social justice, just not his interpretation of what's socially just. Pseudo-socialists shouldn't have a monopoly on such phrases.


----------



## Gerard123

It's the one size fits all analysis that is wrong.  Everyone on social welfare has desperate needs.  And all higher tax rate earners are loaded.  Simple really!

The reality is that the people in most need are seeing reduced help, as scarce resource are directed to others who do not have a need and are freeloading. 

The system should properly discriminate between those who need and should get and those who don't, but still get.

Will be listening in.


----------



## TheBigShort

Sarenco said:


> Increasing tax rates beyond a certain point (or retaining tax rates at that point) is counter-productive for raising further tax revenue



Agreed.



Sarenco said:


> The disposable income of various taxpayers after they've paid their taxes is simply not relevant in this regard.



Not agreed, and your next point illustrates that disposable income is relevant.



Sarenco said:


> Say incomes above a certain level attracted tax at a rate of 100%. Nobody would have any incentive to earn an incomes above that level so the economic effect of a 100% tax rate is to decrease the tax take at that level to zero. As such, tax revenue is maximised a rate that is somewhere between 0% and 100%.



And the incentive is diminished on the basis that disposable income is excessively reduced. Disposable income is relevant.

But you seem to be arguing something different than what the Indo article outlines.
I have no issue with agreeing that paying 40% tax on income after €33,800 is excessive.
I have no problem agreeing that USC, while the principle is broadly progressive, the rates applicable are somewhat regressive.

What I take issue with is that the article suggests low income earners are getting a free ride.
Here is a suggestion, if lower earnings provide for a free ride, take a pay cut!
That of course wont happen nor is it desirable or feasible and I do not advocate it, but merely to illustrate the defunct nature and the futility of the Indo article.
The apparent solution proposed by the author is to transfer tax liability from higher earners to lower earners without any additional supports or without factoring in the cost of childcare, rent, electricity, groceries, motor tax, car insurance, mobile and internet technology, TV license etc, etc.
The cost of these items will take a disproportionately higher % from a low paid workers income than a higher earners income.
That is not to recognize that workers are being squeezed. As someone in a two income household with two kids I am fully cognizant of the limits of those pay cheques to meet the bills. But I fail to see how if I reduced my income (and thereby my tax liability) how my lifestyle would be any better. Put simply, it would not.


----------



## Gerry Canning

Sounds good  but,
Anyone who is genuinely (and that is most) on Dole, have it hard nuff without this guff.

Over the years I have sometimes  been the grateful recipient of said Dole and in no way could it be cut without a serious hit to the social fabric.
There seems to be an underlying agenda that Dolers have it good !
I know there are Dole leg-lifters but not half as many as Urban Myths espouse.

Maybe we could concentrate on the less obvious but serious thieves in the White Collar /Tax avoidance brigade in order to reduce taxes on most taxpayers.
Maybe we could have a land tax etc  ,on those who hoard land ,  but then again the uproar !

Dolers are an easy mark.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> The words of Jonathan Swift come to mind; ‘There are none so blind as those who will not see. _The most deluded people are those who choose to ignore what they already know’*_
> 
> *The second bit is a bit harsh in the context of a friendly conversation. It's only included because it's one of the few quotes I know and I'm trying to sound smart.



I prefer Mark Twain

"_It aint what you dont know that gets you into trouble. Its what you do know for sure that just aint so"_


----------



## orka

TheBigShort said:


> I prefer Mark Twain
> 
> "_It aint what you dont know that gets you into trouble. Its what you do know for sure that just aint so"_


You really are fond of that movie...

https://scatter.wordpress.com/2016/...nd-the-most-ironic-quote-misattribution-ever/



> my biggest pet peeve about the movie. _The Big Short_ opens with an epigraph:
> 
> _It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so. – Mark Twain_
> 
> Here’s the thing: there’s no evidence Mark Twain ever said or wrote those words. The Quote Investigator tackled variations on this quote and determined that the modern version comes from an encyclopedia of humor by Josh Billings written in 1874. The first attribution to Twain comes as early as 1899, but again, there’s no evidence that Twain actually said or wrote those words. Normally, a little Twain misattribution wouldn’t bug me but the quote is literally about the dangers of thinking you know something that actually isn’t true. What delicious irony!


----------



## T McGibney

Gerry Canning said:


> Maybe we could concentrate on the less obvious but serious thieves in the White Collar /Tax avoidance brigade in order to reduce taxes on most taxpayers.
> Maybe we could have a land tax etc  ,on those who hoard land ,  but then again the uproar !



You seem blissfully aware that Ireland (unlike the UK for example) has had stringent general anti-tax avoidance legislation for donkey's years. As for land "hoarders", thankfully property ownership is a constitutional right in this country, so arbitary confiscation is off the cards.

The idea that tackling white collar crime, tax avoidance and land "hoarding" could raise enough money to dramatically cut Income Tax rates is laughable.


----------



## Sarenco

TheBigShort said:


> And the incentive is diminished on the basis that disposable income is excessively reduced.



Nope.  The incentive to earn an income above a certain level will be excessively reduced by an excessive rate of tax that applies to income at that level. 



TheBigShort said:


> I have no issue with agreeing that paying 40% tax on income after €33,800 is excessive.



Well then presumably you would agree with lowering this rate to a level you would not consider excessive.  That clearly has to be balanced by increasing taxes elsewhere or by reducing public services.  Which would you prefer?


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

Well just listened to the bout, _Boss_ won on points but I suppose a knock-out was too much to hope for. I liked the upper cut to Healy's assertion that poor folk pay 33% of their income on VAT, what when VAT is at most 23%, nice one _Boss_. 

I must admit it comes across as very provocative on radio to ask for SW to be cut and for low/middle income earners to be taxed so as to reduce the tax on high earners and more power to the _Boss_ for having the courage to supply this counterweight to the increasingly populist and leftist zeitgeist.

Realistically though, cutting SW is politically (and socially) very difficult.  A combination of the social partnership gone out of control and the delusion that we had become one of the richest nations on earth led Bertie to, for example, double the OAP over his terms of office.  Difficult to take any of that back but talk of an increase seems madness.  I presume that in practical terms the _Boss_ is saying that any fiscal space that is going should be used towards correcting the big imbalances he is drawing our attention to.


----------



## TheBigShort

orka said:


> You really are fond of that movie...
> 
> https://scatter.wordpress.com/2016/...nd-the-most-ironic-quote-misattribution-ever/



I am yes.

Thats interesting about the quote attribute. Because I can imagine Tom Sawyer or Huckleberry Finn saying it.
But if he didn't he say it im fine with that.

I really dont get how the article thinks its irony? People were sure house prices were sound and go up and up. They didnt, and lots of people, because of what 'they knew' , got themselves into financial trouble.

Probably the most exaggerated claim of irony ever!


----------



## orka

TheBigShort said:


> I really dont get how the article thinks its irony?


I read it as nothing really to do with the movie but that people would use a quote about knowing (or not knowing) stuff while not actually knowing they had got the quote's attribution wrong!


----------



## TheBigShort

Sarenco said:


> Nope. The incentive to earn an income above a certain level will be excessively reduced by an excessive rate of tax that applies to income at that level.



Or in other words, if its all going to the taxman, and not my disposable income, then why bother?




Sarenco said:


> Well then presumably you would agree with lowering this rate to a level you would not consider excessive. That clearly has to be balanced by increasing taxes elsewhere or by reducing public services. Which would you prefer?



Unless there is budget surplus, then no need to raise taxes or cut services. What is the outlook for this year?


----------



## TheBigShort

orka said:


> I read it as nothing really to do with the movie but that people would use a quote about knowing (or not knowing) stuff while not actually knowing they had got the quote's attribution wrong!



Ha! Good one.


----------



## Gordon Gekko

It is perverse that high earners suffered the greatest tax increases in 2008/2009, yet are not seeing those taxes reduced now that things are improving.

How on earth is €70k plus "a high earner"?


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

Purple said:


> Are you suggesting that equality of outcome is desirable? I thought we'd sorted that one out.
> My disposable income is very low because I've a large mortgage and as a separated father of 4 children I have to rent a large-ish house. I have €60 a week to spend on groceries and cycle into work because I can't afford petrol. I still pay 52% income tax when I try to earn more to ease the burden.  Should my tax be reduced because of that?


_Purple_ you must be my next door neighbour; there can't be two people that fit that description


----------



## TheBigShort

Brendan Burgess said:


> I will be debating the issue with Father Seán Healy on Matt Cooper at 5 pm.
> 
> And I hope to speak from the audience on the Claire Byrne Show on RTE 1 at 10.30 pm tonight.
> 
> Brendan



Disappointing to hear you use the % of % argument as it portrays a distortion.
You said the top 20% pay 75%. Implying that the bottom 80% only pay 20% of the tax.
You also said the bottom 50% pay only 4% , implying the top 50% are overtaxed and pay 96% of the tax.
So at once, a taxpayer can be both undertaxed (bottom 80%) and overtaxed (top 50%) which makes no sense.


----------



## Sarenco

TheBigShort said:


> Or in other words, if its all going to the taxman, and not my disposable income, then why bother?



If the marginal tax rate is excessive beyond a particular level it will disincentive people from earning income above that level - regardless of their level of disposable income - and it becomes counter-productive.

That is why Mr Hollande had to repeal his 75% supertax on incomes over €1million in France - it resulted in a lower tax take.



TheBigShort said:


> What is the outlook for this year?



The current expectation is that we will achieve a balanced budget in 2017.  Most economic commentators would argue that we should be trying to achieve a budgetary surplus during a period of economic expansion.


----------



## TheBigShort

Sarenco said:


> If the marginal tax rate is excessive beyond a particular level it will disincentive people from earning income above that level - regardless of their level of disposable income - and it becomes counter-productive.



Yeh, like I said, if the tax man is taking it taking most of it and im not getting it, then why bother?


----------



## orka

TheBigShort said:


> So at once, a taxpayer can be both undertaxed (bottom 80%) and overtaxed (top 50%) which makes no sense.


Sure it does baby bear - there could be those in the middle who are taxed 'just right'...


----------



## Sarenco

TheBigShort said:


> Yeh, like I said, if the tax man is taking it taking most of it and im not getting it, then why bother?



So you are now agreeing that it is the marginal tax rate above a certain level and not the level of an individual's disposable income that acts as the disincentive to earning income above that particular level?

If you are then we are in violent agreement (although I wouldn't necessarily agree that an effective marginal tax rate of 40% is excessive).


----------



## losttheplot

TheBigShort said:


> Disappointing to hear you use the % of % argument as it portrays a distortion.
> You said the top 20% pay 75%. Implying that the bottom 80% only pay 20% of the tax.
> You also said the bottom 50% pay only 4% , implying the top 50% are overtaxed and pay 96% of the tax.
> So at once, a taxpayer can be both undertaxed (bottom 80%) and overtaxed (top 50%) which makes no sense.



There is no distortion. If the top 20% pay 75%, then the remaining 80% pay 25%. 
Moving from the top 20% to top 50%, covers 96% of tax intake.  No where does it imply if you're in the top 50% that you're overtaxed.
It shows the distribution of the where the tax is coming from and that it is skewed..

If you use an example of 100 people and rank them by earnings and assume the total tax take is €1000. Taking tax from the first 20 would give you €750. Taking the next 30 people would give €210. From the remaining 50 people, you would only collect an additional €40.


----------



## TheBigShort

Sarenco said:


> So you are now agreeing that it is the marginal tax rate above a certain level and not the level of an individual's disposable income that acts as the disincentive to earning income above that particular level?
> 
> If you are then we are in violent agreement (although I wouldn't necessarily agree that an effective marginal tax rate of 40% is excessive).



I was suggesting more that to start paying 40% at an income threshold of €33,500 is excessive. 
I have no problem with agreeing that high earners are being squeezed. My issue is that the proposal in the Indo is to alleviate the tax burden from high earners and to _transfer _it to low income earners is wrong.
The crux of this arguement is based on very dubious stats that distort reality, namely that the top 20% of earners pay so much tax relative to the bottom 80% without actually stating how much the top 20% earn (as distinct to taxable income)relative to the bottom 80%.


----------



## TheBigShort

losttheplot said:


> No where does it imply if you're in the top 50% that you're overtaxed.



So just to confirm. If you are in the top 50% of income earners, contributing some 96% of the tax while the bottom 50% of earners only contribute 4%, then as a top 50% earner you are not being overtaxed? Is that what you are saying?


----------



## Brendan Burgess

Hi Shortie

I don't understand what I said wrong? 

The Top 20% pay 75% of income and USC taxes 
The next 30% pay 21% of taxes 
The bottom 50% pay 4% of taxes.

My main point is that the bottom 50% don't pay their fair share.
The Top 20% pay too high a share. 

The next 30% is less clear. I suspect married couples and parents probably pay too little, but  single people without children pay too much. But neither is as clear cut as the first two. 

"So at once, a taxpayer can be both undertaxed (bottom 80%) and overtaxed (top 50%) which makes no sense."

I see what you are saying but I don't see how it's what I am implying. 

Brendan


----------



## losttheplot

TheBigShort said:


> So just to confirm. If you are in the top 50% of income earners, contributing some 96% of the tax while the bottom 50% of earners only contribute 4%, then as a top 50% earner you are not being overtaxed? Is that what you are saying?


Yep. The top 50% of earners is based on income. There could be people in that group paying relatively little tax.
It just shows how the tax take is spread out.
The difference between person at 50% (just inside the top 50%) and the person at 51% (just 1% inside the bottom earners), would be very little.

All the stats do is show the distribution.


----------



## TheBigShort

losttheplot said:


> If you use an example of 100 people and rank them by earnings and assume the total tax take is €1000. Taking tax from the first 20 would give you €750. Taking the next 30 people would give €210. From the remaining 50 people, you would only collect an additional €40



How much do the top 20% earn


Brendan Burgess said:


> Hi Shortie
> 
> I don't understand what I said wrong?
> 
> The Top 20% pay 75% of income and USC taxes
> The next 30% pay 21% of taxes
> The bottom 50% pay 4% of taxes.
> 
> My main point is that the bottom 50% don't pay their fair share.
> The Top 20% pay too high a share.
> 
> The next 30% is less clear. I suspect married couples and parents probably pay too little, but  single people without children pay too much. But neither is as clear cut as the first two.
> 
> "So at once, a taxpayer can be both undertaxed (bottom 80%) and overtaxed (top 50%) which makes no sense."
> 
> I see what you are saying but I don't see how it's what I am implying.
> 
> Brendan



Perhaps you could identify


Brendan Burgess said:


> Hi Shortie
> 
> I don't understand what I said wrong?
> 
> The Top 20% pay 75% of income and USC taxes
> The next 30% pay 21% of taxes
> The bottom 50% pay 4% of taxes.
> 
> My main point is that the bottom 50% don't pay their fair share.
> The Top 20% pay too high a share.
> 
> The next 30% is less clear. I suspect married couples and parents probably pay too little, but  single people without children pay too much. But neither is as clear cut as the first two.
> 
> "So at once, a taxpayer can be both undertaxed (bottom 80%) and overtaxed (top 50%) which makes no sense."
> 
> I see what you are saying but I don't see how it's what I am implying.
> 
> Brendan



The way the tax system is set, the bottom 50% only pay so little tax due to the application of personal tax credits to their tax liability which results quite often as zero tax liability. Say an earner on €18,000.
But the exact same personal credits are applicable to someone on €100k salary.
So while the high earner may complain about the high % of tax he pays, he can rest assure, that he pays no more income tax on the first €18,000 of his income (USC aside) than someone on €18,000.
Dealing with USC I do think there is scope for change but not at the behest of transferring it from one income group (high earners) to another income group (low earners).


----------



## Sarenco

TheBigShort said:


> I was suggesting more that to start paying 40% at an income threshold of €33,500 is excessive.
> I have no problem with agreeing that high earners are being squeezed. My issue is that the proposal in the Indo is to alleviate the tax burden from high earners and to _transfer _it to low income earners is wrong.



Just when I thought we were getting somewhere...

Let me try again:-

There comes a point when a marginal rate of tax starts to disincentive taxpayers from earning any income above the level at which that marginal rate applies to the point that the tax rate becomes counter-productive and results in a lower tax take.  Agreed?

You appeared to suggest that the effect starts to kick in at an effective rate of 40%.  I don't know the precise effective rate at which it becomes counter-productive but I suspects it kicks in at levels above 50%.

In any event, it doesn't particularly matter at what income level an excessive marginal rate becomes counter-productive - whether it kicks in at incomes above €40k or €1m it still lowers the overall tax take.


----------



## TheBigShort

losttheplot said:


> Yep. The top 50% of earners is based on income. There could be people in that group paying relatively little tax.
> It just shows how the tax take is spread out.
> The difference between person at 50% (just inside the top 50%) and the person at 51% (just 1% inside the bottom earners), would be very little.
> 
> All the stats do is show the distribution.



And thats exactly my point. The difference between two earners could be relatively tiny. But when presented as the top 50% pay 96% v bottom 50% paying only 4%, it creates a distortion that the bottom are getting a free ride, while the top "pay for everything".


----------



## Sarenco

TheBigShort said:


> Dealing with USC I do think there is scope for change but not at the behest of transferring it from one income group (high earners) to another income group (low earners).



So what do you propose - reduced public expenditure?


----------



## Sarenco

TheBigShort said:


> And thats exactly my point. The difference between two earners could be relatively tiny. But when presented as the top 50% pay 96% v bottom 50% paying only 4%, it creates a distortion that the bottom are getting a free ride, while the top "pay for everything".



Where's the distortion?  

As losttheplot says all the stats show is the distribution of which cohorts pay what share of taxes.


----------



## TheBigShort

Sarenco said:


> Where's the distortion?
> 
> As losttheplot says all the stats show is the distribution of which cohorts pay what share of taxes.



The distortion is that the stats imply a huge differential between the tax paid by different income groups when in reality, it may only be a small difference.
This applies also to the top 20% paying 75% and the top 1% paying 19% etc.
So what! None of this is relevant until you know how much people earn.

I gave the example of two workers, one earning €50,000 the other €10,000. Both pay 50% on income, €25,000 + €5,000, total €30,000 tax paid. All fair and square.

But the higher earner (representing the top 50% of earners) pays 83% of the tax, while the bottom 50% ( the low earner) pays only 17%.
And it is these type of statistics (a % of a %) that are open to manipulation and misinterpretation, giving the distortion that a particular income group pays too high a portion of tax whereas the other income group is on a 'free ride'.


----------



## zephyro

Brendan Burgess said:


> It's time for the top earners to shout stop.



Sounds great Brendan but have you any practical suggestions about what we do next?



TheBigShort said:


> Here is a suggestion, if lower earnings provide for a free ride, take a pay cut!



Right, which is what I effectively did. A marginal direct tax rate of ~50% along with indirect taxes of ~10% seemed like a waste of my time so instead I'm a contractor taking a salary of €33,800, making the maximum company pension contributions and taking plenty of time off.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

TheBigShort said:


> And it is these type of statistics (a % of a %) that are open to manipulation and misinterpretation, giving the distortion that a particular income group pays too high a portion of tax whereas the other income group is on a 'free ride'.



OK, I see the point you are making now. 

The bottom 50% of cases earn 18% of the income and pay 3.7% of the tax. 

No one statistic conveys all the information.   
That is why I give a lot of information.

I note you didn't seem to take any issue with Seán Healy's statistic that the bottom 10% of earners pay 30% of their income in indirect taxes. 

Brendan


----------



## TheBigShort

Brendan Burgess said:


> OK, I see the point you are making now.
> 
> The bottom 50% of cases earn 18% of the income and pay 3.7% of the tax.
> 
> 
> 
> I note you didn't seem to take any issue with Seán Healy's statistic that the bottom 10% of earners pay 30% of their income in indirect taxes.
> 
> Brendan



Granted, Sean Healy figures were incorrect. But he also doesnt speak for me. But while we are at it, the cost of necessities such waste disposal,  electricity, groceries, clothing, takes a higher % proportion of income out of a low paid worker than a high earner.
From my own experience, two working adults, two children, mortgage, childcare etc, there is not much change out of €80,000 pa. So how imposing further taxes on a couple on €40,000 makes sense, I do not know.


----------



## Sarenco

Or the top 1% of earners share ~10% of all income and pay ~19% of all income taxes.


----------



## TheBigShort

Sarenco said:


> Or the top 1% of earners share ~10% of all income and pay ~19% of all income taxes.



Very good, now we are getting it. So to illustrate further. Lets say we apply a €1,000 tax credit to my two workers above.
This reduces the total tax take to €28,000 (€24,000+€4,000). All fair and square still, yes?
But wait, now the high earners % contribution has increased from 83% to 86% of the total tax take and the low earners contribution has reduced to 14%. How can this be? Both receive the same personal tax credits and both pay same tax rates, but the higher earners % proportion has increaed. And according to the argument put forward here, this is unfair and some of the tax liability needs to be transferred from the high earner to the low earner.


----------



## Rory_W

for those interested in the statistics [broken link removed]


----------



## Sarenco

TheBigShort said:


> Very good, now we are getting it.



Sorry, I've no idea what point you are trying to make. 

The example you gave above is bizarre - a taxpayer earning €10k doesn't pay the same amount of tax as a taxpayer earning €50k.


----------



## TheBigShort

Sarenco said:


> Sorry, I've no idea what point you are trying to make.
> 
> The example you gave above is bizarre - a taxpayer earning €10k doesn't pay the same amount of tax as a taxpayer earning €50k.



Oh dear, you do realise that it was an example to illustrate the point. But just in case you cant figure that much out, lets apply real stats.
Two workers, one on €30,000 and one on €20,000. Both pay 20% on their incomes (€6,000+€4,000 - €10,000 in total). The higher earner (representating the top 50% of income earners) pays 60% of the tax take contributed between them. The lower earner contributes 40%.
Apply a personal tax credit of say, €2,000. Now the total tax take is reduced to €6,000 (€4,000+€2,000). But the % contributions have increased for the higher earner to 66% and reduced for the lower earner from 40% to 33%.
Add a third earner on €40,000, paying 40% on the €10,000 above €30,000. 
Initially his total tax contribution is €10,000 ( €30,000@20% - €6,000 and €10,000@40% - €4,000.
This brings total tax take to €10,000+€6,000+€4,000= €20,000.
Now the top earner (representing the top 33%) contributes 50% of the total tax while the other 66% of earners contribute 50% also.
Throw in the personal tax credits of €2,000 each then the total tax take is reduced to €8,000+€4,000+€2,000 = €14,000. Of which the top 33% of earners now contribute 57% of the tax whilst the other 66% only contribute 43% between them.
Add a fourth worker on €50,000 and the process continues to diminish the % contribution of lower earners while increasing the % contribution of higher earners giving the impression that low paid workers dont pay their fair share. 
The fact is, even if you earn €150,000, your tax contribution to public finances on your first €20,000 of that income is the same as someone who only earns €20,000 in total.
The rest of your tax contribution on the remaining €130,000 is not comparable with someone on €20,000 as they dont have that income to be taxed in the first instance.
And what is being proposed is a transfer of some of the tax liability of €130,000 to the earners on €20,000.


----------



## Sarenco

TheBigShort said:


> The rest of your tax contribution on the remaining €130,000 is not comparable with someone on €20,000 as they dont have that income to be taxed in the first instance..



So your point is that somebody on €150k pays the same rate of tax on their first ~€20k of income as somebody on ~€20k total.  Is that it?  

What exactly that proves is beyond me but do tell...


----------



## TheBigShort

Sarenco said:


> So your point is that somebody on €150k pays the same rate of tax on their first ~€20k of income as somebody on ~€20k total. Is that it?
> 
> What exactly that proves is beyond me but do tell...



It proves that low paid workers are not on a free ride.


----------



## Sarenco

TheBigShort said:


> It proves that low paid workers are not on a free ride.



How exactly?

The top 1% of earners have roughly half the share of income as the bottom 50% but pay more than 5 times as much tax.  That looks like a good deal for the bottom 50% of earners to me.


----------



## TheBigShort

Sarenco said:


> The top 1% of earners have roughly half the share of income as the bottom 50% but pay more than 5 times as much tax. That looks like a good deal for the bottom 50% of earners to me.



Yes, it does look like a good deal.
 But ive just spent my evening showing you how such statistics can convey a distorted impression of a heavy burden on one sector over a different sector when the reality is somewhat different.
But to try hammer home the point, using your figures, if 50% of income earners equals 1,000,000 workers then 1% equals 20,000 (1% of 2,000,000).
If the bottom 50% have incomes worth, say, €40bn then, by your reckoning the 1% have somewhere close to €20bn between them.
So the average income of the bottom 50% would be €40,000 per worker (40bn / 1,000,000 workers)
The average income of the 1% would be (€20bn / 20,000) or €1m per worker. 
So despite the assertion that the 1% pay fives times the tax of the bottom 50%, it can be shown that on average each worker in the 1% has 25 times the income of the average worker in the bottom 50%.

So if the average bottom 50% worker pays €2,000, thats €2bn in total. And if the 1% pay 5 times that, that is €10bn between 20,000. That is, on average, each €1m worker pays on average €500,000 leaving a disposable income of €500,000.

I dont know about you but I would still rather be the €1m earner than the €40,000 earner.
The proposal is to shift some of tax burden for the higher earners onto the lower earners. Do you think that is fair?


----------



## Sarenco

TheBigShort said:


> The proposal is to shift some of tax burden for the higher earners onto the lower earners. Do you think that is fair?



I'm just trying to understand your position.

It seems to amount to nothing more than higher earners earn a lot more than lower earners and therefore should pay a disproportionately larger amount of tax.

You keep implying that there is some distortion at play in simply presenting the distribution of the effective rates at which different cohorts of earners pay taxes.  There really isn't.

You also don't seem to accept or understand that at some point higher earners will choose not to contribute (or continue to contribute) such high levels to our tax system - either by deliberately earning less or by taking themselves out of the tax net entirely.  The disposable income of such a taxpayer has absolutely nothing to do with it.


----------



## Purple

Duke of Marmalade said:


> _Purple_ you must be my next door neighbour; there can't be two people that fit that description


You must be my Landlord so as he lives next door. Lovely man.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> Yes, it does look like a good deal.
> But ive just spent my evening showing you how such statistics can convey a distorted impression of a heavy burden on one sector over a different sector when the reality is somewhat different.
> But to try hammer home the point, using your figures, if 50% of income earners equals 1,000,000 workers then 1% equals 20,000 (1% of 2,000,000).
> If the bottom 50% have incomes worth, say, €40bn then, by your reckoning the 1% have somewhere close to €20bn between them.
> So the average income of the bottom 50% would be €40,000 per worker (40bn / 1,000,000 workers)
> The average income of the 1% would be (€20bn / 20,000) or €1m per worker.
> So despite the assertion that the 1% pay fives times the tax of the bottom 50%, it can be shown that on average each worker in the 1% has 25 times the income of the average worker in the bottom 50%.
> 
> So if the average bottom 50% worker pays €2,000, thats €2bn in total. And if the 1% pay 5 times that, that is €10bn between 20,000. That is, on average, each €1m worker pays on average €500,000 leaving a disposable income of €500,000.
> 
> I dont know about you but I would still rather be the €1m earner than the €40,000 earner.
> The proposal is to shift some of tax burden for the higher earners onto the lower earners. Do you think that is fair?


You can't just pull figures out of your... out of the sky and use them to make a point. What is the real income distribution?


----------



## seamless

zephyro said:


> Right, which is what I effectively did. A marginal direct tax rate of ~50% along with indirect taxes of ~10% seemed like a waste of my time so instead I'm a contractor taking a salary of €33,800, making the maximum company pension contributions and taking plenty of time off.



This is exactly what I have done for exactly the same reasons.


----------



## TheBigShort

Sarenco said:


> It seems to amount to nothing more than higher earners earn a lot more than lower earners and therefore should pay a disproportionately larger amount of tax.



In a nutshell. Do you think that is unfair?



Sarenco said:


> You keep implying that there is some distortion at play in simply presenting the distribution of the effective rates at which different cohorts of earners pay taxes. There really isn't.



Here is another stat. The top 99% of income earners contribute between them 100% of tax - cant say much fairer than that can you?
Here is another, the bottom 99% of earners contribute 81%.

Why are we even having this discussion when its clear now from the stats that any disparity between the top and bottom is relatively small?




Sarenco said:


> You also don't seem to accept or understand that at some point higher earners will choose not to contribute (or continue to contribute) such high levels to our tax system - either by deliberately earning less or by taking themselves out of the tax net entirely. The disposable income of such a taxpayer has absolutely nothing to do with it.



I do accept the point, but it applies to an individuals tax liability, not as part of a cohort of income tax payers. The is where you fail to understand your own point. 
If the bottom 20% had a minimum €2,000 (on average) tax liability applied, this would significantly increase their % proportion of their tax contribution. In turn, it would reduce the % proportion of what higher income earners pay. I think you could manage to figure that much? 
But what it wouldn't do is decrease the monetary value of what high earners pay. They would still be paying, in monetary terms, the same income tax, prsi, usc etc. All that would be happening is that additional revenue would be collected. And its what is done with this additional revenue that is the problem.
I would prefer to see thar revenue used to provide additional supports, SNA, childcare costs, reduced classrooms sizes etc.
What is being proposed here is that such additional revenue be used to provide a tax break to overtaxed high earners.
The anomaly in all of this is, that due to the way our tax is structured, any additional tax applied to low earners will also be applied to high earners. For example if personal tax credits are reduced bringing more lower earners into the tax net, the net effect will be to increase a high earners tax liability - for sure it will reduce the % proportion of what they pay, but actually increase the monetary liability. Ditto if we raise the 20% rate to say 22% in an effort to have low earners pay a greater % proportion of the total tax take, high earners will inadvertently be asked to fork out more, but can sleep easy at night knowing that their collective % proportion of the total tax take has reduced.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> You can't just pull figures out of your... out of the sky and use them to make a point. What is the real income distribution?



The figures were provided by Sarenco.

The proposition has been made that higher earners pay more than their fair share and lower earners get a free ride. But as is typical with these declarations, there are no concrete proposals as what to actually do about it.
So lets have some.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> But as is typical with these declarations, there are no concrete proposals as what to actually do about it.
> So lets have some.


All reductions in tax should be, at the very least, equally spread as a proportion of the rate across all tax bands while at the same time bringing everyone back into the USC net until such time as it is phased out for everyone.
That means that if there is a 1% reduction in the lower rate there is a 2% reduction in the higher rate. Don't increase the thresholds at which different rates kick in, just reduce the rates. Over time that will balance things out and give a fairer and broader spread.


----------



## Deiseblue

After watching the Clair Byrne show last night it occurred to me that arguing one's point from the audience is fraught with difficulties as the extremely erudite Eoin O ' Broin disputed Brendan's arguments and was then simply able to override that position as the reality is that there is no comprehensive right of reply afforded to the audience member.
The debate then ensued along the lines as to which of FG , FF , SF & the AAA PBP were minded to see more of the oft mentioned " cake " distributed to OAP's , the unemployed & the low paid.
I don't really have a problem with this as I'm broadly supportive of our progressive tax system & the relatively good social welfare net it provides , although I do have a problem with the assistance provided to unemployed under 25's .
I don't really see how the level of social welfare facilitates people not availing of job opportunities as the current unemployment rate has fallen sharply to 8.4 % &  with the Government stating that we will have full employment when that rate falls to 6 % the suggestion surely is that as jobs arise people are taking them.
To be honest I really cannot see a concerted effort by the higher paid or at least those amongst them that do have a problem with the amount of tax they are paying to rally support to the cause of cutting social welfare in order to mitigate their tax liabilities , is it too strong to suggest that this would be regarded as poisonous both politically and socially ?


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> All reductions in tax should be, at the very least, equally spread as a proportion of the rate across all tax bands while at the same time bringing everyone back into the USC net until such time as it is phased out for everyone.
> That means that if there is a 1% reduction in the lower rate there is a 2% reduction in the higher rate. Don't increase the thresholds at which different rates kick in, just reduce the rates. Over time that will balance things out and give a fairer and broader spread.



I asked for concrete proposals and I get this.
Can you actually offer one concrete proposal to apply that will be in line with the overall topic.
No more "if there is a tax reduction", or "bring everyone back into USC" without stating the applicable rate or the actual intent.
What do you propose to remedy this issue.


----------



## Gerry Canning

T McGibney said:


> You seem blissfully aware that Ireland (unlike the UK for example) has had stringent general anti-tax avoidance legislation for donkey's years. As for land "hoarders", thankfully property ownership is a constitutional right in this country, so arbitary confiscation is off the cards.
> 
> The idea that tackling white collar crime, tax avoidance and land "hoarding" could raise enough money to dramatically cut Income Tax rates is laughable.



1. {Stringent anti-tax avoidance legislation} . I am fully aware we have said legislation and am glad we do have .
2. "hoarders" should not (in my opinion) be permitted under a constitution to hold assets without some charge for the common good.
It is not reasonable to land hold without some checks and balances. In no way would I support (arbitary confiscation).
3. I would go further and apply land taxes ,so that those that hold land and avail of services like roads etc contribute whilst of course being permitted proper allowances etc.
4. I don,t think anyone said that widening as per (hoarding) etc would (dramatically) cut Tax.

I do tire of the constitutional right to property being used as a mantra !


----------



## Sarenco

TheBigShort said:


> The figures were provided by Sarenco.



Eh, no they weren't - you just took something I wrote and extrapolated wildly from there.  Frankly, your figures are a complete fabrication.


----------



## TheBigShort

Sarenco said:


> How exactly?
> 
> The top 1% of earners have roughly half the share of income as the bottom 50% but pay more than 5 times as much tax.  That looks like a good deal for the bottom 50% of earners to me.



Your figures, to which I agree I extrapolated. If your figures a fabrication then you are wasting everyones time.
Instead, how about you, and others who support the sentiment that high earners are overtaxed and low earners are getting a free ride actually make a concrete proposal to redress the issue?


----------



## T McGibney

Gerry Canning said:


> 1. {Stringent anti-tax avoidance legislation} . I am fully aware we have said legislation and am glad we do have .


Then I don't really understand how you think it can be used to generate sufficient new revenue to finance general tax decreases?



Gerry Canning said:


> 4. I don,t think anyone said that widening as per (hoarding) etc would (dramatically) cut Tax.



Yet you did make this suggestion:


> Maybe we could concentrate on the less obvious but serious thieves in the White Collar /Tax avoidance brigade *in order to reduce taxes on most taxpayers.*






Gerry Canning said:


> 1. {Stringent anti-tax avoidance legislation} . I am fully aware we have said legislation and am glad we do have .
> 2. "hoarders" should not (in my opinion) be permitted under a constitution to hold assets without some charge for the common good.
> It is not reasonable to land hold without some checks and balances. In no way would I support (arbitary confiscation).
> 
> I do tire of the constitutional right to property being used as a mantra !



Your constitutional right to property includes the right to own your own home, including the site it sits on. It has been suggested that the State should force empty-nesters to sell up, in order to make space for younger families. No doubt similar proposals are in the offing for others who are deemed not to "need" a big or well-located house or maybe even a house at all.  If you are willing to sacrifice your own interests (eg by allowing the State to chuck you out) "for the common good", then you're in a good position to recommend a similar erosion of landowners' rights.  But if you're not, I suggest the opposite applies.



Gerry Canning said:


> 3. I would go further and apply land taxes ,so that those that hold land and avail of services like roads etc contribute whilst of course being permitted proper allowances etc.



On top of income tax, LPT, VAT, etc? Good lord.


----------



## Gerry Canning

T Mc Gibney.

I wasn,t nor do I want to appear to be giving solutions and indeed I can agree with a lot of what you post.

It appears that if (as an example)on your point 3.  
That because we have LPT ,VAT etc we can,t look at land taxes.
All I am saying is that there are more equitable and more certain taxes to be collected , if we did that , its not too difficult to review VAT etc at the same time.  

These arguments seem to end up revolving around excuses for no change, ie leave alone  V any change = more taxes ,
Rather than changed Taxes can maybe get more in a fairer way ? 


_ The BIG issue surely is that we don,t trust our short-termism politicians to enact good long term taxes.? _


----------



## Sarenco

TheBigShort said:


> Your figures, to which I agree I extrapolated. If your figures a fabrication then you are wasting everyones time.



I didn't say my figures were a fabrication.  I said the figures you extrapolated from something I wrote were a fabrication.


----------



## TheBigShort

Sarenco said:


> I didn't say my figures were a fabrication.  I said the figures you extrapolated from something I wrote were a fabrication.



You say I fabricated, I say you fabricated, who cares?

A concrete proposal please, just even one.


----------



## Sarenco

TheBigShort said:


> In a nutshell. Do you think that is unfair?



What is fair or unfair is obviously subjective.  I am much more interested in understanding what is effective.

Two contributors to this thread have stated that they have deliberately reduced their incomes because of the high marginal tax rate and the IDA has repeatedly warned that high marginal tax rates are being raised as a concern by prospective investors.

So, I would suggest that our hyper-progressive tax regime (by international standards) is not optimal in terms of raising revenue for the State - revenue that could be used to fund infrastructure programmes, enhance our health service, etc.


----------



## Sarenco

TheBigShort said:


> You say I fabricated, I say you fabricated, who cares?



Sorry but what exactly are you suggesting that I fabricated? 

Frankly, your posts are becoming increasingly bizarre with figures plucked out of thin air that bear absolutely no relationship to reality.


----------



## TheBigShort

Sarenco said:


> What is fair or unfair is obviously subjective. I am much more interested in understanding what is effective.
> 
> Two contributors to this thread have stated that they have deliberately reduced their incomes because of the high marginal tax rate and the IDA has repeatedly warned that high marginal tax rates are being raised as a concern by prospective investors.



Whats your point? These two contributors, by virtue of their (apparent)*lower incomes and subsequent lower tax contribution are now being targeted by those propagating this topic to pay more taxes!

*I know from experience that most workers are resilient to wage cuts. Just my luck we have not one, but two, posters out of an audience of what? 20?, who _voluntarily _took wage cuts.

How about a concrete proposal then to redress the imbalances inflicted on the top 20% of earners?


----------



## TheBigShort

Sarenco said:


> Sorry but what exactly are you suggesting that I fabricated?
> 
> .



Since you first made the accusation about me perhaps you could suggest exactly what it was I fabricated?


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> I asked for concrete proposals and I get this.


That's right. You asked for it and  you got it. You, on the other hand, haven't answered any questions asked of you.



TheBigShort said:


> Can you actually offer one concrete proposal to apply that will be in line with the overall topic.
> No more "if there is a tax reduction", or "bring everyone back into USC" without stating the applicable rate or the actual intent.
> What do you propose to remedy this issue.


You have to understand that there's no silver bullet solution to the problem so a change in tax policy from now on is the best we can hope for. Therefore changing USC back to the way it was when it was introduced and changing tax rates and exemption back as well would be a good start. All future reductions should be done in a fair manner as I outlined above.

Universal Social Charge; a social charge which is universal. With so many people not having to pay it, it doesn't do what it says on the tin.

I am glad that you have now accepted that there is an issue and it needs to be remedied.


----------



## Sarenco

TheBigShort said:


> Since you first made the accusation about me perhaps you could suggest exactly what it was I fabricated?



The figures in post #102 - you just made them up!


----------



## Purple

Sarenco said:


> The figures in post #102 - you just made them up!


Looks like it alright.


----------



## Sarenco

TheBigShort said:


> Whats your point?



That excessively high marginal tax rates are counter-productive in terms of raising revenue.



TheBigShort said:


> How about a concrete proposal then to redress the imbalances inflicted on the top 20% of earners?



Revert to broadly where our personal tax code was a few years ago.


----------



## Gerry Canning

Whoa folks !

Most postings (that I put up ) and indeed I think most put up , are generally musings , rather than fully factual.
Maybe I suffer from Attention Disorder  but I get lost on counter and counter arguments.
Too many facts , don,t always make clarity.

I take AAM as a help to sort things , no more & no less.
Oft nuff I ain,t correct but if wrong, yousins sort me out. !!


----------



## Purple

Gerry Canning said:


> Whoa folks !
> 
> Most postings (that I put up ) and indeed I think most put up , are generally musings , rather than fully factual.
> Maybe I suffer from Attention Disorder  but I get lost on counter and counter arguments.
> Too many facts , don,t always make clarity.
> 
> I take AAM as a help to sort things , no more & no less.
> Oft nuff I ain,t correct but if wrong, yousins sort me out. !!


All your apostrophes have died...


----------



## TheBigShort

Sarenco said:


> The figures in post #102 - you just made them up!





Sarenco said:


> The top 1% of earners have roughly half the share of income as the bottom 50% but pay more than 5 times as much tax. That looks like a good deal for the bottom 50% of earners to me.



These are your figures, that I used, I didn't make them up. I used my own figures, based on yours (e.g 20bn is half of 40bn) as _examples _to illustrate point.
The irony of being accused of fabrication in a topic that is built on pure fabrication has passed you by clearly.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> These are your figures, that I used, I didn't make them up. I used my own figures, based on yours (e.g 20bn is half of 40bn) as _examples _to illustrate point.
> The irony of being accused of fabrication in a topic that is built on pure fabrication has passed you by clearly.


OK, so you made up figures to illustrate a point but the point is meaningless unless you use real figures.


----------



## Sarenco

TheBigShort said:


> I used my own figures, based on yours (e.g 20bn is half of 40bn) as _examples _to illustrate point.



Indeed and your figures are pure fantasy - you've plucked them from thin air.

Do you accept my core point that excessive marginal tax rates are counterproductive?


----------



## cremeegg

We live in a world where some people earn €18,000 a year and others earn €180,000 a year.

This is an undesirable situation.

The progressive Irish tax system does more to level out post tax incomes that most other countries systems. Of course this is going to cause unhappiness among those who pay the most tax.

They ask why they should have to shoulder such a high portion of the cost of public services. Especially when they often don't even use the most expensive public services, they have private education and private healthcare.

Equally the low paid must feel something is wrong when they do a weeks work and earn a small fraction the amount others earn for their weeks work.

The solution lies not in fiddling with the tax system, but in developing an economy where there is more opportunity for well paid work.

Too many people leave education with no skills that might enable them to earn a living or contribute meaningfully to the economy.


----------



## TheBigShort

Just for the record.



TheBigShort said:


> Also I am not inherently opposed to minimum wage workers paying extra tax. I am opposed that such a tax may be used to offer tax cuts for higher earners.





TheBigShort said:


> There may be scope for cobtributions under USC,



I am being asked to produce real figures so as to disprove the proposition about high and low earners.

It has also been stated that USC be brought back to the way it was before - without any definitive reference or figures!

Nevertheless, I try to illustrate the point further _approximate _figures if I can be allowed such discretion?

The current USC is applied at 1% for incomes up to €12,012 with exemptions for income earners with less than €13,000.

So here is an opportunity for low paid workers to contribute more if there was no exemption, and like everybody else, pay 1% on that portion of the income.

Using revenue figures supplied by Bren Burgess in another thread, this will capture approximately 570,730 income earners below the €13,000 threshold. 
Between all these earners they earn €3.38bn. So 1% applied on this equates to €33.8mn in extra revenue. 
This will boost total income tax revenue from  €20,478,000,000 to €20,511,800,000.

Before this adjustment the top 20% pay 75% of the income tax, according to the Indo article. That equates to €15,358,500,000. And as my adjustment has no direct bearing on their tax liability, that liability remains the same after the adjustment. 
After the adjustment the top 20% are now liable for €15,358,500,000 of €20,511,800,000 or 74.87% of the total tax take.
Is this what this topic is all about? Will such an adjustment satisfy the top earners (even though it has made zero material difference to take home pay)?

If this is not sufficient, please put forward another concrete proposal.


----------



## Firefly

Reading through this thread, I am really thinking that a basic income and a flat rate of tax should be properly investigated by the government.


----------



## T McGibney

TheBigShort said:


> Just for the record.
> 
> The current USC is applied at 1% for incomes up to €12,012 with exemptions for income earners with less than €13,000.
> 
> So here is an opportunity for low paid workers to contribute more if there was no exemption, and like everybody else, pay 1% on that portion of the income.
> 
> Using revenue figures supplied by Bren Burgess in another thread, this will capture approximately 570,730 income earners below the €13,000 threshold.
> Between all these earners they earn €3.38bn. So 1% applied on this equates to €33.8mn in extra revenue.
> This will boost total income tax revenue from  €20,478,000,000 to €20,511,800,000.
> 
> Before this adjustment the top 20% pay 75% of the income tax, according to the Indo article. That equates to €15,358,500,000. And as my adjustment has no direct bearing on their tax liability, that liability remains the same after the adjustment.
> After the adjustment the top 20% are now liable for €15,358,500,000 of €20,511,800,000 or 74.87% of the total tax take.
> Is this what this topic is all about? Will such an adjustment satisfy the top earners (even though it has made zero material difference to take home pay)?
> 
> If this is not sufficient, please put forward another concrete proposal.



You miss the very basic point that a 1% tax hike for 570,000 taxpayers is going to raise, in the scheme of things, a sum so puny that it couldn't be labelled as tax reform.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

cremeegg said:


> We live in a world where some people earn €18,000 a year and others earn €180,000 a year.
> 
> This is an undesirable situation.
> ...



Why is it undesirable that a medical consultant after 10 years' training and 10 further years' experience should be paid 10 times more than  someone who is collecting glasses in a pub? 

I would have thought it was very desirable. 



> The solution lies not in fiddling with the tax system, but in developing an economy where there is more opportunity for well paid work.



It may be possible to increase the amount of well paid work, but there will always be a demand for unskilled, low paid work. 

Brendan


----------



## TheBigShort

T McGibney said:


> You miss the very basic point that a 1% tax hike for 570,000 taxpayers is going to raise, in the scheme of things, a sum so puny that it couldn't be labelled as tax reform.



I agree. So what im asking is for other concrete proposals.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

I have to hand it to you _biggie_, you sure know how to spin out a thread.  You seem to have all the great minds engaging with you almost single handedly  You won't catch me engaging.


----------



## TheBigShort

Sarenco said:


> Do you accept my core point that excessive marginal tax rates are counterproductive?



I already have accepted the point, why do keep repeating the question. 
I don't agree that it applies to selective cohorts of income earners as outlined here. But yes, if marginal rates are excessive it is counterproductive.
20% paying 75% of tax does not identify the marginal rate applicable to those earners. 
Nine drinkers in a pub earning varying degrees of income between €100-€1,000 tax free. A tenth worker earns €1,001. This extra euro is taxed at 10%- or 0.10c
Between them the tenth worker pays 100% of the tax. According to this thread such a disparity between the highest earners and lowest earners is completely unfair. 
Or alternatively, it could be viewed as a fuss about nothing.

Perhaps you could provide at least one concrete proposal, with real figures, to redress the plight endured by the top 20%


----------



## Fella

I've been saying for ages the dole should be cut so well done for posting it in papers Brendan.

It's a barrier to work for some people. I know someone personally who lost a job , first thing they did was take kids out of Creche / after school that was a 300 or so savings. He was then offered a job at 500€ a week after tax and said its not worth his while with 230€ dole and 300 saved in child care, he still doesn't work and admits himself he's more money than ever and medical cards as well now.


----------



## orka

I would like to see the PRSI contribution ceiling restored (was 52K pre-2009, then 75K until 2011 then removed).  For 'pay-related' social insurance, capped benefits should mean capped contributions as is the case in many european countries.


----------



## T McGibney

TheBigShort said:


> I agree. So what im asking is for other concrete proposals.



A reversion to the situation in the late 1980s & early 1990s where everyone paid some level of income tax.


----------



## TheBigShort

T McGibney said:


> A reversion to the situation in the late 1980s & early 1990s where everyone paid some level of income tax.



What percentage of tax did the top 20% pay then?


----------



## T McGibney

I have no idea. Why does it matter?


----------



## Brendan Burgess

TheBigShort said:


> So what im asking is for other concrete proposals.



Hi Shortie

In my original article and in this heading, I have three which would dramatically improve the fairness of the system and restore the incentive to work.

1) Cut the levels of social welfare down to the levels paid in other European countries 
2) Cut the higher level of tax 
3) Convert the current social insurance system into a PRSI Account system. The more you put in, the more you get out when you are unemployed or sick and when you draw down a pension.

Brendan


----------



## Purple

Brendan Burgess said:


> Why is it undesirable that a medical consultant after 10 years' training and 10 further years' experience should be paid 10 times more than  someone who is collecting glasses in a pub?
> 
> I would have thought it was very desirable.


 Agreed.





Brendan Burgess said:


> It may be possible to increase the amount of well paid work, but there will always be a demand for unskilled, low paid work.


And if there are fewer unskilled people as more of them are skilled then the market rate for unskilled labour will increase.


----------



## Gerry Canning

Fella,

There are those ,and they are few , who being on Dole is a rational choice.
But to say Dole should cut for the majority of recipients because of the few is not good policy.

Anyone who has been on Dole ,would view Dole not as a life choice but a help whilst they get work. 

I would think vast majority of people move from Dole ASAP.


----------



## Purple

Gerry Canning said:


> Fella,
> 
> There are those ,and they are few , who being on Dole is a rational choice.
> But to say Dole should cut for the majority of recipients because of the few is not good policy.
> 
> Anyone who has been on Dole ,would view Dole not as a life choice but a help whilst they get work.
> 
> I would think vast majority of people move from Dole ASAP.


If you have worked, and have the fixed costs associated with people who work, and then find yourself on the dole then it is very hard.
If you have a free house for life, a medical card and all the allowances and payments you can screw out of the system then it can be a very viable lifestyle choice.


----------



## Gerry Canning

Purple ,

I agree , but on the scheme of things , are there that many screwing the system ?


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> If you have worked, and have the fixed costs associated with people who work, and then find yourself on the dole then it is very hard.
> If you have a free house for life, a medical card and all the allowances and payments you can screw out of the system then it can be a very viable lifestyle choice.



This has all been dealt with under the "Dismantling..." thread. The people you are talking about are the very thin end of the wedge and any purported savings would be miniscule in the whole scheme of things relative to the poverty you would inflict on those who are genuinely trying to get off the welfare system.
Which incidentally, the numbers of unemployed have reduced again today.
You see, when there are jobs available people will work them.


----------



## Deiseblue

Brendan Burgess said:


> Hi Shortie
> 
> In my original article and in this heading, I have three which would dramatically improve the fairness of the system and restore the incentive to work.
> 
> 1) Cut the levels of social welfare down to the levels paid in other European countries
> 2) Cut the higher level of tax
> 3) Convert the current social insurance system into a PRSI Account system. The more you put in, the more you get out when you are unemployed or sick and when you draw down a pension.
> 
> Brendan


More a wish list surely Brendan ?  , would you agree that there is absolutely no chance of such proposals being implemented for the foreseeable  future ?
The chances of any of our current political parties implementing such politically toxic policies are nil , perhaps if Renua had gained any traction or if the PD'S hadn't imploded there might have been some chance but they surely wouldn't have implemented policies to the extent you suggest .
in terms of concrete proposals I would suggest that the USC be reduced gradually as and when our finances allow in tandem with improving social welfare payments.
After viewing both Claire Byrne & VB last night I reckon I'm on the right track.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> This has all been dealt with under the "Dismantling..." thread. The people you are talking about are the very thin end of the wedge and any purported savings would be miniscule in the whole scheme of things relative to the poverty you would inflict on those who are genuinely trying to get off the welfare system.


 That's your opinion, backed up by your opinion. 



TheBigShort said:


> You see, when there are jobs available people will work them.


 Most do, yes, as long as they are financially better off working.


----------



## galway_blow_in

Brendan Burgess said:


> Hi Shortie
> 
> In my original article and in this heading, I have three which would dramatically improve the fairness of the system and restore the incentive to work.
> 
> 1) Cut the levels of social welfare down to the levels paid in other European countries
> 2) Cut the higher level of tax
> 3) Convert the current social insurance system into a PRSI Account system. The more you put in, the more you get out when you are unemployed or sick and when you draw down a pension.
> 
> Brendan



do you include the state pension in your wish to see social welfare rates brought into line with other european countries ?


----------



## Purple

Deiseblue said:


> After viewing both Claire Byrne & VB last night I reckon I'm on the right track.


 If you think agreeing with Vinnie puts you on the right track you are in need of urgent help!


----------



## TheBigShort

Brendan Burgess said:


> ) Cut the levels of social welfare down to the levels paid in other European countries



Which European countries? Germany? Denmark? Uk? Romania? Poland?
This is just fanciful rhetoric. There is no costings/ savings applied here as it is not possible because of the varying degrees of welfare across other European countries.
How about a concrete proposal? JSA, JSB, FIS, Rent Supplement, Disability Allw? 
What will you cut, how much will it save?



Brendan Burgess said:


> 2) Cut the higher level of tax



Again too vague. What rate would you apply? 39%? 38?...How much will this cost? Do you propose resourcing the shortfall from lower income earners who only pay the 20% rate? How would you propose implementing this?




Brendan Burgess said:


> 3) Convert the current social insurance system into a PRSI Account system. The more you put in, the more you get out when you are unemployed or sick and when you draw down a pension.



Not a bad idea, but again short on details. Sounds like it would be costly, bearing in mind that a minimum pension will still have to be paid.

Here is the thing, I have already proposed one possible option (applying the 1% USC rate to all income) with figures. All im looking for is at least one other concrete proposal, with figures to back it up.

Its a pretty weak position, when the person opposed to the proposal is digging out the other side!


----------



## galway_blow_in

Deiseblue said:


> More a wish list surely Brendan ?  , would you agree that there is absolutely no chance of such proposals being implemented for the foreseeable  future ?
> The chances of any of our current political parties implementing such politically toxic policies are nil , perhaps if Renua had gained any traction or if the PD'S hadn't imploded there might have been some chance but they surely wouldn't have implemented policies to the extent you suggest .
> in terms of concrete proposals I would suggest that the USC be reduced gradually as and when our finances allow in tandem with improving social welfare payments.
> After viewing both Claire Byrne & VB last night I reckon I'm on the right track.



in order to know what the mood of the public is , rightly or wrongly you need to see where FF are when judging the pulse of the nation  , FF have moved sharply to the left since michael martin took over , not once during the election campaign did i hear him speak of tax cuts , improved state sector efficiency or a more lean social welfare state , its all about increasing the size of the state 

this is where the population is for the most part right now , tax and spend !


----------



## T McGibney

galway_blow_in said:


> in order to know what the mood of the public is , rightly or wrongly you need to see where FF are when judging the pulse of the nation  , FF have moved sharply to the left since michael martin took over , not once during the election campaign did i hear him speak of tax cuts , improved state sector efficiency or a more lean social welfare state , its all about increasing the size of the state
> 
> this is where the population is for the most part right now , tax and spend !



FF's lurch to the left is more a reaction to the threat of Sinn Féin than anything else.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> That's your opinion, backed up by your opinion.
> 
> Most do, yes, as long as they are financially better off working.



Any proposals yet in how to redress the suffering of the top 20% of income earners?
Using real figures mind!


----------



## Purple

galway_blow_in said:


> in order to know what the mood of the public is , rightly or wrongly you need to see where FF are when judging the pulse of the nation  , FF have moved sharply to the left since michael martin took over , not once during the election campaign did i hear him speak of tax cuts , improved state sector efficiency or a more lean social welfare state , its all about increasing the size of the state
> 
> this is where the population is for the most part right now , tax and spend !


I agree. We have the choice of center-left (FG), more left (FF & Labour) or Loony-Left (AAA/PBP, Shinners (ROI version), and the Great Unwashed (Mick Wallace and Clare Daily).)


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> Any proposals yet in how to redress the suffering of the top 20% of income earners?
> Using real figures mind!


From the man who started a thread about pay rises with a far more nebulous premise.

If we accept that the tax system is unfairly burdensome on those who are medium to high earners then the details of how to solve the problem can follow.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> From the man who started a thread about pay rises with a far more nebulous premise.
> 
> If we accept that the tax system is unfairly burdensome on those who are medium to high earners then the details of how to solve the problem can follow.



First, you disregard my comments as meaningless on the basis that my examples didnt use real figures.

Second,you want me to accept that the tax system is unfairly burdensome on medium to high earners as a pre-condition to you providing details? 

Third, you haven't been paying attention at all. I agree that the tax system is unfair to medium workers at least.
I am opposed however to the notion that low income earners are getting a free ride. I am opposed to taxing low income earners, not for the purposes of providing better services, but for purposes of providing tax relief for high earners.

I await your details.


----------



## ashambles

TheBigShort said:


> Any proposals yet in how to redress the suffering of the top 20% of income earners?
> Using real figures mind!


This isn't the first time I've made this suggestion, though I fully understand why you're ignoring it.

But anyway:
Copy Sweden's income tax model take their rates and bands, that way there's no decrease in taxation on the higher paid that you find so troubling. Or take your pick of any other non-resource rich country with a non-embarassing health system, a fairly funded state pension, better unemployment assistance, good child care options.

You'll find that to fund those services they'll have to have in place an income tax system that's not as stupid as ours. Accepting the Irish income tax system means you're settling for Irish level services.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> I agree that the tax system is unfair to medium workers at least.


Based on what?
Details please.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> Based on what?
> Details please.



God, what a cop out!


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> God, what a cop out!


I'm not God.


----------



## Purple

ashambles said:


> This isn't the first time I've made this suggestion, though I fully understand why you're ignoring it.
> 
> But anyway:
> Copy Sweden's income tax model take their rates and bands, that way there's no decrease in taxation on the higher paid that you find so troubling. Or take your pick of any other non-resource rich country with a non-embarassing health system, a fairly funded state pension, better unemployment assistance, good child care options.
> 
> You'll find that to fund those services they'll have to have in place an income tax system that's not as stupid as ours. Accepting the Irish income tax system means you're settling for Irish level services.


Good idea.

Shortie; what he said.


----------



## TheBigShort

ashambles said:


> This isn't the first time I've made this suggestion, though I fully understand why you're ignoring it.
> 
> But anyway:
> Copy Sweden's income tax model take their rates and bands, that way there's no decrease in taxation on the higher paid that you find so troubling. Or take your pick of any other non-resource rich country with a non-embarassing health system, a fairly funded state pension, better unemployment assistance, good child care options.
> 
> You'll find that to fund those services they'll have to have in place an income tax system that's not as stupid as ours. Accepting the Irish income tax system means you're settling for Irish level services.



Not exactly sure why you think I was ignoring it, or how you came to 'understand' that I was I was ignoring it?
I think its a great idea. And if it means lower income earners have to contribute more then so be it.
Perhaps you have ignored my previous comments here?



TheBigShort said:


> But this topic is not about raising more taxes to pay for the things that you have presented. It is, at its worst, about cutting welfare rates in order to provide tax cuts for higher earners and at best, it is about transferring the taxation burden from higher earners onto lower earners in return for zero services.





TheBigShort said:


> Is this a bad thing? Really? Is the author advocating high tax take on low income earners? Perhaps not, perhaps a higher tax take than what is currently applied. But astonishingly, this extra tax take is not to used to provide for improved public services but rather to provide for a tax cut for higher income earners!



As you may, or may not, deduce from the above, my position is this;

I am opposed to cutting welfare and raising taxes on lower income earners for the purposes of providing tax cuts to higher earners.
I am not inherently opposed to raising taxes on lower income earners if it is to provide for improved public services.
Here is where I said this earlier



TheBigShort said:


> I am not inherently opposed to minimum wage workers paying extra tax. I am opposed that such a tax may be used to offer tax cuts for higher earners. This would be complete nonsense.


----------



## ashambles

TheBigShort said:


> Not exactly sure why you think I was ignoring it, or how you came to 'understand' that I was I was ignoring it?
> I think its a great idea. And if it means lower income earners have to contribute more then so be it.
> Perhaps you have ignored my previous comments here?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As you may, or may not, deduce from the above, my position is this;
> 
> I am opposed to cutting welfare and raising taxes on lower income earners for the purposes of providing tax cuts to higher earners.
> I am not inherently opposed to raising taxes on lower income earners if it is to provide for improved public services.
> Here is where I said this earlier


I must admit I didn't read all the posts, so I support a Nordic mix of taxes and services, you do, and I think Purple does. 

Ignoring the clearly provocative title of the thread, maybe most of us are actually in agreement.

However can it happen?

Probably not, SF/AAA and maybe main stream parties in Ireland are wedded to the idea of income taxation as a mix of punishment and charity, rather than an intelligent way of redistributing income that benefits all citizens.


----------



## TheBigShort

orka said:


> I would like to see the PRSI contribution ceiling restored (was 52K pre-2009, then 75K until 2011 then removed).  For 'pay-related' social insurance, capped benefits should mean capped contributions as is the case in many european countries.



Not an unreasonable proposition, in consideration of capped benefits for sure. The only hesitancy I would have around it would be the cost and how that cost would be recouped. 
The advocates of this topic would like to see lower income earners pay for it, but I would like to see how that would be applied without exposing the wholly unjust nature of doing so.
Certainly with effective corporate tax rates hovering between 2-4%, there is surely plenty of scope to target increases there.


----------



## Cervelo

Maybe a simpler solution to reducing the tax paid by our high earners could be just reducing the payroll of our goverment and civil service ??


----------



## Protocol

There have already been 2-4 pay cuts for all public servants.

You seem to be suggesting further pay cuts? Even though wages are rising outside the PS.

If not in pay rates, then in numbers?


----------



## TheBigShort

T McGibney said:


> I have no idea. Why does it matter?



Because if the top 20% were still paying 75% of the income tax back then and the bottom 50% only contributed 4% we would still be having the same discussion.


----------



## Deiseblue

Cervelo said:


> Maybe a simpler solution to reducing the tax paid by our high earners could be just reducing the payroll of our goverment and civil service ??



Not a solution but rather than precipitating industrial mayhem by cutting either pay or numbers merely do nothing & leave our current tax system in place ?


----------



## Firefly

Deiseblue said:


> Not a solution but rather than precipitating industrial mayhem by cutting either pay or numbers merely do nothing & leave our current tax system in place ?



Hi Deise,

I agree with you. We are now almost close to balancing the books in this country. Sadly however we have half the public service lining up to strike for more pay! If it were me, I would leave things as they are for a number of years until we get our public finances in order.


----------



## Cervelo

Protocol said:


> There have already been 2-4 pay cuts for all public servants.
> 
> You seem to be suggesting further pay cuts? Even though wages are rising outside the PS.
> 
> If not in pay rates, then in numbers?



What I am suggesting is rather than start at the bottom with cutting social welfare payments, why not start at the top.
Why is our Taoiseach paid more than the British Prime Minister ??


----------



## Sophrosyne

Brendan Burgess said:


> "The PRSI system here should be changed so that a person's contributions should go into an account in their own name. This account would be used to pay their pension and their healthcare. They could also draw on the account during any periods of unemployment. The more they put into the account, the more they would get out. If someone earning €80,000 a year loses their job, they would get a dole payment based on their salary, but it would be drawn from their own account. They would not be getting some State handout, they would be getting their own money back. And it would always be in their interest to work. While they are working, they are building up their retirement account. While they are unemployed, they are depleting it.
> 
> When they retire, they would get a pension based on the amount in the account.
> 
> Such a system would go a long way to solving the pensions crisis we have. If people paid for their pension through a PRSI account in their own name, they would not need a separate, privately funded pension. They would be prepared to pay higher PRSI if they could see a direct link between what they pay in and what they eventually draw out. There would be no more arguments about the age at which a person should be able to draw the Old Age Pension. The amount of the pension they would get and the age from which it could be drawn would be decided by the amount they have in their PRSI account."
> 
> I think it would be a move in the right direction. But the current system is so completely dysfunctional, that it will take years to fix.
> 
> I think a personal account system would be a good first step in the right direction.
> 
> Brendan



What you are advocating, thefefore, is that individuals fund their own state pensions rather than contributing to a general welfare fund.
I can see that some people would like to see a certain reciprosity between what they pay in and what they receive, but I think you would need to put some flesh on the bones.

For instance, would you still grant tax relief for private pensions, including AVCs?

What about the current arrangements in place regarding credits for PRSI (or equivalent) contributions paid abroad?

Have you run the numbers within the various income deciles to avoid unacceptable poverty traps?

What about current PRSI exemptions?


----------



## T McGibney

TheBigShort said:


> Because if the top 20% were still paying 75% of the income tax back then and the bottom 50% only contributed 4% we would still be having the same discussion.


You miss the point that there was substantial pro-high earner and pro-enterprise tax reform and reductions in the 1990s, which was one of the factors that created a booming economy from circa 1994 onwards. In the meantime we reversed this progress with predictable results.


----------



## Protocol

Cervelo said:


> What I am suggesting is rather than start at the bottom with cutting social welfare payments, why not start at the top.
> Why is our Taoiseach paid more than the British Prime Minister ??



The Taoiseach pay has fallen several times, now at 185k I think.

UK PM gets a free house as well as salary, I think??

TDs get 87k.


----------



## Delboy

Cervelo said:


> Maybe a simpler solution to reducing the tax paid by our high earners could be just reducing the payroll of our goverment and civil service ??


They had a golden opportunity to do that during the crash....reform the whole PS/CS, pay structures, jobs for life etc. They didn't do it then- it will never be done


----------



## TheBigShort

T McGibney said:


> You miss the point that there was substantial pro-high earner and pro-enterprise tax reform and reductions in the 1990s, which was one of the factors that created a booming economy from circa 1994 onwards. In the meantime we reversed this progress with predictable results.



I understand the point you are making, and I dont necessarily disagree. But even on foot of all the tax reforms of the '90s it is still possible that the top 20% were paying 75% of the tax, by virtue not only of tax cuts to high earners but removing low earners out of the tax net altogether.
I use the ten workers in a pub parable. If eight of them, earning varying degrees of income between €100-€1000 contribute €250 tax between and workers 9+10, on incomes of €2,000 each contribute €750 between them, then we have a top 20% paying 75% tax scenario.
But the tax applied on each worker is not necessarily punitive relative to incomes earned.
The difference today is that tax increases have become punitive on middle, and high earners. I dont dispute that.
What I oppose is the concept being pushed here that tax increases and welfare cuts be imposed solely for the purposes of providing tax cuts to higher earners.
And I am asking for actual concrete proposals to demonstrate how this can be achieved. To date the only proposal, with figures and costs, has come from myself!
Its fine to say 'cut higher rate of tax', but it means nothing if the cost is not identified or where else in the taxation system this money can be found. The proposal is that low earners will cover the cost. So lets see some figures of how low income earners will pay for each % cut in the top rate of tax. Unfortunately, none have been forthcoming as yet.
Its a pretty weak position from those advocating the proposal if the only proposal produced comes from someone opposed to the proposal.


----------



## Cervelo

Delboy said:


> They had a golden opportunity to do that during the crash....reform the whole PS/CS, pay structures, jobs for life etc. They didn't do it then- it will never be done



There were many golden opportunities during the crash that both goverments didnt act on


----------



## T McGibney

TheBigShort said:


> What I oppose is the concept being pushed here that tax increases and welfare cuts be imposed solely for the purposes of providing tax cuts to higher earners.



I believe that some rebalancing of the tax system is essential. We can only go so far with a situation where something like 570,000 pay nothing at all in income taxes, while anyone earning more than an average industrial wage is hit with a 50%+ marginal rate. Nothing I say here will convince you otherwise and nor will anything you say convince me otherwise. So I don't particularly mind if you disagree with the concept of rebalancing.


----------



## Purple

ashambles said:


> Probably not, SF/AAA and maybe *main stream parties in Ireland are wedded to the idea of income taxation as a mix of punishment and charity*, rather than an intelligent way of redistributing income that benefits all citizens.


Very well put.


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> We can only go so far with a situation where something like 570,000 pay nothing at all in income taxes



You gotta love this country...we bring in a tax but call it a charge and then we name that charge the UNIVERSAL Social Charge and yet over half a million people don't have to pay it!


----------



## TheBigShort

T McGibney said:


> Nothing I say here will convince you otherwise



But in general, I am in agreement with you!
Its the structure of our tax system, applied to low incomes, that has so many out of the tax net.
Someone on €17000 pays 20% on all of that income but applying personal credits to the tax liability, it results in a zero return.
But someone who earns €100,000 _also _gets personal tax credits. And applying those credits to the first €17,000 (taxed at 20%) of the high earners income _also _returns a zero liability on that first €17,000 of income.
So the proposal here is lets punish the low earner via higher taxes because they dont pay any, even though a higher earner doesn't pay tax on the equivalent level of income (USC aside). 

With regard to USC I have proposed that the 1% rate be applied to all earners.

All im looking for is a concrete proposal to support the views held here.
None are forthcoming so far, so what does that say about the view held in favour of the proposal?


----------



## orka

TheBigShort said:


> what does that say about the view held in favour of the proposal?


That most people can't be bothered attempting to argue against this type of 'logic':


TheBigShort said:


> Someone on €17000 pays 20% on all of that income but applying personal credits to the tax liability, it results in a zero return.
> But someone who earns €100,000 _also _gets personal tax credits. And applying those credits to the first €17,000 (taxed at 20%) of the high earners income _also _returns a zero liability on that first €17,000 of income.
> So the proposal here is lets punish the low earner via higher taxes because they dont pay any, even though a higher earner doesn't pay tax on the equivalent level of income (USC aside).


----------



## T McGibney

TheBigShort said:


> So the proposal here is lets punish the low earner via higher taxes because they dont pay any, even though a higher earner doesn't pay tax on the equivalent level of income (USC aside).





> What I oppose is the concept being pushed here that tax increases and welfare cuts be imposed solely for the purposes of providing tax cuts to higher earners.



You keep using perjorative language to misrepresent others' observations on this topic.



> All im looking for is a concrete proposal to support the views held here.
> None are forthcoming so far, so what does that say about the view held in favour of the proposal?



Why should I or others bother to make constructive suggestions when we know in our hearts that you'll similarly misrepresent anything we say?

(It's easy to be a big boy around here if you don't put your name to what you write.)


----------



## TheBigShort

orka said:


> That most people can't be bothered attempting to argue against this type of 'logic':



Actually there was quite a few prepared to discuss the issue when it was all around the headline stats.
But since I've requested some actual facts, figures they have gone quiet. Which is a pity because ive even tried to help their case by pointing out the 1% USC charge could be a measure to use.
Perhaps thats not a good idea?


----------



## TheBigShort

T McGibney said:


> Why should I or others bother to make constructive suggestions when we know in our hearts that you'll similarly misrepresent anything we say?



Its called a different perspective, useful for discussion forums.
Im not intending to offend or antagonise anyone any more than they antagonize me.
Im simply on one side of the debate. If that offends or antagonizes anyone you can be sure remarks such as low earners or welfare recipients getting a free ride antagonizes me.


----------



## T McGibney

TheBigShort said:


> Its called a different perspective, useful for discussion forums.
> Im not intending to offend or antagonise anyone any more than they antagonize me.
> Im simply on one side of the debate. If that offends or antagonizes anyone you can be sure *remarks such as low earners or welfare recipients getting a free ride *antagonizes me.


Misrepresentation is the antithesis of discussion. You're still at it.


----------



## TheBigShort

T McGibney said:


> Misrepresentation is the antithesis of discussion. You're still at it.



Did you even read the Indo article that is at the centre of this discussion?

"_Its not fair that low earners get a free ride on the backs of the top 20pc"._


----------



## T McGibney

TheBigShort said:


> Did you even read the Indo article that is at the centre of this discussion?
> 
> "_Its not fair that low earners get a free ride on the backs of the top 20pc"._


I'm not here to defend the Indo. You've repeatedly sought to misrepresent what I have said and sought to defend it as "a different perspective, useful for discussion forums."

As if.


----------



## TheBigShort

T McGibney said:


> I'm not here to defend the Indo. You've repeatedly sought to misrepresent what I have said and sought to defend it as "a different perspective, useful for discussion forums."
> 
> As if.



I have no intention to misrepresent what you said, apologies if I did. 

This topic is a misrepresentation of how low earners are apparently on a free ride on the backs of the top 20%. I make no apologies for calling this to be nonsense and challenge the propagators to back up their agenda with concrete details.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> So the proposal here is lets punish the low earner via higher taxes because they dont pay any, even though a higher earner doesn't pay tax on the equivalent level of income (USC aside).


No, the proposal here is to have a fair taxation system rather than an unfair one which punishes hard work.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> No, the proposal here is to have a fair taxation system rather than an unfair one which punishes hard work.



Yeh, I have no problem with that. Any suggestions as to how that might be achieved?


----------



## orka

TheBigShort said:


> This topic is a misrepresentation of how low earners are apparently on a free ride on the backs of the top 20%. I make no apologies for calling this to be nonsense and challenge the propagators to back up their agenda with concrete details.


Threads evolve.  The piece in the Indo was perhaps provocatively titled but it got the thread started and the discussion in the thread since then has been around fairness, international comparisons, rebalancing, other considerations, what changes could be made etc.  I don’t think there has been a mention of ‘free ride’ by anyone since then (except by you – at least 12 times!).  In hindsight, a better thread title might be ‘is our tax system unfair to high earners’?  That’s what pretty much what we’ve been discussing.  But people might not have engaged as much with such a vanilla starting point.  Your constant harping back to the thread title and initial post is tiresome TBH.  You did it on the other mega thread too (“but he saaaaaaaiiiiiiddddd… look – I can quote verbatim – it was said in post 1 therefore that is the entirety of what everyone is discussing”).  Tiresome and ultimately a thread killer.  Worth repeating – threads evolve.


----------



## Gerry Canning

Not quite Purple ,

The heading started bluntly {Cut the Dole to reduce higher Tax rates.}

No doubt it would work , but as thread evolved it seems to mise , that all agree that Dole is good , less taxes is good , whats not good are those who leg-lift the system and abuse welfare. 

There seems to be a huge amount of knowledge of who these leg-lifters are , so for those with info , report these "£$££$$  ,s now.


----------



## TheBigShort

orka said:


> Threads evolve.



Sure do.



orka said:


> The piece in the Indo was perhaps provocatively titled



I detect an evolving viewpoint?



orka said:


> the discussion in the thread since then has been around fairness, international comparisons, rebalancing, other considerations, what changes could be made etc.



Yes, I have proposed that the 1% USC rate be applied to all income earners without exception. I did this, in my opinion, in the interest of fairness. It has overall little impact, but at least it is one measure.
You proposed a cap on PRSI. I agreed with that in principle, but queried where the tax shortfall would be found. I suggested corporation tax, rather than hitting lower paid as I could not see how such a shortfall could be applied to low earners.

So im not actually interested in barracking or antagonizing. Im interested in how a fairer system can be found and applied.


----------



## Purple

Gerry Canning said:


> Not quite Purple ,
> 
> The heading started bluntly {Cut the Dole to reduce higher Tax rates.}
> 
> No doubt it would work , but as thread evolved it seems to mise , that all agree that Dole is good , less taxes is good , whats not good are those who leg-lift the system and abuse welfare.


I was referring to what is being said in this thread, not what the title says.


----------



## Gerry Canning

Purple = point taken=not digging you !.


----------



## cremeegg

_We live in a world where some people earn €18,000 a year and others earn €180,000 a year._
_
This is an undesirable situation.
...
Why is it undesirable that a medical consultant after 10 years' training and 10 further years' experience should be paid 10 times more than someone who is collecting glasses in a pub? 

I would have thought it was very desirable. 

The solution lies not in fiddling with the tax system, but in developing an economy where there is more opportunity for well paid work.

It may be possible to increase the amount of well paid work, but there will always be a demand for unskilled, low paid work. 

Brendan_

Perhaps the best response to your point is to say that there must be something wrong with our education system, if a fully grown adult has no more skills to contribute to society than collecting glasses.

I for one would like to live in a society with more economic equality than that. Which is not to say that someone with greater responsibility should not be paid more than someone with less. I would like to see a free market set wage rates, I suspect that a lot of our higher paid professionals would find that uncomfortable. At present wages in the medical sector are set by government policy, restricted training places, and anti-competitive practices rather than a free market. Other high earners, in the legal profession are even further removed from the market.

We have a situation where some sectors, although it has to be admitted less that previously, think pharmacies, airlines and taxis, capture rewards beyond what a free market would pay them.

Fiddling with taxes is not the solution to this unfairness. Abolishing restrictive  practices would be a better approach.


----------



## T McGibney

cremeegg said:


> Perhaps the best response to your point is to say that there must be something wrong with our education system, if a fully grown adult has no more skills to contribute to society than collecting glasses.
> 
> I for one would like to live in a society with more economic equality than that.



Just wondering, do you want to outlaw glass lifting and other basic jobs?


----------



## cremeegg

T McGibney said:


> Just wondering, do you want to outlaw glass lifting and other basic jobs?



Not at all, I collected glasses in a pub myself for a time. But I wouldn't expect to be able to afford to put a roof over my head, raise a family or generally bear the responsibilities of adulthood based on what I could reasonably expect to earn from collecting glasses.

I would hope that my children, and by extension everybody else's children, would acquire the skills to contribute and thereby earn more than a glass collector.


----------



## T McGibney

cremeegg said:


> Not at all, I collected glasses in a pub myself for a time. But I wouldn't expect to be able to afford to put a roof over my head, raise a family or generally bear the responsibilities of adulthood based on what I could reasonably expect to earn from collecting glasses.
> 
> I would hope that my children, and by extension everybody else's children, would acquire the skills to contribute and thereby earn more than a glass collector.



Doesn't that kinda prove Brendan's point?

_Why is it undesirable that a medical consultant after 10 years' training and 10 further years' experience should be paid 10 times more than someone who is collecting glasses in a pub? _

Btw, you are spot on when you say that fiddling with taxes is not the solution to unfairness. Part of the reason why the tax system is in its present messy state is that it has been constantly fiddled with for years in order to achieve various, often mutually conflicting, objectives.


----------



## TheBigShort

cremeegg said:


> Not at all, I collected glasses in a pub myself for a time. But I wouldn't expect to be able to afford to put a roof over my head, raise a family or generally bear the responsibilities of adulthood based on what I could reasonably expect to earn from collecting glasses.
> 
> I would hope that my children, and by extension everybody else's children, would acquire the skills to contribute and thereby earn more than a glass collector.



In fairness, I cant recall anyone over 25 employed with the sole function of just collecting glasses. 
Waiting at tables and taking orders yes, but solely glass collecting, no. But if there are such people I would hazard a bet that it has more to do with lack of available opportunity rather than a lack of available skills on the workers part.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> In fairness, I cant recall anyone over 25 employed with the sole function of just collecting glasses.
> Waiting at tables and taking orders yes, but solely glass collecting, no. But if there are such people I would hazard a bet that it has more to do with lack of available opportunity rather than a lack of available skills on the workers part.


Most minimum wage employees are from middle income households.
That means they are most likely students working part time or mothers working part time. If anyone is working long term and full time and they are on minimum wage for most or all of that time then they are not very bright, not very motivated or a combination of both.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> If anyone is working long term and full time and they are on minimum wage for most or all of that time then they are not very bright, not very motivated or a combination of both.



Or due to a physical disability acting as a major impediment to career progression, or a mental disorder such as aspergers or dyslexia also acting as a major impediment to career progression, or lack of educational opportunity e.g. no SNAs, overcrowded classrooms, lack of funding for schools, or poor educational background coming from a broken home or abusive home, or bullying resulting in lack of self-esteem, or immigrants with poor English or a combination of these things and a multitude of many more reasons.
I would imagine that the amount of people that are being paid minimum wage and are actually 'not very bright' is tiny, close to non-existent.


----------



## Marion

_"Why is it undesirable that a medical consultant after 10 years' training and 10 further years' experience should be paid 10 times more than someone who is collecting glasses in a pub? _ 


One assumes that the glass collector is not the business owner of the pub?

Also, I personally know 30-year old medical consultants. They spent 5 years in medical school and the rest as fairly well-paid trainees in hospitals in a well-defined promotion structure that encompasses long hours (overtime rates), few exams but much time-consuming research and very responsible roles admittedly. 

Not disagreeing with the thrust of the quote - but ...  !

Marion


----------



## TheBigShort

Brendan Burgess said:


> Why is it undesirable that a medical consultant after 10 years' training and 10 further years' experience should be paid 10 times more than someone who is collecting glasses in a pub?
> 
> I would have thought it was very desirable.



In fairness to cremegg it think the point may have been the differential in income inequality between those who earn most and those who earn learn least. 
The limitation of high earnings to €180,000 was perhaps as inadequate as the reference to full-time glass collectors (is there such a thing?).
The problem with increasing inequality in income is that the higher the earnings go, then invariably the higher the proportion of tax will be paid by those at the top of the income scale. 
And as we are discovering this is leading to protest against high earners having to 'pay for everything'.
Two possible options in my opinion, high earners take a pay cut, or start increasing the income of low earners.
The latter is most feasible and reasonable.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> Or due to a physical disability acting as a major impediment to career progression, or a mental disorder such as aspergers or dyslexia also acting as a major impediment to career progression, or lack of educational opportunity e.g. no SNAs, overcrowded classrooms, lack of funding for schools, or poor educational background coming from a broken home or abusive home, or bullying resulting in lack of self-esteem, or immigrants with poor English or a combination of these things and a multitude of many more reasons.
> I would imagine that the amount of people that are being paid minimum wage and are actually 'not very bright' is tiny, close to non-existent.


You are really scraping the barrel now!
I'm on the dyslexic spectrum, too complicated to go into in detail  (when I type something if some of the words are not underlined in red I presume spellcheck is not working ). I was in a class of 46 in primary school (in the late 70's and 80's). I didn't have dyslexia then, I was just stupid. The point is that many people have stuff to deal with. That doesn't mean they can't ever earn above minimum wage. My friends daughter has Downs Syndrome. She only earns minimum wage but obviously we aren't talking about people like her.


----------



## T McGibney

TheBigShort said:


> I would imagine that the amount of people that are being paid minimum wage and are actually 'not very bright' is tiny, close to non-existent.



They said in 2007 that the number of vulnerable people who were highly dependent on urban bedsit accommodation was similarly tiny, close to non-existent.  They changed their minds when these people ended up sleeping on the streets.


----------



## Purple

T McGibney said:


> They said in 2007 that the number of vulnerable people who were highly dependent on urban bedsit accommodation was similarly tiny, close to non-existent.  They changed their minds when these people ended up sleeping on the streets.


Very few people who work full time are on the minimum wage for very long. The idea that families are being supported on one ir two minimum wage incomes is nonsense.


----------



## T McGibney

Purple said:


> Very few people who work full time are on the minimum wage for very long. The idea that families are being supported on one ir two minimum wage incomes is nonsense.


That's true. But there is also a cohort of vulnerable people who work for minimum wage in quasi-sheltered employment. One particular multinational retailer has an excellent reputation for employing people in such situations. Each successive minimum wage hike unfortunately makes it more costly to do so and a general sharp increase in wages might well put an end to these people's employment prospects.


----------



## Purple

T McGibney said:


> That's true. But there is also a cohort of vulnerable people who work for minimum wage in quasi-sheltered employment. One particular multinational retailer has an excellent reputation for employing people in such situations. Each successive minimum wage hike unfortunately makes it more costly to do so and a general sharp increase in wages might well put an end to these people's employment prospects.


The same applies in general unskilled young people from socially deprived backgrounds. An employer taking on someone in their late teens with a history of trouble with the law, who is functionally illiterate, no real work ethic and a chaotic personal life which has a high probability of impacting on their work life is doing so with the knowledge that there is a very high probability that their new hire will cost them money and would probably cost them money even if they weren't paying them anything... and yet there are lots of employers who want to give these kids a chance and take them on anyway. The State makes it harder and harder to do so because of an ignorant and bigoted socialist view which is pervasive in our left wing government, our left wing public sector and our left wing media which holds that employers are exploitative and immoral and that therefore anyone who is low paid is being exploited.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> You are really scraping the barrel now!
> I'm on the dyslexic spectrum, too complicated to go into in detail  (when I type something if some of the words are not underlined in red I presume spellcheck is not working ). I was in a class of 46 in primary school (in the late 70's and 80's). I didn't have dyslexia then, I was just stupid. The point is that many people have stuff to deal with. That doesn't mean they can't ever earn above minimum wage. My friends daughter has Downs Syndrome. She only earns minimum wage but obviously we aren't talking about people like her.




And that was my point. People arent stupid, or 'not very bright', they just have stuff to deal with.


----------



## Gordon Gekko

TheBigShort said:


> Two possible options in my opinion, high earners take a pay cut, or start increasing the income of low earners.



Or increase taxation of low earners.

The sense of entitlement within our society is breathtaking. If you are a low earner, none of of the following (examples) should be affordable:

- Foreign holidays
- Meals out
- Coffee (other than homemade)
- Nights out

Where did the idea come from that those on minimum wage or the dole should enjoy anything other than a most basic standard of living? (i.e. home, basic food, and healthcare)


----------



## TheBigShort

Gordon Gekko said:


> Or increase taxation of low earners.



By how much? What do you propose?


----------



## TheBigShort

Gordon Gekko said:


> If you are a low earner, none of of the following (examples) should be affordable:
> 
> - Foreign holidays
> - Meals out
> - Coffee (other than homemade)
> - Nights out
> 
> Where did the idea come from that those on minimum wage or the dole should enjoy anything other than a most basic standard of living? (i.e. home, basic food, and healthcare)



What about cake? Let them eat cake?


----------



## phileasfogg

Purple said:


> Most minimum wage employees are from middle income households.
> That means they are most likely students working part time or mothers working part time. If anyone is working long term and full time and they are on minimum wage for most or all of that time then they are not very bright, not very motivated or a combination of both.


 
Hmm, minimum wage employees are likely to be mothers working part time.  Sadly this may be true, but it shouldn't be acceptable.  There is a real need to allow working mothers to work less than full time hours without having to work in minimum wage jobs.  this is legislated for elsewhere but not in ireland.  It is another reason the Squeezed middle does exist.  There is very little well paid part time work openly available, despite a huge huge number of highly qualified and experienced women who would give anything for a family friendly job.


----------



## Purple

phileasfogg said:


> Hmm, minimum wage employees are likely to be mothers working part time.  Sadly this may be true, but it shouldn't be acceptable.  There is a real need to allow working mothers to work less than full time hours without having to work in minimum wage jobs.  this is legislated for elsewhere but not in ireland.  It is another reason the Squeezed middle does exist.  There is very little well paid part time work openly available, despite a huge huge number of highly qualified and experienced women who would give anything for a family friendly job.


If they are skilled and working part time they will get higher rates of pay than the minimum wage. For example the majority of GPs are women, something like 70%, and yet the majority of GP hours are done by men. Female GPs can work part time and still make a good living. That says more about the tax system and lack of competition in the industry than anything else but it's an example of women working part time but getting far in excess of the minimum wage.
My friend has 3 kids and works part time as a hair dresser. She's really good at it and gets very well paid for her time.


----------



## Sophrosyne

Just looking at the Revenue statistics for 2014 ...

The highest effective rate was 42.54% - paid buy a group of 320 single females in the 275,000+ income category followed by:

42.10% - 825 single males - 275,000+
41.34% - 3,476 married couples or civil partners - one earning - 275,000+
41.21% - 449 single females - 200,000 to 275,000
40.41% - 94 widowers - 275,000+
40.29% - 741 single males - 200,000 to 275,000
39.73% - 5,635 married couples or civil partners - both earning - 275,000+
39.44% - 840 single females - 150,000 to 200,000
39.01% - 98 widows - 275,000+
38.24% - 2828 married couples or civil partners - one earning - 200,000 to 275,000.

I'm not sure that these rates are excessive or would act as a disincentive.


----------



## Purple

Sophrosyne said:


> Just looking at the Revenue statistics for 2014 ...
> 
> The highest effective rate was 42.54% - paid buy a group of 320 single females in the 275,000+ income category followed by:
> 
> 42.10% - 825 single males - 275,000+
> 41.34% - 3,476 married couples or civil partners - one earning - 275,000+
> 41.21% - 449 single females - 200,000 to 275,000
> 40.41% - 94 widowers - 275,000+
> 40.29% - 741 single males - 200,000 to 275,000
> 39.73% - 5,635 married couples or civil partners - both earning - 275,000+
> 39.44% - 840 single females - 150,000 to 200,000
> 39.01% - 98 widows - 275,000+
> 38.24% - 2828 married couples or civil partners - one earning - 200,000 to 275,000.
> 
> I'm not sure that these rates are excessive or would act as a disincentive.



The effective rate is not the issue. The issue is the marginal rate. “If I work harder and earn more how much of my extra income will I end up with”. That’s the issue.
The effective tax rate on people earning over €150,000 a year is around 40%. In the UK it is around 33%.


----------



## Sophrosyne

That doesn’t change their effective rate of tax for a year.

As you can see from my previous post, in 2014, very few people (5,905 or 0.27% of taxpayers) had an effective rate greater than 40%.

Comparisons with the UK or any other country, which are confined solely to income tax, are hardly informative.


----------



## Purple

Sophrosyne said:


> That doesn’t change their effective rate of tax for a year.
> 
> As you can see from my previous post, in 2014, very few people (5,585 or 2.45% of taxpayers) had an effective rate greater than 40%.
> 
> Comparisons with the UK or any other country, which are confined solely to income tax, are hardly informative.


There are a few other threads doing other comparisons.


----------



## MrEarl

"Cut the dole to cut higher tax rates" ....

The cost of living needs to be addressed, before you go cutting the dole imho.  Basic costs relating to food, shelter, heath and cloting need to be addressed to ensure that when the dole might be cut in the future, that it doesn't result in a lot more people living on the street.

The above said, it would be appropriate to regularly review those collecting the dole to ensure they are genuine, can prove they are trying to get a job or improve their skills so as to get a job in the future etc.  I must admit, I've little faith in the current system and beleive it goes no where near far enough, when it comes to monitoring those who are collecting the dole.


----------



## Purple

MrEarl said:


> "Cut the dole to cut higher tax rates" ....
> 
> The cost of living needs to be addressed, before you go cutting the dole imho.  Basic costs relating to food, shelter, heath and cloting need to be addressed to ensure that when the dole might be cut in the future, that it doesn't result in a lot more people living on the street.


Labour is the biggest input when calculating the costs of the things you listed. The cost of living is a reflection of wages, not the other way around. The only way to really reduce the cost of living is to improve productivity in every area of the economy, both private and public.


----------



## MrEarl

Purple said:


> Labour is the biggest input when calculating the costs of the things you listed. The cost of living is a reflection of wages, not the other way around. The only way to really reduce the cost of living is to improve productivity in every area of the economy, both private and public.



Sure, I take your point (although don't agree that the cost of living is always a reflection of wages - i.e. rents / homeloans), but we are only talking about possibly cutting the dole here, not all earnings for all groups of earners... so we need to provide for those with the lowest incomes.

Good luck trying to improve productivity in the public service btw ... if we are not prepared to put Michael O'Leary (or similar) in control, things will never change in the public service.


----------



## Protocol

*German system*

Unemployment Insurance paid for 12 months, typically
Paid at 60-67% of former pay [former net I think]
after 12 months, you move onto means-tested social assistance, known as Hartz IV
Hartz IV rates as follows: 
single = 404 pm = *93 per week*
couple = 364 pm each
children = 237 / 270 / 306 pm


----------



## Purple

Protocol said:


> *German system*
> 
> Unemployment Insurance paid for 12 months, typically
> Paid at 60-67% of former pay [former net I think]
> after 12 months, you move onto means-tested social assistance, known as Hartz IV
> Hartz IV rates as follows:
> single = 404 pm = *93 per week*
> couple = 364 pm each
> children = 237 / 270 / 306 pm


= less taxes = more take home pay = lower wages = lower cost of living.


----------



## TheBigShort

Protocol said:


> *German system*
> 
> Unemployment Insurance paid for 12 months, typically
> Paid at 60-67% of former pay [former net I think]
> after 12 months, you move onto means-tested social assistance, known as Hartz IV
> Hartz IV rates as follows:
> single = 404 pm = *93 per week*
> couple = 364 pm each
> children = 237 / 270 / 306 pm



If I earned €1,000 pw and lost my job would I receive €600 a week for six months? Sounds expensive. At €180 a week for 52 weeks that is under €10,000, the German model would pay me €15,000+ by the sixth month.
Also Im confused about the 'means tested' social assistance program. My take on 'means tested' is that the social assistance is not pre-determined, but you have listed some fixed amounts.
Is it possible that those figures are the minimum amount of assistance available? And that depending on circumstances, further assistance payments would be payable?


----------



## orka

TheBigShort said:


> If I earned €1,000 pw and lost my job would I receive €600 a week for six months? Sounds expensive.


It's insurance (as most countries outside of Ireland know it...) - higher income means higher contributions means higher benefits when needed.  Sounds fair to me.  If you were used to 1,000 pw and had expenses to match, a sudden drop to 200 a week would put you in dire straits immediately - the insurance benefits give you 6/12 months breathing room - to get another job or at least try to rearrange your affairs - rent somewhere cheaper for example.


TheBigShort said:


> Also Im confused about the 'means tested' social assistance program. My take on 'means tested' is that the social assistance is not pre-determined, but you have listed some fixed amounts.


Not sure why it's confusing - it's the same as our JSA means-testing concept.  After your period on pay-related benefits (JSB here), your eligibility for future benefits is dependent on you not having sufficient means to support yourself - so if you have savings/ spouse has income etc. then you are not eligible.  There is also the possibility of assistance with housing and healthcare - but those rates are the maximum rates.


----------



## Gerry Canning

Way back here in Ireland , if you were made unemployed you got a fair % of your previous wages out of your PRSI .
Seemed eminently fairer and sensible and stopped the newly unemployed dropping too much income too quickly.
It also eased the (risk) of working v those who wouldn,t work, who got little nuff dole. 

In a similar vein I find it a bit unfair on OLd age pensions , those who paid prsi for years get little more than a non contributor ?

Go figure ?


----------



## Protocol

German UI system pays 60-67% of previous *net* pay, not previous gross.
I had to check that.
It last for 12 months for most people. If over 50, it can last 18-24 months.

Note that net pay is much less than gross in Germany, as tax and PRSI are higher than here. PRSI = 20% over there.

A 50k gross is maybe 30k net, meaning 18k UI payment - that's rough figure by me, not facts.





German SA system is known as Hartz IV -  equivalent to our JSA "dole".

Pays 404 pm + housing benefit + health insurance


----------



## Protocol

TheBigShort said:


> Also Im confused about the 'means tested' social assistance program. My take on 'means tested' is that the social assistance is not pre-determined, but you have listed some fixed amounts.
> Is it possible that those figures are the minimum amount of assistance available? And that depending on circumstances, further assistance payments would be payable?




*Subsistence allowance (Arbeitslosengeld II)*

This allowance is lower than ordinary unemployment benefit and is payable when the claimant cannot receive full benefit or their period of benefit has come to an end, but they are still fit to work and registered as unemployed. Whether or not a person can claim for _Arbeitslosengeld II_will depend on savings, spouse's earnings and life insurance. A set amount is paid for those requiring social assistance (€404 per month). Claimants must attend training courses, and be ready to step into any job offered them by the _Arbeitsamt_, even a very low paid one. Exceptions to this rule are sometimes allowed on mental, physical or psychological grounds or in cases where pay rates are deemed immorally low.

Exactly how much social assistance an individual receives depends on several factors, such as number and age of children as well as marital status.


Arbeitsagentur provides more specific information about the amount of social assistance available to individuals
While receiving benefits, reports must be made regularly to the job centre. The centre may make contact at any time requesting proof of job searching activities (applications and responses from different companies). Anyone claiming unemployment benefit must not be absent from their usual place of residence for longer than three weeks in each year. These holidays must be agreed in advance with the unemployment office agent.


----------



## Protocol

TheBigShort said:


> If I earned €1,000 pw and lost my job would I receive €600 a week for six months? Sounds expensive.



PRSI for the UI system is 1.5% ee and 1.5% er up to 5,600 pm.


----------



## TheBigShort

orka said:


> Sounds fair to me.



I never said it wasnt fair, I said it sounded expensive. 
How would such a system be paid for?


----------



## Protocol

TheBigShort said:


> Also Im confused about the 'means tested' social assistance program. My take on 'means tested' is that the social assistance is not pre-determined, but you have listed some fixed amounts.
> Is it possible that those figures are the minimum amount of assistance available? And that depending on circumstances, further assistance payments would be payable?



Yes, for children, also for lone parents, etc.


----------



## Protocol

*Unemployment Benefit II (Arbeitslosengeld II) / Social Benefit (Sozialgeld)*





*All persons capable of work and eligible for benefits can receive unemployment benefit II (Alg II) from the age of 15 years until the legally stipulated age limit between 65 and 67 years. Persons not capable of work can receive social benefit. Alg II and social benefit are benefits to secure a livelihood. Legislation determined to what each individual is entitled to in the so-called "normal requirement" (Regelbedarf).*

*Normal requirement*
The normal requirement globally covers the costs of food, clothing, household energy (without heating and warm watergeneration), personal hygiene, household effects, needs of everyday life, as well as to a reasonable extent also relations to theenvironment and participation in cultural life.

Singles, single parents, as well as adults with a minor partner are entitled to the full amount of normal requirement. Since 1January 2016, this is EUR 404 for all of Germany. The normal requirement for adult partners is EUR 364. Children younger than 6years receive EUR 237. Between 6 and including 13 years of age this is EUR 270. Children and young persons between 14 and 17 years receive EUR 306. For young adults from 15years on and below 25 years who live with their parents or who moved without the positive assertion of the municipal authority, this is EUR 324.

Young adults who are 25 years and older must file their own application for (Alg II), regardless of the fact whether they live in their own flat or with their parents. Persons living in their ownhousehold form a separate benefit community (BG) if they are at least 15 years old.

*Social benefit*
Persons not capable of work but in need of assistance receive social benefit, if a least one person capable of work but in need of assistance lives in their benefit community.

*Accommodation and heating*
The costs of accommodation and heating are, if they are reasonable, borne to the amount of the actual expenses.

If you own a house or a flat, the costs of accommodation include the costs connected with it, however, not the amortization payment for credits.

Persons below 25 years who want to move out of their parents' home only receive a refund of the costs of accommodation and heating, if the municipal authority agreed to the move. This agreement can be obtained from the contact persons responsible for your benefits. Agreement needs to be obtained if


the persons concerned cannot live with their parents for "severe social reasons",
the move is necessary for the integration in the labour market or
another severe reason exists.
*Non-recurring benefits*
Beyond the normal requirement you can receive non-recurring benefits as credit, cash or non-cash benefit for


initial equipment of the flat including household devices,
initial equipment for clothing (also for pregnancy and birth) and
the acquisition and repair of medical devices and renting of therapeutical devices.


----------



## Protocol

Gerry Canning said:


> Way back here in Ireland , if you were made unemployed you got a fair % of your previous wages out of your PRSI .
> Seemed eminently fairer and sensible and stopped the newly unemployed dropping too much income too quickly.
> It also eased the (risk) of working v those who wouldn,t work, who got little nuff dole.
> 
> In a similar vein I find it a bit unfair on OLd age pensions , those who paid prsi for years get little more than a non contributor ?
> 
> Go figure ?



Yes, the pay-related aspect of JSB was abolished, wrongly, in my opinion.

*Also, it's crazy that in return for 40 years work, tax, PRSI, you get 11 euro a week more than a non-con pension.*


----------



## MrEarl

....


----------



## TheBigShort

Protocol said:


> *Unemployment Benefit II (Arbeitslosengeld II) / Social Benefit (Sozialgeld)*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *All persons capable of work and eligible for benefits can receive unemployment benefit II (Alg II) from the age of 15 years until the legally stipulated age limit between 65 and 67 years. Persons not capable of work can receive social benefit. Alg II and social benefit are benefits to secure a livelihood. Legislation determined to what each individual is entitled to in the so-called "normal requirement" (Regelbedarf).*
> 
> *Normal requirement*
> The normal requirement globally covers the costs of food, clothing, household energy (without heating and warm watergeneration), personal hygiene, household effects, needs of everyday life, as well as to a reasonable extent also relations to theenvironment and participation in cultural life.
> 
> Singles, single parents, as well as adults with a minor partner are entitled to the full amount of normal requirement. Since 1January 2016, this is EUR 404 for all of Germany. The normal requirement for adult partners is EUR 364. Children younger than 6years receive EUR 237. Between 6 and including 13 years of age this is EUR 270. Children and young persons between 14 and 17 years receive EUR 306. For young adults from 15years on and below 25 years who live with their parents or who moved without the positive assertion of the municipal authority, this is EUR 324.
> 
> Young adults who are 25 years and older must file their own application for (Alg II), regardless of the fact whether they live in their own flat or with their parents. Persons living in their ownhousehold form a separate benefit community (BG) if they are at least 15 years old.
> 
> *Social benefit*
> Persons not capable of work but in need of assistance receive social benefit, if a least one person capable of work but in need of assistance lives in their benefit community.
> 
> *Accommodation and heating*
> The costs of accommodation and heating are, if they are reasonable, borne to the amount of the actual expenses.
> 
> If you own a house or a flat, the costs of accommodation include the costs connected with it, however, not the amortization payment for credits.
> 
> Persons below 25 years who want to move out of their parents' home only receive a refund of the costs of accommodation and heating, if the municipal authority agreed to the move. This agreement can be obtained from the contact persons responsible for your benefits. Agreement needs to be obtained if
> 
> 
> the persons concerned cannot live with their parents for "severe social reasons",
> the move is necessary for the integration in the labour market or
> another severe reason exists.
> *Non-recurring benefits*
> Beyond the normal requirement you can receive non-recurring benefits as credit, cash or non-cash benefit for
> 
> 
> initial equipment of the flat including household devices,
> initial equipment for clothing (also for pregnancy and birth) and
> the acquisition and repair of medical devices and renting of therapeutical devices.



Very good. But Germany spends considerably more on social welfare than Ireland does, according to; 

[broken link removed]


----------



## orka

TheBigShort said:


> Very good. But Germany spends considerably more on social welfare than Ireland does,


What's your point?

Germany CAN spend more on social welfare because it collects a lot more in social insurance contributions.  Contribution rates are much higher than in Ireland and (you may need to sit down for this BS) these high contributions start at a very low income level (but they are capped - it's almost as if the lower earners pay more so the high earners can be given a break).

Also, bear in mind that social welfare spending includes pensions - Germany's population is much older than Ireland's and they have salary related benefits.


----------



## Sophrosyne

What is being proposed is to cut the dole in order to reduce taxes on the higher paid and furthermore to radically change the PRSI system.

This is based on the premise that those with higher income pay more than their “fair share”.

Frankly, I don’t buy it.

As mentioned previously, only 0.27% of taxpayers had an effective rate of income tax and USC greater than 40% - the highest ER being 42.54%.

Only 5.36% of taxpayers had an ER greater than 30%.

I have seen countless iterations on the same theme all arriving at the same conclusion – those with lower incomes should contribute more so that those with higher income can pay less.

There is not a lot wrong with our tax system it is rather the nature of the Irish economy.

We are a small nation of mostly micro to medium sized businesses with limited capacity to create employment – much less well-paid employment.

The majority of taxpayers have low incomes.

In 2014, 1,206,851 or 54.26% of taxpayers had incomes of €30,000 or less.

412,519 or 18.55% had incomes of less than €10,000.

We have to deal with the situation in Ireland rather than looking to other countries whose population and business demographics and natural wealth bear no resemblance to Ireland’s.


----------



## TheBigShort

orka said:


> Germany CAN spend more on social welfare because it collects a lot more in social insurance contributions.



So you are advocating that Ireland should collect more in social contributions?



orka said:


> Contribution rates are much higher than in Ireland



Yes, sounds pretty definite, you want to increase PRSI contributions.



orka said:


> and (you may need to sit down for this BS) these high contributions start at a very low income level (but they are capped - it's almost as if the lower earners pay more so the high earners can be given a break).



Including on low income earners, who are the primary beneficiaries of welfare payments (by virtue of their low incomes). 

So if I have this straight, you want to increase PRSI on working people, including low income earners, so that low incomes earners will in turn have less disposable income and in turn, require increased welfare benefits, payable by increased PRSI contributions from higher earners who dont qualify for welfare benefits - and this will give those workers a break?


----------



## MrEarl

Hello,

I think we can get better value for the amount of overall dole payments the State makes each week ... for example, if we do a deal with a few large national retailers to accept vouchers in return for groceries, likewise if we do a deal with a couple of the energy providers, I'm sure we could buy the vouchers at less than par value and then distribute the vouchers as part of the dole payment each week.  I know this would compel everyone claiming the dole to use the vouchers for their specific purposes, but food, light and heat are essentials so I can't see how anyone would have legitimate grounds to complain.

I also continue to have concerns regarding people claiming the dole on a fraudulent basis.  Am I the only one who suspects there may be people claiming the dole illegally ?


----------



## TheBigShort

MrEarl said:


> if we do a deal with a few large national retailers to accept vouchers in return for groceries,



It would have to be across the board with retail grocers, not every town and village has each of the retailers. Selecting only a few would impose an unnecessary inconvenience on people. 



MrEarl said:


> if we do a deal with a couple of the energy providers, I'm sure we could buy the vouchers at less than par value and then distribute the vouchers as part of the dole payment each week



Again, it would have to be across the board, otherwise it might represent an unfair advantage to register customers. For instance, if im with energia but they are not part of this program, and I lose my job, I have to change my energy provider.
Sounds like an inconvenience to everyone to implement such schemes, never mind the additional administration that would go with it.
Alternatively, we could adopt the attitude that if people want to watch TV,  keep warm, and not starve, that they will most likely spend their money at the grocers and with energy providers anyway?



MrEarl said:


> I also continue to have concerns regarding people claiming the dole on a fraudulent basis. Am I the only one who suspects there may be people claiming the dole illegally ?



No, you are not the only one who has concerns. The Dept of Social Protection published a headline €660m preventive measures for fraud. The figure is an estimate of how much fraud there would be if they didn't carry out their fraud prevention measures.
The real fraud figure is estimated to be between €30m and €80m of the entire €20bn budget.


----------



## jjm

The company i work for supply parts to a German company last year we were on short time ,German company also had  some of its operators on lay off ,From talking to the person  we deal with,   people who are there the longest usually get laid off first because the get there full net wages the longer you pay in to the system the more you get out,


----------



## TheBigShort

jjm2016 said:


> The company i work for supply parts to a German company last year we were on short time ,German company also had  some of its operators on lay off ,From talking to the person  we deal with,   people who are there the longest usually get laid off first because the get there full net wages the longer you pay in to the system the more you get out,



Yes, its a good idea. But the Germans spend considerably more on their social welfare programs than we do. 
So if we are prepared to raise taxes further (corporation tax might be an option), including on lower income earners, then we can have a German style welfare system.
But the proposals in this thread is to cut taxes on higher earners and place the burden more on lower earners.


----------



## Purple

Sophrosyne said:


> What is being proposed is to cut the dole in order to reduce taxes on the higher paid and furthermore to radically change the PRSI system.
> 
> 
> This is based on the premise that those with higher income pay more than their “fair share”.


 It’s based on what everyone else does, what we have been advised to do by the OECD, the Troika and others who manage to run their countries in a way which avoids boom-bust cycles.





Sophrosyne said:


> As mentioned previously, only 0.27% of taxpayers had an effective rate of income tax and USC greater than 40% - the highest ER being 42.54%.
> 
> Only 5.36% of taxpayers had an ER greater than 30%.


 Yes, and that 5% pay more income tax than the bottom 50% of earners, and no, they don’t earn more than them.


I have seen countless iterations on the same theme all arriving at the same conclusion – those with lower incomes should contribute more so that those with higher income can pay less.




Sophrosyne said:


> There is not a lot wrong with our tax system


 I think there’s a lot wrong with a taxation system which tells people that if they work harder and try to better themselves the state will take over half of the fruits of their labour.





Sophrosyne said:


> it is rather the nature of the Irish economy.
> 
> 
> We are a small nation of mostly micro to medium sized businesses with limited capacity to create employment – much less well-paid employment.


 Yes, and our taxation system ensures that people who can and will create businesses which generate high incomes will be punished for their efforts.




Sophrosyne said:


> The majority of taxpayers have low incomes.
> 
> 
> In 2014, 1,206,851 or 54.26% of taxpayers had incomes of €30,000 or less.
> 
> 
> 412,519 or 18.55% had incomes of less than €10,000.



That includes part time employees so is meaningless.




Sophrosyne said:


> We have to deal with the situation in Ireland rather than looking to other countries whose population and business demographics and natural wealth bear no resemblance to Ireland’s.


 We have the most “progressive” taxation system in the developed world. We pay more tax sooner and no tax for longer. The argument that we are somehow special and so can and should do things which are economically stupid, and therefore socially destructive in the longer term, is delusional and dangerous.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> It’s based on what everyone else does, what we have been advised to do by the OECD, the Troika and others who manage to run their countries in a way which avoids boom-bust cycles.



There is no advice anywhere, let alone from the OECD, Troika etc, that advocates imposing tax increases on lower earners to supplement tax breaks for higher income earners other than on askaboutmoney.com.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> That includes part time employees so is meaningless.



Why is it meaningless? These are the people that you want to impose taxes on in order to provide tax relief for higher earners.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> There is no advice anywhere, let alone from the OECD, Troika etc, that advocates imposing tax increases on lower earners to supplement tax breaks for higher income earners other than on askaboutmoney.com.


I didn't say there was. There may well be but the post you quoted was not about that specific point.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> Why is it meaningless? These are the people that you want to impose taxes on in order to provide tax relief for higher earners.


So if I work 5 hours a week for €50 an hour I'm low paid, I'm not a high earner?
Someone on €20 an hour should have some of their income taken from them and given to me? Is that what you think?
If it's not what you think then you will agree that comparing the yearly income of a part time employee with a full time employee is meaningless.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> So if I work 5 hours a week for €50 an hour I'm low paid, I'm not a high earner?



Correct.



Purple said:


> Someone on €20 an hour should have some of their income taken from them and given to me?



Depends. If they are only working 5 hrs a week, then no, that shouldn't occur. If they are working full-time (say 40hrs), by all means they should make some contribution to assist low-income earners. But in fairness, that contribution should not start to kick in at a level of income that is not applicable also to the low earner. That is why I would support the 1% USC rate to all earners.


----------



## jjm

Hi
We cannot cut the higher tax rates full stop ,even if we cut dole to 50 euro a week ,High tax rates makes it very easy for the goverment to take back tax/usc/prsi Worker/Employer Prsi/ pension levy on all pay increases private/public service ,Life is very easy for Michael by keeping tax high on high tax payers,He is getting the max tax possible half in goverment pocket half in your pocket, Happy days ,keep fighting high earner against  people on the dole , All happy on how the are spending your money ,Employers prsi  pays  the dole with lots to spare


----------



## orka

Sophrosyne said:


> As you can see from my previous post, in 2014, very few people (5,905 or 0.27% of taxpayers) had an effective rate greater than 40%.


Incorrect.





Sophrosyne said:


> As mentioned previously, only 0.27% of taxpayers had an effective rate of income tax and USC greater than 40% - the highest ER being 42.54%.


Incorrect.


Classic mistake (or self-serving obfuscation) to assume you can use averages to inform comments on everyone within a group.

In 2014, a 40% effective (income tax and USC, excluding PRSI) rate kicked in at about 136K for a single person and about 180K for a married/one earner tax unit.  So there will be people paying a 40%+ effective rate in every revenue grouping down to the 100K-150K group.

What you have shown is the average effective rate for a group of people who will have diverse incomes and usage of tax reliefs.  And you have ignored those in lower income groups who also pay 40%+ effective rates – because they are grouped with people whose use of additional tax reliefs brings their particular group average effective rate down below 40%.



Sophrosyne said:


> Only 5.36% of taxpayers had an ER greater than 30%.


Again, incorrect for the same reasons.  For a single person in 2014, an effective rate of 30% (again excl PRSI for some reason – how hard is it to add 4% to a number?) kicked in around 61K income assuming no reliefs.  So you would have to go way back in your revenue groupings before you could stop counting how many people had effective rates in excess of 30%.

Revenue’s statistics do not provide enough information to calculate what you are trying to show.




Sophrosyne said:


> I'm not sure that these rates are excessive or would act as a disincentive.


Leaving aside the fact that your calculations of maximum effective rates and numbers paying them are incorrect, what makes you conclude this?  Are you paying these levels of taxation?  Do you have many friends/family paying these levels of taxation?  Also, don’t forget to add the 4% PRSI onto what you are calling effective rates.


----------



## MrEarl

TheBigShort said:


> It would have to be across the board with retail grocers....Again, it would have to be across the board _(re: energy suppliers)_.....Sounds like an inconvenience to everyone to implement such schemes, never mind the additional administration that would go with it......



Thank you for the response.

You are correct about any scheme being wide enough to ensure full and fair coverage.  I took that as read tbh....

As for the bit about it being an inconvenience to implement ... lets not forget, the focus here is on getting better value for our money, not making life easy for everyone concerned (otherwise, we'd be paying Tesco & Supervalue to deliver the groceries to each dole recipients house etc ). 

....As for the extra administration, in this day and age much of this could be done electronically I am sure so there may not be as much administration as you might first fear.  Perhaps I should have suggested an electronic voucher system, to keep us both on track with this one (sorry ).  Let us not forget, people collecting the dole are unemployed so have lots of free time to do a little bit of admin if it's required, in order to get their weekly benefits


----------



## orka

TheBigShort said:


> So you are advocating that Ireland should collect more in social contributions?
> 
> 
> Yes, sounds pretty definite, you want to increase PRSI contributions.


Yes I do – I’ve said this a number of times in this and other threads – increased PRSI, low/no threshold, and an earnings cap on contributions (similar to the cap that existed pre-2011).



TheBigShort said:


> Including on low income earners, who are the primary beneficiaries of welfare payments (by virtue of their low incomes).


The primary beneficiaries of welfare payments are pensioners, those with no income and those in receipt of child benefit.  None of these would be impacted by changed PRSI.



TheBigShort said:


> So if I have this straight, you want to increase PRSI on working people, including low income earners, so that low incomes earners will in turn have less disposable income and in turn, require increased welfare benefits, payable by increased PRSI contributions from higher earners who dont qualify for welfare benefits - and this will give those workers a break?


You have very convoluted thought processes. Some thoughts:

I’m pretty sure pensioners are included in revenue income and taxation statistics (no reason for them not to be) – so many small occupational pensions will be included as ‘low earnings’ – these are not hit by PRSI.

As has been pointed out several times, low earners are often low earners because they work part time or for part of the year (my college age daughter who works in the summer and part time the rest of the year would be one of your huddled masses).  A part time low earner is not necessarily part of a low income household and may not be in receipt of any welfare payments.

So for various reasons, many of those considered low income earners will either not be paying PRSI anyway or will not be eligible for increased (/any) welfare support as a result of changes in PRSI.



TheBigShort said:


> …payable by increased PRSI contributions from higher earners who dont qualify for welfare benefits - and this will give those workers a break?


I’ve said a few times that I would re-introduce the cap that applied to PRSI contributions until about 2011.  This is fair in the context of this ‘insurance’ having caps on benefits.


----------



## TheBigShort

orka said:


> Yes I do – I’ve said this a number of times in this and other threads – increased PRSI, low/no threshold, and an earnings cap on contributions (similar to the cap that existed pre-2011).



Yes, you have. And I have agreed in principle with the idea. Im also in favour of welfare benefits equal to or close to the workers last wage, reducing over time.



orka said:


> The primary beneficiaries of welfare payments are pensioners, those with no income and those in receipt of child benefit. None of these would be impacted by changed PRSI.



True. But working people would be. The impression I get on this thread is that working people, particularly higher earners, are already taxed too much. So increasing their PRSI wouldnt wash well with them. Perhaps some of them reading this could comment on your idea?



orka said:


> A part time low earner is not necessarily part of a low income household and may not be in receipt of any welfare payments.



My apologies, I took it as a given when I referred to low wage earners in receipt of welfare, that it was understood I was talking about low income earners in receipt of welfare. Not low-income earners not in receipt of welfare.



orka said:


> So for various reasons, many of those considered low income earners will either not be paying PRSI anyway or will not be eligible for increased (/any) welfare support as a result of changes in PRSI.



Isnt the point of this whole thread is to get those who dont contribute anything or very little, to start contributing more?
It seems like those in favour of the general theme of this thread have a wide and varied views of how to go about it.
Purple wants to increase tax rates on low earners and reduce the rates on higher earners. Firefly wants a basic income with a flat rate of tax, Brendan Burgess wants to cut welfare rates and marginal tax rates and you want to increase PRSI on working people without necessarily imposing those increases on low income earners.
All of which are inconsistent with each other and are either ridiculous (Purples idea), uncosted (Firefly), unaffordable and politically not possible (Brendan) or completely at odds with the thread topic in the first place - that would be your idea.


----------



## Purple

It would be nice if we could stay away from the personal attacks BS.
I haven't seen any meaningful suggestions from you other than minor tinkering which would have no real effect on the problem.
Increasing PRSI, getting everyone to pay it and reinstating the cap would have the effect of reducing the marginal tax rate and broadening the tax base; increasing taxes on low earners and decreasing them on high earners. That would move things back to where we were a decade or so ago. It would be a step in the right direction. Why do you think broadening the tax base and getting people to pay what they paid for decades is ridiculous?


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> It would be nice if we could stay away from the personal attacks BS.



Dont take it personally, its the sentiment expressed in your views that I think is ridiculous. 
Im sure you are nice guy otherwise.



Purple said:


> I haven't seen any meaningful suggestions from you other than minor tinkering which would have no real effect on the problem.



Dont cut welfare for the purposes of providing tax breaks for high earners. That is my suggestion.



Purple said:


> and increasing them on high earners



This whole thread has been about reducing the tax burden on high earners, not increasing it. To suggest this now is to do a complete u-turn on previous posts.



Purple said:


> Why do you think broadening the tax base and getting people to pay what they paid for decades is ridiculous?



I dont think it is ridiculous, I think it is a good idea. I have suggested on quite a few occasions that the USC rate of 1% could be applied to all income. I also agree in principle with orkas idea about PRSI contributions. But I suspect such a scheme would raise taxes on working people, not reduce them. How that would be applied remains to be seen.

This thread has been all about either cutting taxes on high earners, with the effective rates being cited as too high. The proposal to get low paid workers and welfare recipients to make up any shortfall in the interests of 'fairness' is hogwash.

I take it that you have moved from that position?


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> This thread has been all about either cutting taxes on high earners, with the effective rates being cited as too high. The proposal to get low paid workers and welfare recipients to make up any shortfall in the interests of 'fairness' is hogwash.



I don't think those on low pay should pay more tax to facilitate reductions in tax by those higher earners. However, I do think the tax paid by higher earners is too high (esp at the marginal rate) whilst those on low incomes do not pay enough / any tax.

As for the USC rate of 1% you have mentioned, for someone earning 10,000 a year, this would come to be princely sum of 100 euro! It would probably cost more than this to administer so I would suggest something higher like 3 or 4 % to have any effect.


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> I don't think those on low pay should pay more tax to facilitate reductions in tax by those higher earners. However, I do think the tax paid by higher earners is too high (esp at the marginal rate) whilst those on low incomes do not pay enough / any tax.



If you cut tax on higher earners, where will you resource the shortfall?
By the statement above it would come from low-income earners. And what is that other than a transfer of tax liability from higher earners to low-income earners?



Firefly said:


> As for the USC rate of 1% you have mentioned, for someone earning 10,000 a year, this would come to be princely sum of 100 euro! It would probably cost more than this to administer so I would suggest something higher like 3 or 4 % to have any effect.



True, infact the total would reap in about 33m at 1%. If you apply a 4%rate you are talking about some €130m in total.
Basically a drop in the ocean, the net effect could be to push people further into poverty, and perhaps seek other welfare benefits or opt out of the workforce altogether.
It certainly does not offer scope to reduce taxes on high earners.


----------



## Firefly

.


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> True, infact the total would reap in about 33m at 1%. If you apply a 4%rate you are talking about some €130m in total.
> Basically a drop in the ocean, the net effect could be to push people further into poverty, and perhaps seek other welfare benefits or opt out of the workforce altogether.
> It certainly does not offer scope to reduce taxes on high earners.



It was your idea


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> It was your idea



Yes, and your point is?


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> If you cut tax on higher earners, where will you resource the shortfall?



That question can be asked about everything (and rightly so)....e.g. 700,000 people do not currently pay income tax currently. Where do we resource the shortfall?



TheBigShort said:


> By the statement above it would come from low-income earners. And what is that other than a transfer of tax liability from higher earners to low-income earners?



I agree how it can look but I don't think one should be raised to pay for the lowering of the other as such. I think both rates should be adjusted.


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> Yes, and your point is?



My point is that even if the amount recouped is low, everyone should pay _something _to facilitate the running of our country. Just like at home when I got a part-time job when in secondary school. I handed something to my mother every weekend even if it was only a few bob.

That's why I like the idea of a basic income and flat rate of tax. It's clean and promotes working as a life style choice and the only option to provide decent quality of life for yourself within the confines of the law.


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> My point is that even if the amount recouped is low, everyone should pay _something _to facilitate the running of our country. Just like at home when I got a part-time job when in secondary school. I handed something to my mother every weekend even if it was only a few bob.
> 
> That's why I like the idea of a basic income and flat rate of tax. It's clean and promotes working as a life style choice and the only option to provide decent quality of life for yourself within the confines of the law.



Im not opposed to what you are saying, im opposed to the notion that taxes can be cut on higher earners and that the shortfall can be sourced from low-income earners.
There are two elements to this discussion, 1) low-income earners dont pay tax - to which some form of taxation could be applied, I have suggested the 1% USC as a proposal.
But as illustrated, in reality a 1%USC rate applied will only net €33m, so perhaps it would do more harm than good?

2) that high earners pay too much tax. I have agreed with this also. But what im asking is, if taxes are cut from high earners, where do you source the shortfall? I have suggested that there is scope in corporation tax.


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> Im not opposed to what you are saying, im opposed to the notion that taxes can be cut on higher earners and that the shortfall can be sourced from low-income earners.
> There are two elements to this discussion, 1) low-income earners dont pay tax - to which some form of taxation could be applied, I have suggested the 1% USC as a proposal.
> But as illustrated, _in reality a 1%USC rate applied will only net €33m, so perhaps it would do more harm than good?_



I agree it's too low and suggested something higher like 3 or 4 %



TheBigShort said:


> 2) that high earners pay too much tax. I have agreed with this also. But what im asking is, if taxes are cut from high earners, where do you source the shortfall? I have suggested that there is scope in corporation tax.



Where do we source the shortfall for anything? Looks like we are due to increase public sector salaries - where are we going to source the shortfall for this?


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> This whole thread has been about reducing the tax burden on high earners, not increasing it. To suggest this now is to do a complete u-turn on previous posts.


 Typo on my part. Fixed now.


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> I have suggested that there is scope in corporation tax.



I think we would need to be very careful here. Since Sept 2008 and multi-nationals have basically kept the lights on in this country.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> I dont think it is ridiculous, I think it is a good idea. I have suggested on quite a few occasions that the USC rate of 1% could be applied to all income. I also agree in principle with orkas idea about PRSI contributions. But I suspect such a scheme would raise taxes on working people, not reduce them. How that would be applied remains to be seen.


High earners are also working people. Otherwise they wouldn't be high "earners"

If you accept that the tax base is too narrow how do you suggest we broaden it? Increasing corporation tax doesn't broaden it.


----------



## MrEarl

Purple said:


> ....If you accept that the tax base is too narrow how do you suggest we broaden it?  ....



Thats a good question ...

A Sugar Tax won't make a massive difference, but it will help a little.  However, I think the income should be strictly redirected into the health service, so whatever extra revenue is generated is actually put towards peoples health.

In much the same way, I would also make the point that all cash or assets seized by the Gardai from drug dealers etc. should be reinvested into keeping our population safe, ensuring we have sufficient prisons etc. so any funds siezed correctly by the Gardai could be spent on improving the force and related services.

I also wouldn't have an objection to placing a tax on other types of junk food ... McDonalds, Burger King etc.  While I've been known to enjoy some of their produce, I'm also well aware that we need to all be encouraged to eat in a more healthy manner.

A Bike Tax (aka "licence" fee) to be paid by all cyclists annually would also be very welcome.  Just like motorists, they use the roads, rely on the street markings, trafffic lights etc. so should be making some small contribution to the services they use and rely on.


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> I agree it's too low and suggested something higher like 3 or 4 %



Which would raise all of €130m. Not an insignificant amount which would probably be useful for, i dunno... additional welfare supports for low-income earners pushed further into poverty?
If not, it could be used as a tax break for higher earners for sure. If we gave to the top 20% of earners Im guessing it would work out at about €5.60 a week each. Enough for a pint and packet of crisps I suppose? Unless you live in Dublin of course, you might have to do without the crisps.



Firefly said:


> Where do we source the shortfall for anything? Looks like we are due to increase public sector salaries - where are we going to source the shortfall for this?



Different topic in fairness. If you want to discuss wage restoration in the public service, or wage increases in general I will be more than happy to discuss them here

http://www.askaboutmoney.com/threads/is-it-time-for-wage-increases.200526/

Not only am I for wage increases in the public sector but also in the private sector. Not only will it spur demand, but it will take thousands out of low income and in effect answer the question you have just posed.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> High earners are also working people. Otherwise they wouldn't be high "earners"



Yes, I know. 
But if you increase PRSI rates, they will have to pay them. So taxes would be increased on high earners? Despite your typo correction, I get the impression you would support a tax increase on higher earners?


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> I think we would need to be very careful here. Since Sept 2008 and multi-nationals have basically kept the lights on in this country



Not really. It was Irish taxpayers and the Troika that kept it all going. The multi nationals look after their own interests for sure.
But arguably if we had applied a truly free market capitalist approach then the likes of Apples apparent €150bn in Irish bank deposits would, at worst been wiped, or st best, repatriated to the US incurring a tax liability that they have avoided thus far.
Nope, it is the Irish workers and taxpayers, that have kept the lights on - for everybody.


----------



## orka

TheBigShort said:


> But if you increase PRSI rates, they will have to pay them. So taxes would be increased on high earners?


Not if there's a cap.  If you increase PRSI to say 6% with a 75K cap ( I think that's around what it was before), incomes up to 112,500 would pay more; and above that, PRSI payable would be lower than the current uncapped 4%.


----------



## ashambles

Certainly having the troika was critical - the best government Ireland has ever had.

But there's around 200k MNC employees, lets say an average wage of 50k, that's around 10B in money getting pumped into Ireland each year - essentially foreign currency transfers into Ireland - new money and as such more economically important than salaries paid from money that already exists in the Irish economy. 

The section escaped the worst effects of the Irish economic crash - because their companies have little to do with Ireland, a US tech crash would be more important.

Obviously the construction sector collapsed - used be 250k employees, the public sector got squeezed as their alaries were partly being paid from construction related taxes, then the service sector shrank.

It's pretty clear that without MNC employees we would be have been looking at a Greek style situation


----------



## PGF2016

MrEarl said:


> A Bike Tax (aka "licence" fee) to be paid by all cyclists annually would also be very welcome.  Just like motorists, they use the roads, rely on the street markings, trafffic lights etc. so should be making some small contribution to the services they use and rely on.



We have 

soaring car insurance costs
personal debt problems
one of the highest obesity rates in the world
carbon footprint targets that we're never going to meet 
horrific traffic congestion in our cities 
and you're suggesting a disincentive to cycle? 

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


----------



## TheBigShort

orka said:


> If you increase PRSI to say 6% with a 75K cap ( I think that's around what it was before), incomes up to 112,500 would pay more ,



So some 92% of income earners will be hit by increased taxes, while the top 8% or so will get a tax cut?


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> Not really. It was Irish taxpayers and the Troika that kept it all going. The multi nationals look after their own interests for sure.



I'm not saying they don't, but they employ a massive amount of people here and from 2009 - recently enough, we were borrowing so much to stay afloat I think that only for multinational employment here we would not have been able to pay for public services.


----------



## Purple

ashambles said:


> But there's around 200k MNC employees, lets say an average wage of 50k, that's around 10B in money getting pumped into Ireland each year - essentially foreign currency transfers into Ireland - new money and as such more economically important than salaries paid from money that already exists in the Irish economy


 Don't forget about the other 200,000 plus jobs in Irish companies which supply those multinationals and the other tens of thousands of jobs created by those suppliers who now sell the products and services they developed while supplying those multinationals in Ireland.



TheBigShort said:


> So some 92% of income earners will be hit by increased taxes, while the top 8% or so will get a tax cut?


Yes, the top 5 to 10% who have such an unfair tax burden placed on them, the people who carry the rest of us.



Firefly said:


> I'm not saying they don't, but they employ a massive amount of people here and from 2009 - recently enough, we were borrowing so much to stay afloat I think that only for multinational employment here we would not have been able to pay for public services.


 Nobody in their right mind would disagree with you.


----------



## seamless

PGF2016 said:


> We have
> 
> soaring car insurance costs
> personal debt problems
> one of the highest obesity rates in the world
> carbon footprint targets that we're never going to meet
> horrific traffic congestion in our cities
> and you're suggesting a disincentive to cycle?
> 
> Also, most cyclists have cars and already pay motor tax.



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 and enforce as the cost of compliance would be enormous compared to revenues raised.

Even the efficient Swiss - who very sensibly rolled 3rd party insurance cover into the bike tax - gave up in 2012.

https://genevalunch.com/2011/10/14/bye-bye-bike-tax/

So cycling in Ireland remains one of the few remaining genuine bargains.


----------



## Purple

seamless said:


> 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.


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


----------



## orka

TheBigShort said:


> So some 92% of income earners will be hit by increased taxes, while the top 8% or so will get a tax cut?


Yes.  You seem surprised/unhappy at this yet you also seemed to agree earlier that a cap was fair.  Can you think of a magic way of restoring the cap that was removed in 2011 without providing a relative benefit to higher earners?  

This illustrates the big problem for high earners seeking relief from the most progressive tax structure in the world.  They were hit first and worst in the recessionary budgets (which seemed fair enough and there wasn't much squealing about it) but any suggestion of just reversing things is met with shrill shrieks from the left that high earners are being given free money at the expense of the most vulnerable.  It really seems that for high earners, tax increases are a one way street - what goes up can never come down.


----------



## Firefly

orka said:


> This illustrates the big problem for high earners seeking relief from the most progressive tax structure in the world.  They were hit first and worst in the recessionary budgets (which seemed fair enough and there wasn't much squealing about it) but any suggestion of just reversing things is met with shrill shrieks from the left that high earners are being given free money at the expense of the most vulnerable.  It really seems that for high earners, tax increases are a one way street - what goes up can never come down.



I agree 100% with this. Of course higher earners would get a benefit.....why.....because the pay so much bleedin tax!


----------



## TheBigShort

Its not that im against what you are saying, im just surprised somewhat considering this is where we started out



Brendan Burgess said:


> The Top 20% pay too high a share.





Brendan Burgess said:


> 1) Cut the levels of social welfare down to the levels paid in other European countries
> 2) Cut the higher level of tax



Then there was a move to this, which I favoured



ashambles said:


> Copy Sweden's income tax model take their rates and bands, that way there's no decrease in taxation on the higher paid





Purple said:


> Good idea.
> 
> Shortie; what he said.



And in consideration of this



Purple said:


> the proposal here is to have a fair taxation system rather than an unfair one which punishes hard work.



That a PRSI tax increase of 2%-6% on 92% of income earners is deemed acceptable to you?

I think the idea has some merit (i would be hestiant to impose a 6% rate on low-income though), certainly the extra revenue collected would go some way to providing vital social services.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> Its not that im against what you are saying, im just surprised somewhat considering this is where we started out


See, when you actually listen to what people are saying you can be surprised.







TheBigShort said:


> That a PRSI tax increase of 2%-6% on 92% of income earners is deemed acceptable to you?


 Yes, low and middle income earners are under taxed in this country.



TheBigShort said:


> I think the idea has some merit (i would be hestiant to impose a 6% rate on low-income though), certainly the extra revenue collected would go some way to providing vital social services.


 The re-introduction could be revenue neutral; the extra income could be used to reduce marginal PAYE rates. The lower and upper rates could be cut by the same proportion (e.g. a 2% cut in the higher rate and a 1% cut in the lower rate).
It would be pointless to reintroduce it as a mechanism to broaden the tax base and create a fairer system if the most under taxed earners in Europe were excluded.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> Yes, the top 5 to 10% who have such an unfair tax burden placed on them, the people who carry the rest of us.



And the top 8% , who earn 30% of the income, and who pay 50% of tax would, by my quick calculations (I stand to be corrected) now be liable for 48% of the tax take. 



Firefly said:


> agree 100% with this. Of course higher earners would get a benefit.....why.....because the pay so much bleedin tax!



Sorted so?


----------



## Gerry Canning

With 5643 viewings this is a hugely pertinent thread.

I read the consensus to now be .
1. High earners ,ie right wingish, should not be thought of as a (cash cow) .
2. Low earners ,ie left wingish, should not be thought of as (whinging classes)

One thing dances from the threads, is that if taxes are seen to be fair ,and those that work hardest get a fair deal, whilst protecting the genuinely vulnerable or those on beggars wages, we can all live with that .? 

(all we need is leadership and honesty)!


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> certainly the extra revenue collected would go some way to providing vital social services.



You know, I don't really buy this to be honest. I really think it's a cultural thing that decides the quality of public services in this (and every other) country. Simply paying people more won't cut the mustard as we have seen in the Bertie years. During the Celtic Tiger when the coffers were awash with cash we still poor public services in my opinion. Our universities were already slipping down the tables, we still had people on trolleys in A&E, the buses & trains were often late, school class sizes were probably the same. I was using a private company for my refuse collection, ditto for my electricity. I still had to queue for ages if I needed to go to the post office (which never seems to open to facilitate working people), ditto for the motor tax office. I am at odds to think of how much better our public services were when we had all this money compared to now. I accept the issue in rural Ireland regarding crime, however this has as much to do with public servants retiring early and the improved road network than anything else

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?


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> And the top 8% , who earn 30% of the income, and who pay 50% of tax would, by my quick calculations (I stand to be corrected) now be liable for 48% of the tax take.


A step in the right direction and certainly a step away from the socialist/populist lie that "the Rich" (boo, hiss) don't pay their "fair share" and are exploiting the hard pressed "Wurkers".


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> Yes, low and middle income earners are under taxed in this country.



There has been a significant jump from the top 20% who pay too much to the bottom 92% who dont pay enough.

From page 1




TheBigShort said:


> So, at any one time, a taxpayer could be categorized as both an overly burdened taxpayer (in top 50% bracket contributing to 96% of the tax) and simultaneously a tax payer who could contribute more (in bottom 80% bracket contributing to only 25% of the taxes).


----------



## Purple

Firefly said:


> You know, I don't really buy this to be honest. I really think it's a cultural thing that decides the quality of public services in this (and every other) country. Simply paying people more won't cut the mustard as we have seen in the Bertie years. During the Celtic Tiger when the coffers were awash with cash we still poor public services in my opinion. Our universities were already slipping down the tables, we still had people on trolleys in A&E, the buses & trains were often late, school class sizes were probably the same. I was using a private company for my refuse collection, ditto for my electricity. I still had to queue for ages if I needed to go to the post office (which never seems to open to facilitate working people), ditto for the motor tax office. I am at odds to think of how much better our public services were when we had all this money compared to now. I accept the issue in rural Ireland regarding crime, however this has as much to do with public servants retiring early and the improved road network than anything else
> 
> 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?


80% of the increases in spending in the State sector want on wages. 
If I get bad food and/or bad service in a fast food restaurant I don't think to myself, while sitting on the loo, give them all pay rises, that'll sort things out!


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> There has been a significant jump from the top 20% who pay too much to the bottom 92% who dont pay enough.
> 
> From page 1


You are quoting yourself. Are you saying that your view has changed significantly?


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> A step in the right direction and certainly a step away from the socialist/populist lie that "the Rich" (boo, hiss) don't pay their "fair share" and are exploiting the hard pressed "Wurkers".



This thread is "boo, hiss" the poor dont pay their fair share! Not the other way round.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> You are quoting yourself. Are you saying that your view has changed significantly?



Clearly your view has, once again.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> This thread is "boo, hiss" the poor dont pay their fair share! Not the other way round.


This thread is an argument, by some contributors, that the lazy, populist, left wing consensus (the boo, hiss bit) is incorrect. Like most left wing ideologies the populist consensus is ill-though out and based on begrudgery instead of facts.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> Clearly your view has, once again.


How so?


----------



## orka

TheBigShort said:


> There has been a significant jump from the top 20% who pay too much to the bottom 92% who dont pay enough.


The 92% was your calculation from my off-the-cuff example of one change that could be made (and, as an aside, I would see any such change as one of several changes) - a 6% PRSI rate with a 75K cap.  And you are now taking that as THE accepted definition of 'don't pay enough'?  You are very difficult to debate sensibly with.


----------



## Purple

orka said:


> The 92% was your calculation from my off-the-cuff example of one change that could be made (and, as an aside, I would see any such change as one of several changes) - a 6% PRSI rate with a 75K cap.  And you are now taking that as THE accepted definition of 'don't pay enough'?  You are very difficult to debate sensibly with.


What he said.


----------



## Firefly

Purple said:


> 80% of the increases in spending in the State sector want on wages.



Eddie Hobbs was on the Claire Byrne show last night. I don't particularly like Eddie but he came out with something....the amount of income tax levied on public sector staff more or less covers the cost of public sector pensions! That means the entire net pay for public sector workers comes from the private sector.



Purple said:


> If I get bad food and/or bad service in a fast food restaurant I don't think to myself, while sitting on the loo, give them all pay rises, that'll sort things out!



I know! Wouldn't it be nice to shop elsewhere if the service is either bad or expensive?


----------



## Purple

jjm2016 said:


> Cut the dole where do you think the savings would go,  high taxpayers are on the best wages in the world public and private this is driving up the cost of most things in Ireland, the only way around this is to use the tax system you may not like it but this is how it is going to be,Irelands high wages are driving up the cost on people on the dole and people on low income, Sort this first THEN we can look at dole


The full stop button on your keyboard is broken.
Upon what do you base your assertion that high tax payers in Ireland are on the best wages in the world?
Upon what do you base your assertion that the wages of that small group of people is "driving up the cost of most things in Ireland"?
Your opinions don't seem to be based on anything but emotion.


----------



## Sarenco

It seems odd that the self-employed start paying PRSI at a rate of 4 per cent once they reach an earnings threshold of €5,000, compared with a threshold of €18,304 for PAYE employees, when you consider that they receive less benefits for their contributions.


----------



## TheBigShort

TheBigShort said:


> So some 92% of income earners will be hit by increased taxes, while the top 8% or so will get a tax cut?





orka said:


> Yes



You then went on to assume that I took issue with this comment. But when I explained that I didnt take issue with it (just pointing out the obvious contradictions from the position of how high earners are overtaxed to increasing taxes on them)  now you take issue with me for not taking issue with you!
And you claim im being difficult!!

Perhaps you could avoid anymore off-the cuff remarks and give some concrete proposals.
I like the idea of applying the 1% USC rate on all income. Also I do think there is scope to increase effective rates of corporation tax. I also think that wages increases in public and private sectors will drive demand, in turn, increasing income tax take, increasing VAT take, increasing employment, in turn reducing the welfare bill.
All of these factors will facilitate a re-adjustment of the income tax system, reducing the burden on higher earners without unduly penalising low-income earners or cutting welfare rates. Simultaneously, low-income earners will contribute a greater % portion of the income tax take.
Unless you have better ideas (no more off the cuff nonsense please) then I will leave it at that.


----------



## Purple

Sarenco said:


> It seems odd that the self-employed start paying PRSI at a rate of 4 per cent once they reach an earnings threshold of €5,000, compared with a threshold of €18,304 for PAYE employees, when you consider that they receive less benefits for their contributions.


Self employed are "Wurkers". They might actually employ a few people themselves and that makes them employers. Employers are evil and anything they have is gained on the backs of "wurking people". Therefore they should be taxed to the hilt. It doesn't matter what they actually earn or how they earn it. 

Don't you know anything?


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> You then went on to assume that I took issue with this comment. But when I explained that I didnt take issue with it (just pointing out the obvious contradictions from the position of how high earners are overtaxed to increasing taxes on them)  now you take issue with me for not taking issue with you!
> 
> And you claim im being difficult!!



You were incorrect in that and it was pointed out to you. You are now ignoring that clarification. That’s how you are being difficult.




TheBigShort said:


> Perhaps you could avoid anymore off-the cuff remarks and give some concrete proposals.


 Sure, go back to what we had 15-20 years ago or copy the Swedish model. Would you like that repeated again?




TheBigShort said:


> I like the idea of applying the 1% USC rate on all income.


 Meaningless tokenism. It would have to be much higher to be anything more than that.



TheBigShort said:


> Also I do think there is scope to increase effective rates of corporation tax.


 What, from 11.9% (what it is now) to 12.1%? Again, meaningless tokenism.




TheBigShort said:


> I also think that wages increases in public and private sectors will drive demand, in turn, increasing income tax take, increasing VAT take, increasing employment, in turn reducing the welfare bill.



That would be a disaster and economically is complete nonsense.




TheBigShort said:


> All of these factors will facilitate a re-adjustment of the income tax system, reducing the burden on higher earners without unduly penalising low-income earners or cutting welfare rates. Simultaneously, low-income earners will contribute a greater % portion of the income tax take.



That’s typical socialist thinking; everything can be done without anyone really having to pay for it.




TheBigShort said:


> Unless you have better ideas (no more off the cuff nonsense please) then I will leave it at that.


 That’s a bit rich.


I’m glad that you have accepted that the tax base is too narrow and that high earners are over taxed. We just have to get you to take the other pinko tinted lens out of your glasses and you’ll realise that if one group pays less then another group has to pay more (as we must ignore any fantasy “borrow and pay ourselves more to dig ourselves out of the hole” mad hatter economics).


----------



## TheBigShort

TheBigShort said:


> No I am not. I know only two well the difficulties imposed through taxes and charges on working people.





TheBigShort said:


> i have no issue with agreeing that paying 40% tax on income after €33,800 is excessive.





Purple said:


> I’m glad that you have accepted that the tax base is too narrow and that high earners are over taxed.



You haven't been paying attention Purple.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> That would be a disaster and economically is complete nonsense.



The problem as I see it is that you want to keep wages as low as possible to remain competitive whilst simultaneously increase the tax take from those low wages.
Furthermore, those that have high incomes need to be facilitated with tax breaks, even though by your reckoning, its high incomes that make us uncompetitive.
Perhaps cutting the incomes of high earners would work? This will reduce their tax burden and also make them more competitive?


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> I also think that wages increases in public and private sectors will drive demand, in turn, increasing income tax take, increasing VAT take, increasing employment, in turn reducing the welfare bill.



Well, it looks like PS wages are on the up so that's that box ticked for you. Apart from raising the minimum wage, how do you propose that wages across the private sector be increased?


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> Perhaps cutting the incomes of high earners would work?



How?


----------



## jjm

firefly said how
Already happening using tax system


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> You haven't been paying attention Purple.


I have. That's why I see that you have now accepted it.


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> Simply paying people more won't cut the mustard



Its not a case of simply paying more. Its a case of living in an economy where domestic demand has taken a beating, suppressing wages, suppressing demand,increasing unemployment etc. There is growth in the economy now but it is broadly generated from the export sector. It is unbalanced.



Firefly said:


> we still had people on trolleys in A&E



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?



Firefly said:


> the buses & trains were often late,



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.



Firefly said:


> school class sizes were probably the same



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



Firefly said:


> I was using a private company for my refuse collection, ditto for my electricity.



I use a private company to collect my waste. I seperate my waster for environmental purposes. When it is collected, the contents of each bin is dumped into the same truck.



Firefly said:


> ditto for the motor tax office



Very efficient on-line service available. The que was most probably down to their being only one office in Dublin. But to have more offices would cost more taxes.
Ideally motor tax could be scrapped and a fuel charge applied?



Firefly said:


> I accept the issue in rural Ireland regarding crime, however this has as much to do with public servants retiring early and the improved road network than anything else



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



Firefly said:


> 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.



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.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> The problem as I see it is that you want to keep wages as low as possible to remain competitive whilst simultaneously increase the tax take from those low wages.


 I want us to be more competitive. If we can't increase competitiveness then we can't increase wages. The State sector is the biggest draw on income so if they massively increase efficiency (try to get up to average OECD levels) it will allow us to deliver better services at no extra cost. that in itself will reduce costs and increase competitiveness nationally. 



TheBigShort said:


> Furthermore, those that have high incomes need to be facilitated with tax breaks, even though by your reckoning, its high incomes that make us uncompetitive.


 High wages relative to labour efficiency is the issue. the Swiss are hughly paid but very productive. We are far less productive (particularly in the State and domestic sector). 



TheBigShort said:


> The problem as I see it is that you want to keep wages as low as possible to remain competitive whilst simultaneously increase the tax take from those low wages.


 I want us to be more competitive. If we can't increase competitiveness then we can't increase wages. The State sector is the biggest draw on income so if they massively increase efficiency (try to get up to average OECD levels) it will allow us to deliver better services at no extra cost. that in itself will reduce costs and increase competitiveness nationally. 



TheBigShort said:


> Perhaps cutting the incomes of high earners would work? This will reduce their tax burden and also make them more competitive?


 It will reduce tax take and necessitate a reduction in pay in the state sector.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> I have. That's why I see that you have no accepted it.



Accepted what? That on page 3 of this topic I stated taxes were too high on incomes of €33,800?
Perhaps its you that cant accept that transferring the tax liability from high earners to low earners is simply not sustainable?


----------



## Gerry Canning

I hear a lot about State Sector type higher wages.
I don,t know for sure but are our State Employees not appreciably less in number pro-rata  than most countries ? If so their pro-rata costs come down v other countries?

If our State Employees are shown to be more (productive) than State Employees in other jurisdictions , then happy us.
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.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> Its not a case of simply paying more. Its a case of living in an economy where domestic demand has taken a beating, suppressing wages, suppressing demand,increasing unemployment etc. There is growth in the economy now but it is broadly generated from the export sector. It is unbalanced.


 It is a good thing to increase the proportion of our economy wich is in the export sector. That’s exactly what we should be doing. It was the shift to the domestic sector which was a major cause of the crash we experienced.




TheBigShort said:


> 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?


 Get them to do their jobs better. We have a dysfunctional health sector and doctors and nurses are a major part of the problem (and therefore the solution). We have the worst value for money health service in the OECD. Throwing more money at it is like giving a pay rise to the guys in the fast food restaurant who gave you food poisoning.




TheBigShort said:


> 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.


 Busses are much better than they used to be. It’s amazing what the threat of competition can do!




TheBigShort said:


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


 Reducing class sizes is about the worst value for money thing you can do in the education sector. It requires more schools and more teachers. What we need is more non classroom facilities, more specialist teachers and generally better training. Teachers with the balls to mark their own students would also help.




TheBigShort said:


> I use a private company to collect my waste. I seperate my waster for environmental purposes. When it is collected, the contents of each bin is dumped into the same truck.


 Have you reported them?




TheBigShort said:


> Very efficient on-line service available. The que was most probably down to their being only one office in Dublin. But to have more offices would cost more taxes.
> 
> Ideally motor tax could be scrapped and a fuel charge applied?


 Agreed.




TheBigShort said:


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


 




TheBigShort said:


> 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 have a lack of skilled labour in this country, particularly in the construction sector. We really don’t need another situation where semi-skilled bricklayers are getting paid €2500 a week.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> Accepted what? That on page 3 of this topic I stated taxes were too high on incomes of €33,800?
> Perhaps its you that cant accept that transferring the tax liability from high earners to low earners is simply not sustainable?


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


----------



## Purple

Gerry Canning said:


> 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

TheBigShort said:


> 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_.




TheBigShort said:


> 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.




TheBigShort said:


> 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.



TheBigShort said:


> 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.



TheBigShort said:


> 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.



TheBigShort said:


> 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




TheBigShort said:


> 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

Firefly said:


> 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.



Firefly said:


> 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!



Firefly said:


> 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?



Firefly said:


> Of course I am not saying that!



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


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> 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.





TheBigShort said:


> 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

Purple said:


> 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

Purple said:


> 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.



Purple said:


> 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.



Purple said:


> 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

TheBigShort said:


> 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

TheBigShort said:


> 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

TheBigShort said:


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



Go for it and I will contribute




TheBigShort said:


> 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.



TheBigShort said:


> 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?



TheBigShort said:


> 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

TheBigShort said:


> 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

PGF2016 said:


> .....
> 
> 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.



PGF2016 said:


> .....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.



seamless said:


> 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. 



Purple said:


> 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

MrEarl said:


> 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

Purple said:


> 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...





MrEarl said:


> 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? 



MrEarl said:


> 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.



MrEarl said:


> 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

Purple said:


> 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.




Purple said:


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



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



Purple said:


> 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

Firefly said:


> 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

Firefly said:


> 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?





Firefly said:


> 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

TheBigShort said:


> 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

TheBigShort said:


> 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

ashambles said:


> 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?


----------



## TheBigShort

orka said:


> 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?



Because it makes way for those on the lowest of incomes to be able to manage the cost of living in this country. To extract higher taxes from such low incomes sows dissent.
This was evident in the water charges protest. Some might label that the protesters as nothing more than left-wing rabble, but that would be out of naivety. The largest protests were made of people who are working people, many on reasonable average incomes who simply had enough of the repeated penny-pinching and wage suppression.
It also evident in the UK, Scottish Independence movement, Brexit etc, also evident in France with increasing strikes. Also evident in the US and im not even talking about Trump. Im talking about Sanders, a self-labelled socialist, who pushed Clinton close for the nomination. Imagine if a socialist was President of the United States! Unthinkable 10yrs ago.

The Capitalist system is broken, if it is to be restored it needs society to buy into it. Who should pay for that? The poor?


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> Yes, build more schools and employ more teachers.



Where will this money come from?

Would it not be better & cheaper to raise our teaching standards? Can you imagine the improvement in teaching standards if courses were run during the summer months? Most schools have wifi - couldn't the highest regarded teachers provide in-service training over Skype at little or no cost? That's what we do at the company I am contracting for - we have lunch & learn sessions every month where someone prepares an in-service on a particular topic. Can you imagine the material that could be gone through over 6 weeks every summer! And it wouldn't cost a cent. Wouldn't it be great to be regarded as the country in Europe with the highest teaching standards?


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> 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?



I certainly would not increase wages! I would look at other options regarding the infrastructure...perhaps there are lines that are unprofitable that could be just as easily be replaced with a private bus operator.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> 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.


 You talk about a 40% income tax rate at €33,800 which is the marginal tax rate. Later, when talking about the highest earners you talk about overall tax paid as a proportion of income. This is typical socialist double speak, using two different meansurements when talking about the same thing.

The marginal tax rate on 33,800 is not 40%, it’s closer to 50% as there are three different kinds of income tax applied.  








TheBigShort said:


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



Ok, €180 here, €2280 in the UK.






TheBigShort said:


> 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? [/QUOTE]

€18000 is £16100/£16200. A single person on £16200 a year will pay £1040.00 in income tax and £976.80 in National Insurance. That’s £2016.8 or €2254.58. Calculations 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. [/QUOTE]

See, you are doing it here.

People on relatively high incomes are paying 52% income tax. In the UK it’s 42% on incomes up to £150,000 (€168,000) a year and after that it’s 47%. The amount of your marginal income you get to take home is nearly 21% higher in the UK.


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> This was evident in the water charges protest. Some might label that the protesters as nothing more than left-wing rabble, but that would be out of naivety. _The largest protests were made of people who are working people_, many on reasonable average incomes who simply had enough of the repeated penny-pinching and wage suppression.



Source please?

I spoke to the guy who was putting down our meter and he told me the only areas where they met resistance were in areas where "people are used to getting everything for nothing" as he put it himself.


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> Source please?
> 
> I spoke to the guy who was putting down our meter and he told me the only areas where they met resistance were in areas where "people are used to getting everything for nothing" as he put it himself.



Source please.


----------



## Gerry Canning

Purple ,
We don,t have a real lack of skilled labour in any sector.
What we have is competition for scarce skills eg IT, nurses etc.
We will continue to have anomalies such as occurred in fluffy times on building boom.
Any sector where wages take an obvious spike will always be a sign of trouble.eg your brickie example.

Reducing class sizes to an optimum level  can make sense, if students learn well, and be cost effective .Your other comments are ok but again all change costs money , so would be hard   to implement and people fear change and need to be brought properly onside..

It seems to me that doctors and nurses do a good job and that they are willing to tweak the way they do things if the infrastructure is in place eg funding seems to run from crisis to crisis meaning operations are cancelled etc.

Fully agree that because we are small , we need to increase the export sector, again it looks like we ain,t doing too bad by international comparisons.

Maybe in todays world 33,800 is a high earner ! Seems to mise, a dumbing down of wages continues apace ?


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> perhaps there are lines that are unprofitable that could be just as easily be replaced with a private bus operator.



Well are there, or are there not? It all sounds great to 'privatise' these services but it is rarely supported by any economic or social impact. Instead the profits to be made for foreign shareholders is the aim.


----------



## TheBigShort

You cant accuse me of double speak when on the one hand you proclaim the top 5%-10% carry the rest of us and low and middle income earners do not pay enough tax while simultaneously highlight a 52% tax on incomes over €33,800 as being too high.
On the one hand you label some people for not paying for anything and simultaneously say that most income earners dont pay enough tax.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> Yes, the top 5 to 10% who have such an unfair tax burden placed on them, the people who carry the rest of us.





Purple said:


> Yes, low and middle income earners are under taxed in this country.


----------



## ashambles

TheBigShort said:


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


The Irish secondary school year is 167 days. I think Mexico is our nearest rival in terms of shortness. More typically that length is 180-190.

So there's up to a month of missing school days in the Irish secondary year, we try to make up for it by having longer school weeks. That may sound equivalent, but it's a a problem. Since now you need to teach ~10% more classes per week than in other countries you have to hire more teachers than they do. You're also going to find a school doing things like having a class of 34 instead of splitting it into two classes.

Many of our of our secondary school problems can be traced to the school year, stressed out teachers complaining of not enough time during work hours to prepare, pupils struggling to keep up, large class sizes, better off families being able to use grinds to fill in the gaps to their fortunate children.

From what I can see the number of secondary school students in Ireland is around 370,000. The number of secondary school teachers in both public and private seems to be around 28000. That's a ratio of something like 14:1.

With that ratio and when class sizes can be 30+, it should be clear we've got a problem allocating teachers.

Throwing money at it as you suggest - would certainly bring down the student teacher ratio further, it is not guaranteed it would bring down class sizes.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> You cant accuse me of double speak when on the one hand you proclaim the top 5%-10% carry the rest of us and low and middle income earners do not pay enough tax while simultaneously highlight a 52% tax on incomes over €33,800 as being too high.
> On the one hand you label some people for not paying for anything and simultaneously say that most income earners dont pay enough tax.


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.


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> Source please.



You first. And short of recording the conversation I cannot provide the source. However, it's not something I head anecdotally, it was a conversation I had with the installer myself.


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> Well are there, or are there not?


You'd have to ask Irish Rail (good luck with that!) or the minister for transport. Do you really think that all lines are profitable? If not what's your solution?



TheBigShort said:


> It all sounds great to 'privatise' these services but it is rarely supported by any economic or social impact.



Aircoach seems to work pretty well. Ryanair seems to work pretty well. De-regulating the taxis seems to work pretty well. De-regulating the energy sector seems to work pretty well. De-regulating the telecoms industry seems to work pretty well. See where I am going?




TheBigShort said:


> Instead the profits to be made for foreign shareholders is the aim.



That could be viewed as zeonophobic. We live in a European union where there is meant to be the free movement of people and capital. Are you suggesting irish firms should not be able to compete abroad?


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> You first. And short of recording the conversation I cannot provide the source. However, it's not something I head anecdotally, it was a conversation I had with the installer myself.



https://www.google.ie/amp/www.thejournal.ie/water-protests-2-2564346-Jan2016/?amp=1

http://www.rte.ie/news/2016/0917/817201-water-charges-protest/

http://m.independent.ie/irish-news/...o-protest-against-water-charges-34471236.html


----------



## orka

TheBigShort said:


> https://www.google.ie/amp/www.thejournal.ie/water-protests-2-2564346-Jan2016/?amp=1
> 
> http://www.rte.ie/news/2016/0917/817201-water-charges-protest/
> 
> http://m.independent.ie/irish-news/...o-protest-against-water-charges-34471236.html


These show that many went to the protests (we all know that) - there's nothing about their backgrounds and in particular whether they are 'working people' which is what you said.


----------



## Purple

Gerry Canning said:


> Purple ,
> We don,t have a real lack of skilled labour in any sector.


 That's a lack of skilled labour. The lack of skilled labour in the construction sector is because our construction tradespeople are not much good at their job. The standard of training and skills is higher in Eastern Europe and most of the UK. So we have them, they just aren't very good.



Gerry Canning said:


> We will continue to have anomalies such as occurred in fluffy times on building boom.
> Any sector where wages take an obvious spike will always be a sign of trouble.eg your brickie example.


 Yes, they are examples of skilled or semi-skilled labour.



Gerry Canning said:


> Reducing class sizes to an optimum level  can make sense, if students learn well, and be cost effective .Your other comments are ok but again all change costs money , so would be hard   to implement and people fear change and need to be brought properly onside..


 Reducing class sizes is very bad value for money if done by building more classrooms and employing more teachers. There are far better and cheaper ways to get the same returns in terms of educational outcomes.



Gerry Canning said:


> It seems to me that doctors and nurses do a good job and that they are willing to tweak the way they do things if the infrastructure is in place eg funding seems to run from crisis to crisis meaning operations are cancelled etc.


 Really? 20 odd years for Consultants to renegotiate their contract. Nurses who won't take bloods or monitor patients after IV antibiotics (duties carried out by nurses here until recently and just about everywhere else still). GP's who do far less than they do in the UK, despite being paid far more here. Doesn't sound like they are part of the solution to me. 



Gerry Canning said:


> Fully agree that because we are small , we need to increase the export sector, again it looks like we ain,t doing too bad by international comparisons.


 Only in the multinational sector. Irish export businesses, who are less capital intensive and so more exposed to wage costs, are still struggling.



Gerry Canning said:


> Maybe in todays world 33,800 is a high earner ! Seems to mise, a dumbing down of wages continues apace ?


I don't think it is. I don't see any evidence of the dumbing down of wages. We are one of the highest wage economies in the world.


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> You'd have to ask Irish Rail (good luck with that!) or the minister for transport. Do you really think that all lines are profitable? If not what's your solution?



So there might not be unprofitable lines then?
In any case you assume the purpose of irish rail is to generate profit for the taxpayer. The purpose of a public transport system is to provide an efficient sustainable means of transport for the population. If that turns out a paper loss, then that loss needs to be weighed against the economic and social impact of providing public transport in the first place.
I laugh when I hear people suggesting 'car pooling' as a means to reduce gridlock in traffic. Its like they never notice the big double-decker bus-pool that operates in Dublin. But if Dublin Bus returns a loss there are calls to privatise it. If it makes a profit there are calls to privatise it and resistance against paying workers a fair share.
Why not invest in it? Increase the fleet, reduce fares? For every 80 passengers on a bus there is arguably 20 cars, at least, removed from the road reducing gridlock.But god forbid, the taxpayer should have to pay for this!



Firefly said:


> De-regulating the taxis seems to work pretty well



I dont think the taxi service was ever a public service. If its de-regulation you are in favour of, I could easily point to de-regulation of bank lending to show how sometimes it doesnt work too well.




Firefly said:


> De-regulating the energy sector seems to work pretty wel



Yes, I now participate in the annual charade of changing my electricity provider every twelve months to which ever provider is offering the best 'new customer' deal. In the end, my bill stays the same or in-line with increases/decreases as determined by...erm...the energy regulator. Only the suckers who fail to change plans get fleeced. Although admittedly, the supply of electricity from energia this year was so much better than sseairtricity (im being sarcastic here).



Firefly said:


> De-regulating the telecoms industry seems to work pretty well.



Yes, especially as the sale of Telecom Eireann was front-loaded onto Irish citizens in the form of shares that crashed and burned, before being scooped up at rock bottom by whatever conglomerate has it now.
As for the providers, more circus theatrics in the name of 'value', 'free enterprise'.



Firefly said:


> That could be viewed as zeonophobic.



It could, or it could be viewed as wealth being sucked out of the country unnecessarily.


----------



## TheBigShort

orka said:


> These show that many went to the protests (we all know that) - there's nothing about their backgrounds and in particular whether they are 'working people' which is what you said.



Using logic, I would assume that a large proportion (vast majority) of these people were working people. I do this by comparing these marches to the last time similar sized marches occur, like for instance, the PAYE marches in the '80's. Or when farmers march, or students. 
I cant recall the last time lazy, want everything for nothing, type people marched in such numbers. By definition, they couldn't organise a group march to the pub, let alone organise marches across the country, in thousands. So by that reasoning, I would deduce that they are mostly hard-working people fed-up with the penny-pinching, wage suppression system.


----------



## Toledo

It has been proven that austerity does NOT work. Wealth does not trickle down from the top, instead, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer and the middle class shrink in size.


----------



## Leo

MrEarl said:


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



It has proven to be a disincentive in every jurisdiction in which licensing of cyclists has been trialed, has cost more to implement and administer than it's taken in and only left motorists more frustrated with extra traffic volumes. If traffic keeps going the way it is in Dublin, I might have to start cycling my commute.



MrEarl said:


> 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).



It certainly did increase the price of bikes here, though not massively as you suggest, but most if not all costs to the state have been recouped through additional employment, tax on significantly increased sales of accessories, clothing and servicing. It's predicted that the increased activity levels will also save the health service money over the longer term, but that's harder to put numbers on.



MrEarl said:


> 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.



Every tax payer contributes towards those costs, there is no special fund that motorists pay into, so that argument is moot. I don't have kids, yet my tax goes to pay for their schools, their free GP care, etc., I've never been unemployed, but my taxes also contribute towards those who are. I've always paid my own way in terms of accommodation, but again my taxes those in receipt of state aid. That's just how the tax system works, you don't get to pick and choose.



MrEarl said:


> 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.



So to introduce equal treatment just for users of the various transport methods, as our motor tax system is emissions based, cyclists would pay zero, or such a token amount that the regulation and administration costs would far exceed the revenue taken in. It could even be argued that bikes have such a positive impact on the environment that cyclists should be incentivised. In fact, incentives are already in use or being trialed in other countries as a means of addressing worsening urban pollution due to the increasing populatiry of small diesel engines. France pay cyclists 25c per km cycled on their commutes following a successful 6 months trial there resulted in fewer cars on the road. Zero emmissions cars also get a €5,000 credit from the taxpayer here. Perhaps we should offer a level playing field there and extend similar credits to bikes? Extending the logic of funding road infrastructure only by those using it, those taking trains or buses should surely pay a lot more as overall, those are heavily state subsidised.


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> So there might not be unprofitable lines then?
> In any case you assume the purpose of irish rail is to generate profit for the taxpayer. The purpose of a public transport system is to provide an efficient sustainable means of transport for the population. If that turns out a paper loss, then that loss needs to be weighed against the economic and social impact of providing public transport in the first place.



That's exactly what's NOT happening though. If it's losing money the "solution" is always to throw more money at it. Alternatives should be considered and if that means replacing something which is losing money with something that breaks even or even makes money it should be considered.




TheBigShort said:


> I dont think the taxi service was ever a public service.



Taxis do provide a transport service available to be public just like buses, trains and car ownership, they just happen to be privately owned. Remember all the fuss when they were being de-regulated? Look at it now. I use Hailo and can get a cab in minutes. As for the buses, all we have (at some bus stops mind) is a display telling us how many minutes away the bus is. Last Saturday this increased as I was watching it from 8 minutes to 11 minutes. Was the bus driver reversing or something! Why not put the buses on a map like Hailo where we can see where they are...that way I can judge when to leave the house instead of getting the info when I get to the bus stop. Easy, simple idea but try getting that past the unions!



TheBigShort said:


> If its de-regulation you are in favour of, I could easily point to de-regulation of bank lending to show how sometimes it doesnt work too well.



The banks WERE being regulated! Did you not hear the ads for the last 10 years "Regulated by the Financial Regulator / Central Bank"? Those institutions just didn't do their jobs





TheBigShort said:


> Yes, I now participate in the annual charade of changing my electricity provider every twelve months to which ever provider is offering the best 'new customer' deal. In the end, my bill stays the same or in-line with increases/decreases as determined by...erm...the energy regulator. Only the suckers who fail to change plans get fleeced. Although admittedly, the supply of electricity from energia this year was so much better than sseairtricity (im being sarcastic here).



At least you have the choice and as you said yourself, buy not choosing to switch you pay higher. How much would you be paying if you didn't have a choice? Remember those Aer Lingus flights to London before Ryanair came on the scene? Remember the opposition to opening up the airways? 




TheBigShort said:


> Yes, especially as the sale of Telecom Eireann was front-loaded onto Irish citizens in the form of shares that crashed and burned, before being scooped up at rock bottom by whatever conglomerate has it now.



It didn't work out well for most (I sold my shares the day after the floatation and made 19% btw), but that's not the point. Can you imagine the offering of mobile options if all we had was good ole Telecom Eireann?

Lastly, what do you make of my suggestion for teachers to work during the summer and give each other courses over Skype to improve their teaching standards?


----------



## Firefly

orka said:


> These show that many went to the protests (we all know that) - there's nothing about their backgrounds and in particular whether they are 'working people' which is what you said.



Exactly. A decent source please.


----------



## Firefly

Toledo said:


> It has been proven that austerity does NOT work.



Since 2008 (and before actually) we have been running a budget deficit in this country. This means we are borrowing money as our income is less than our expenditure. How is this austerity? If you are earning 30k a year but spending 35k a year by going to the Credit Union, would you classify that as austerity?

And, if that we DO have austerity and it's not meant to work, then how come we have the fastest growing economy in Europe with falling unemployment?


----------



## Firefly

.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> If its de-regulation you are in favour of, I could easily point to de-regulation of bank lending to show how sometimes it doesnt work too well.


 Please point it out. I missed it.



TheBigShort said:


> It could, or it could be viewed as wealth being sucked out of the country unnecessarily.


 It could be viewed as wealth being sucked out of the country unnecessarily but only if you are xenophobic.



Toledo said:


> It has been proven that austerity does NOT work. Wealth does not trickle down from the top, instead, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer and the middle class shrink in size.


 Can you back any of that up? Can you point to where any of that has been proven?


----------



## Toledo

Purple, read " The Austerity Delusion " by Paul Krugman and revert, then look to the U.S.A., it printed it's way out of recession, with dollars.


----------



## Purple

Toledo said:


> Purple, read " The Austerity Delusion " by Paul Krugman and revert, then look to the U.S.A., it printed it's way out of recession, with dollars.


"leprechaun economics" Paul Krugman?
"People in Ireland should just hand the keys of their houses back to the banks" Paul Krugman?

I know he won the Nobel Prize for Economics but David Trimble and Yasser Arafat won the Nobel Peace Prize.


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> That's exactly what's NOT happening though. If it's losing money the "solution" is always to throw more money at it. Alternatives should be considered and if that means replacing something which is losing money with something that breaks even or even makes money it should be considered.



If the public transport system is losing money, the reasons for the losses need to be factored in.
For instance, if a bus and rail system are generating losses in a high density area, is it because people dont use the system because of high prices, or are the fares affordable but the system unreliable? If its the latter, competition would be useful. If the former, taxpayer subsidies to reduce prices, increase passengers, reducing gridlock would be useful - still making a loss, but the economic benefit in reducing gridlock would outweigh the loss.
In any case, is Irish rail making a loss? Is Dublin Bus making a loss?



Firefly said:


> Taxis do provide a transport service available to be public just like buses, trains and car ownership,



I was talking about public/state ownership.



Firefly said:


> Why not put the buses on a map like Hailo where we can see where they are...that way I can judge when to leave the house instead of getting the info when I get to the bus stop.



Great idea, the assumption is the unions wouldnt allow it, doubt it. I would put it down to poor management.



Firefly said:


> The banks WERE being regulated!



What do call a regulated sector where the regulators turn a blind eye? I'll give you a clue, it starts with u, ends with d, and has -nregulate- in the middle.
For sure, it was never official or legislated for, but it amounted to the same thing. Check out those bank balance sheets, or the value of shares wiped out. 
If they were State run there would be a clamour of calls to privatise it for 'market efficiencies'.




Firefly said:


> At least you have the choice and as you said yourself, buy not choosing to switch you pay higher



No I don't have a choice. Upon my contract expiring, my existing provider refused to match the offer of the other providers. Citing that there discount offers were for new customers only! 
So in order not to lose money, I have to change provider. This is not free market, the regulator imposes minimum charges that the providers must charges, with the exception of discount offers for new customers.
Profits are not being driven by market efficiencies but by consumer inefficiencies.
Its a circus and a nonsense.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> Please point it out. I missed it



For sure it was never official or legislated for, but a blind eye was turned. Ask Firefly.



Purple said:


> It could be viewed as wealth being sucked out of the country unnecessarily but only if you are xenophobic.



I suppose, in the same way you always mention how we need to compete with other countries could be construed as xenophobic, but only if you were desperate to make a cheap point.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> What do call a regulated sector where the regulators turn a blind eye? I'll give you a clue, it starts with u, ends with d, and has -nregulate- in the middle.


 Eh no, that's not what it's called.




TheBigShort said:


> Profits are not being driven by market efficiencies but by consumer inefficiencies.


 Wow, that says it all.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> For sure it was never official or legislated for, but a blind eye was turned. Ask Firefly.


 Not following the rules or the State appointed regulator and Department of Finance being incompetent does not mean the rules were not there. 





TheBigShort said:


> I suppose, in the same way you always mention how we need to compete with other countries could be construed as xenophobic, but only if you were desperate to make a cheap point.


 No, that's not the same thing at all.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> Not following the rules or the State appointed regulator and Department of Finance being incompetent does not mean the rules were not there.



That was the point I made. The bank balance sheets, the increase in lending, the absence of central bank directions post 2005 (in fact the CB was quite regular pre-2005 in public commentary warning of an over-heating property market, after 2005 it went quiet) all point to a system that had de-regulated and by-passed its own rules.



Purple said:


> No, that's not the same thing at all.



No of course not, saying 'profits unnecessarily sucked out of the country' could be xenophobic! But competing against other countries is not.
Like I said, desperate to score a point.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> Eh no, that's not what it's called.



There are other words for it, but without wanting to get into any legal difficulties I leave as is.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> That was the point I made. The bank balance sheets, the increase in lending, the absence of central bank directions post 2005 (in fact the CB was quite regular pre-2005 in public commentary warning of an over-heating property market, after 2005 it went quiet) all point to a system that had de-regulated and by-passed its own rules.


 There were rules (regulations) so it was not deregulated. 





TheBigShort said:


> No of course not, saying 'profits unnecessarily sucked out of the country' could be xenophobic! But competing against other countries is not.


Exactly.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> There are other words for it, but without wanting to get into any legal difficulties I leave as is.


Sure, but none of them are "deregulation".


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> There were rules (regulations) so it was not deregulated.
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.



Really, it is down to this, dictionary definitions of the word xenophobic? Talk about desperation.


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> If the public transport system is losing money, the reasons for the losses need to be factored in.
> For instance, if a bus and rail system are generating losses in a high density area, is it because people dont use the system because of high prices, or are the fares affordable but the system unreliable? If its the latter, competition would be useful. If the former, taxpayer subsidies to reduce prices, increase passengers, reducing gridlock would be useful - still making a loss, but the economic benefit in reducing gridlock would outweigh the loss.



I have never heard of anyone who didn't take the bus or train do so because it was too expensive. Actually, I did years ago, before the Cork-Dublin motorway was completed and the trains were very expensive (because they could be). Most of the complaints I've heard have to do with punctuality and frequency




TheBigShort said:


> In any case, is Irish rail making a loss? Is Dublin Bus making a loss?



Do you mean before or after any subventions are taken into account?





TheBigShort said:


> I was talking about public/state ownership.



Why the distinction between public and private sectors? Do you think the customer would care?




TheBigShort said:


> Great idea, the assumption is the unions wouldnt allow it, doubt it. I would put it down to poor management.


We might never know, but my money would be on the unions





TheBigShort said:


> What do call a regulated sector where the regulators turn a blind eye? I'll give you a clue, it starts with u, ends with d, and has -nregulate- in the middle. For sure, it was never official or legislated for, but it amounted to the same thing. Check out those bank balance sheets, or the value of shares wiped out.



That's my point. The regulator (civil servants) turned a blind eye!






TheBigShort said:


> If they were State run there would be a clamour of calls to privatise it for 'market efficiencies'.



And rightly so. A state owned back would be open to all sorts of interference by politicians.




TheBigShort said:


> This is not free market, the regulator imposes minimum charges that the providers must charges, with the exception of discount offers for new customers.



You're getting there!




Third time....what do you make of my suggestion for teachers to work during the summer and give each other courses over Skype to improve their teaching standards?


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> Lastly, what do you make of my suggestion for teachers to work during the summer and give each other courses over Skype to improve their teaching standards?



I think its a good idea. But I think you are deluded if you think it wont cost money. The notion that 'highly regarded' teachers will offer up six weeks holidays for free is a nonsense. Dont you watch the news?
And what will all the other less regarded teachers do? Go on holidays?
By the way, when you have your Skype sessions, do you do them when you are on holidays?


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> I have never heard of anyone who didn't take the bus or train do so because it was too expensive.



I did. Plenty. Far outweighing complaints about punctuality. In fact if you read any social media about the recent Bus/Luas strikes, the prominent anti-striker complaint was about fares increasing.



Firefly said:


> That's my point. The regulator (civil servants) turned a blind eye!



No I dont get your point. You want to de-regulate the regulators?



Firefly said:


> You're getting there!



Its pity that you are not. You really do believe it when it says free-market competition on the tin that it must be so.
Its a sector dressed up as a free-market with 'competitors', fuzzy warm advertising, 'exclusive discounts' (to 'new customers') and shiny logo's and marketing.
Behind it all is the Wizard of Oz in the form of the regulator determing maximum and minimum pricing to elicit profit for shareholders. Controlled by executive boardrooms who invariably will slice and dice the profits disproportionately in their own favour.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> Really, it is down to this, dictionary definitions of the word xenophobic? Talk about desperation.


 I agree, let it go!


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> No I dont get your point. You want to de-regulate the regulators?


 I think the point is that having an incompetent Regulator and Central Bank and a Department of Finance which was not fit for purpose does not equal deregulation.


----------



## Purple

Any chance of getting somewhere close to back on topic?


----------



## T McGibney

Purple said:


> Any chance of getting somewhere close to back on topic?


or, better still, putting it out of its misery?


----------



## Purple

T McGibney said:


> or, better still, putting it out of its misery?


I like arguing with socialists in the same way I like arguing with creationists. It's fun.


----------



## T McGibney

Purple said:


> I like arguing with socialists in the same way I like arguing with creationists. It's fun.


A better sport to play in than to watch.


----------



## Purple

T McGibney said:


> A better sport to play in than to watch.


 Certainly.


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> I think its a good idea. But I think you are deluded if you think it wont cost money. _The notion that 'highly regarded' teachers will offer up six weeks holidays for free is a nonsense._ Dont you watch the news?
> And what will all the other less regarded teachers do? Go on holidays?
> By the way, when you have your Skype sessions, do you do them when you are on holidays?



Why should the teachers be off all summer? Why can't they work the full year like everyone else and upskill during the times the schools are closed? That's my point and it wouldn't cost anything extra.


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> I did. Plenty. Far outweighing complaints about punctuality. In fact if you read any social media about the recent Bus/Luas strikes, the prominent anti-striker complaint was about fares increasing.



People might complain about the prices for sure, but with the Leap card and tax saver options commuting by car is probably more expensive.



TheBigShort said:


> No I dont get your point. You want to de-regulate the regulators?



My point is that the regulator & Dept of Finance didn't do their job. It's a failure by those in government (politicians and civil servants). 




TheBigShort said:


> Its pity that you are not. You really do believe it when it says free-market competition on the tin that it must be so.
> Its a sector dressed up as a free-market with 'competitors', fuzzy warm advertising, 'exclusive discounts' (to 'new customers') and shiny logo's and marketing.
> Behind it all is the Wizard of Oz in the form of the regulator determing maximum and minimum pricing to elicit profit for shareholders. Controlled by executive boardrooms who invariably will slice and dice the profits disproportionately in their own favour.



I'm not saying it's perfect, but it's my opinion that a few phone calls once a year is getting you a better deal than if you had only one provider.


----------



## jjm

after all that no reason shown why we should cut the dole and give it to the people who have prices high tax into there pay by there employer  they would need to take a pay cut  taxes on lower will drive wages up on employers ,


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> Behind it all is the Wizard of Oz in the form of the regulator determing maximum and minimum pricing to elicit profit for shareholders. Controlled by executive boardrooms who invariably will slice and dice the profits disproportionately in their own favour.



Source please? Also, the biggest recipient of funds is the ESB and Ervia, so the profits go back to the government. Why not just reduce the standing charges to these "companies"?


----------



## Firefly

jjm2016 said:


> after all that no reason shown why we should cut the dole and give it to the people who have prices high tax into there pay by there employer  they would need to take a pay cut  taxes on lower will drive wages up on employers ,



I would need a C compiler to parse that sentence!!


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> Behind it all is the Wizard of Oz in the form of the regulator determing maximum and minimum pricing to elicit profit for shareholders. Controlled by executive boardrooms who invariably will slice and dice the profits disproportionately in their own favour.


 Are you saying the regulator is in the pocket of the companies within the sector?
If so then how do the trade union officials on the broad of the ESB allow that to happen?


----------



## Purple

jjm2016 said:


> after all that no reason shown why we should cut the dole and give it to the people who have prices high tax into there pay by there employer  they would need to take a pay cut  taxes on lower will drive wages up on employers ,


I play Sudoku but I'm rubbish at this kind of puzzle... I give up; what does it mean?


----------



## jjm

rubbish at Sudoku


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> Why should the teachers be off all summer? Why can't they work the full year like everyone else and upskill during the times the schools are closed? That's my point and it wouldn't cost anything extra.



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.



Firefly said:


> I have never heard of anyone who didn't take the bus or train do so because it was too expensive. Actually, I did years ago, before the Cork-Dublin motorway was completed and the trains were very expensive (because they could be).





Firefly said:


> People might complain about the prices for sure



So you have heard of people complaining about prices.



Firefly said:


> My point is that the regulator & Dept of Finance didn't do their job. It's a failure by those in government (politicians and civil servants).



Yes, so what? De-regulate the regulators?



Firefly said:


> 'm not saying it's perfect, but it's my opinion that a few phone calls once a year is getting you a better deal than if you had only one provider.



Look, there are merits to de-regulation, privatisation etc. Generally, private companies are quicker and more flexible to adapt to change, demand etc. 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.



Purple said:


> Are you saying the regulator is in the pocket of the companies within the sector?



No.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> I play Sudoku but I'm rubbish at this kind of puzzle... I give up; what does it mean?



I think what he is trying to say is that the proposal to cut welfare so as to cut taxes for higher earners and impose the shortfall on lower earners is without any basis. Furthermore, despite the length of this thread, no-one has demonstrated how it would be implemented.
But im guessing you still wont understand that either!


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> I think what he is trying to say is that the proposal to cut welfare so as to cut taxes for higher earners and impose the shortfall on lower earners is without any basis. Furthermore, despite the length of this thread, no-one has demonstrated how it would be implemented.


 You could be right, would you bet the farm on it? Oh, and when was it a condition for expressing an opinion on a discussion forum that one must demonstrate how those views could be implemented?
Since the tax system is part of a bigger picture both taxation and spending policy must be linked. I gave you a broad outline in post 352 but you ignored it (and yes, I was hurt ). I was going to say that since I'm not the Department of Finance I can't give a detailed outline of how these things should be implemented but they are a bad example to use. Maybe the HSE... no, what about... no, I can't think of a State body to use as an example.



TheBigShort said:


> But im guessing you still wont understand that either!


 Why do you think that?


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> Oh, and when was it a condition for expressing an opinion on a discussion forum that one must demonstrate how those views could be implemented?



Its not a condition, but some indicators as to how it would be implemented might be of some persuasion.



Purple said:


> I gave you a broad outline in post 352 but you ignored it (and yes, I was hurt ). I was going to say that since I'm not the Department of Finance I can't give a detailed outline of how these things should be implemented but they are a bad example to use. Maybe the HSE... no, what about... no, I can't think of a State body to use as an example.



Gee, sorry, I must have genuinely missed it. Btw, my settings dont identify the post number, so if you quote it I promise I wont ignore it.
Im reminded of someone telling me before that the inefficiencies of public sector are treated with disdain and labelled as over bearing bureaucracies full of red-tape and a drain on taxpayer.
Inefficiencies in the private sector is embraced as the happy-clappy free market at work providing choice to the consumer!


----------



## jjm

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


----------



## Firefly

jjm2016 said:


> 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



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.


----------



## Purple

jjm2016, I find it very hard to read your posts. Can you add some punctuation please?

From what I see your point seems to be that tax cuts on high earners will not filter down/out as a reduction in what people charge. Is that correct?


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> 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.



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?





TheBigShort said:


> So you have heard of people complaining about prices.



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




TheBigShort said:


> Yes, so what? De-regulate the regulators?



I'm not saying that. I am pointing out that those whose job it was to regulate the banks (The Dept of Finance & civil servants) didn't do their job properly. People have been calling for bankers and builders to be put in jail, what about the those meant to be regulating the industry?




TheBigShort said:


> Look, there are merits to de-regulation, privatisation etc. Generally, private companies are quicker and more flexible to adapt to change, demand etc.



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!!



TheBigShort said:


> 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.


Not sure what you are saying here. The ads are obviously effective, otherwise they wouldn't be used.




TheBigShort said:


> 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.



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 !


----------



## Leo

jjm2016 said:


> 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



As others have tried to point out, your lack of punctuation and use of run-on sentences make this a difficult read. So it's not really clear what point you're trying to make. 



jjm2016 said:


> 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



Are you really suggesting that all high earners are consultants/doctors or solicitors? Or do you think those on the dole have need for the services of those who earn even more than those such as stock brokers, CEOs, marketing directors, pilots, etc.. Or are you suggesting it is the role of the tax system to sort out high costs in certain services sectors?


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> 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?



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!

There 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.



Firefly said:


> 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



So you have heard of people complaining about prices.



Firefly said:


> People have been calling for bankers and builders to be put in jail, what about the those meant to be regulating the industry?



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.
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'.



Firefly said:


> 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!!



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.



Firefly said:


> Not sure what you are saying here. The ads are obviously effective, otherwise they wouldn't be used.



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.




Firefly said:


> 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 !



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.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> 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!


 If they only worked 33 weeks a year then yes, they certainly should.



TheBigShort said:


> There 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.


 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 put



TheBigShort said:


> 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.


Ok, so there was no deregulation in the financial system. The State and it's structures just failed to do their job.



TheBigShort said:


> 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 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.





TheBigShort said:


> 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.


 I agree again. In my view the State should regulate but not run. That applies to refuse, healthcare and many other sectors.



TheBigShort said:


> 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.


 Three is a row; I agree again. What really gets to me is when they send information about charities they support with my money. 



TheBigShort said:


> 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.


 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.


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> 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?


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> 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?



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.
As I have said any criminal activity or negligence by regulators or whoever should be accounted for. The banking sector was a failure on the part of regulators and the industry itself. The industry itself has its own internal regulation, it has its own sectoral regulation through accountancy and auditory bodies, which for large fees, promise to hold and implement the highest of standards in line with regulations.
Put simply, if the traffic lights are broken because of inefficiencies in the traffic management system, it does not mean I drive my car recklessly through a junction. Im still ultimately responsible for my own actions, I do not need a state authority (as adequate or inadequate as it may be) to hold my hand.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> 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.


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. 
The rhetoric from the left wing media (RTE. Irish Times etc.) was that the failure was the result of "light touch" regulation. That's simply not the case.


----------



## MrEarl

Leo said:


> It has......



Hi Leo,

You've raised some good points in your previous response on this, so I've "liked" it accordingly... won't go back over beaten ground too much other than to say:


I never said that roads, traffic lights, cycle lanes sould be exclusively funded by those using them, only that all should be contributing (including cyclists, to get back on point here).

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.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> If they only worked 33 weeks a year then yes, they certainly should.



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.



Purple said:


> 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.



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.



Purple said:


> Ok, so there was no deregulation in the financial system. The State and it's structures just failed to do their job



Yes, and industries own self-imposed, fee charging regulators, auditors and accountants et al.



Purple said:


> in the care of the private healthcare industry, the main supplier of services is the state.



????



Purple said:


> It also involved a few small number of people so while it's irksome it is statistically inconsequential.



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.



Purple said:


> 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.



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.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> 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.


 They get paid for the summer months. Didn't you know that?



TheBigShort said:


> 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.


 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.



TheBigShort said:


> Yes, and industries own self-imposed, fee charging regulators, auditors and accountants et al.


 They are not self imposed, they are imposed by the state. 



TheBigShort said:


> ????


 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.



TheBigShort said:


> 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.


 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.



TheBigShort said:


> 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.


 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.


----------



## Purple

Purple said:


> 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.


There you go BS.


----------



## Leo

MrEarl said:


> 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).



Anywhere it has been tried, it has resulted in an overall reduction in tax revenue. Sadly, I don't think Ireland and our leaders will somehow be the first country to implement an efficient system that will actually result in a net gain to the exchequer, I fear we all know the opposite would be the case.

Doing something about the non-existent policing is the only way to target road compliance with the law. Multiple reports over the years have shown ~98% of motorists exceed the 50kmph limit in urban areas for example. Licencing, insurance, even penalty points has had no effect. Why should we expect a licence to affect cyclists, many of whom also drive, differently?



MrEarl said:


> 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.



Believe me, I'm all for widening the tax base, but I just don't see how this could be implemented in any way that would result in a net gain.



MrEarl said:


> 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.



Again, I think most other countries in the world have a better track record than us when it comes to administration. But you know that the dog licence has only 20-30% compliance here? Dog licence revenue doesn't even cover the cost or the wardens, let alone what it costs to administer and issue licences, and pay An Post for their collection services.



MrEarl said:


> 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.



I'm not sure the credit idea should be brought in here. Production and collection of evidence would be far too expensive, so it would have to be based on an honesty system, and we're just not honest enough for that to work here.

People buying bikes on the BTW scheme don't get cash back, they get a reduction in their income tax deductions. So it's a reduction in the tax take to the exchequer that is to a large degree offset by the tax take on the bike/ and increased tax take from the larger bike industry.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> They get paid for the summer months. Didn't you know that?



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?



Purple said:


> 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.



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).




Purple said:


> They are not self imposed, they are imposed by the state.



Im talking about their own internal regulations, procedures etc that failed dismally. Highly qualified, and paid financial 'experts' who didnt spot what was going on, or did, but failed to act professionally.
Really, if you have a throbbing pain in your head do need the State doctor to tell you have a headache? Do you wait until the State doctor arrives to diagnose you, or if you feel unwell do you act upon it yourself?



Purple said:


> 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.



Thats fine, but you are talking about something else. Im not disagreeing the shambles of health structures in this country. Im saying simply de-regulating or privatising an industry does not always yield the desired outcomes - efficiencies, best price, etc. The private health insurance sector is an example of that. If what carries on for 'choice' was provided by a state body it would be labelled as bureaucratic, too much red-tape etc.



Purple said:


> 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 think it was yourself that said we are a high wage economy. There are 16,168 income earners earning in excess of €275,000 pa. It would be interesting to see what exactly is done to earn amounts greater than this. Certainly professionals at the top of their game could reasonably justify amounts in and around, or above, that figure. But I suspect that there would also be a lot of exaggerated self-worth.
Without naming names, I can think of one chief presiding over a national sports organisation who earns a multiple of the total prize money afforded to the championship winners of a league that is in perpetual financial difficulty. 



Purple said:


> 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.



Its hardly a lie perpetuated by the 'left'. A simple google search will return such claims from various quarters (including the left, but certainly not exclusively).


----------



## jjm

Purple you work in engineering manafacturing  you should know that there are a lot of hardworking people employers/employees working on very low margins ,Employers have not taken a pay rise for years,Employees would not think of looking for a pay rise ,They have taken pay cuts worked short time let go and hired back again and now you want to tax them who are you going to give this money too,where do you think it will end up ,I am talking  about Employers/employees on low pay
PS
I  am not ignoring the question you asked i will address it when i get a chance


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> Rates are too high but so are the amounts at which the lower rate kicks in.



Rates are too high at too low a level. Given the cost of living, headline VAT rate, stealth refuse, property, car taxes, I would disagree that taxes are too high at the highest levels (say top 20%). Remember, the top 20% will benefit also in take home pay with any increase of the tax band from €33,800.



Purple said:


> The lower rate should kick in at a much lower income level.
> 
> The higher rate should kick in at a higher level.



There may be some scope for the lower rate to kick in at lower levels but in the round the yield will be small.



Purple said:


> The PRSI ceiling should be reintroduced.



If benefits are to remain capped.



Purple said:


> USC should be phased out as a priority



Dont agree entirely with this. Adjusted yes, but not abolished.



Purple said:


> Nobody should contribute less than 10% of their income in tax.



Why 10% and not 9% or 11%. I agree in principle that a contribution should be made but it should be relative to services provided.



Purple said:


> Nobody should be paying the higher marginal rate until they earn 150% of the average industrial wage.



No real sense to this, flies in the face of what you want to achieve. If average industrial wage falls (or more likely a greater portion of low wage jobs are created then a greater portion of higher earners will get caught paying higher rates of tax - causing threads like this to opened, back to square one.



Purple said:


> Nobody should contribute more than 45% of their marginal income in tax.



I dont necessarily disagree with the sentiment but if you combine your 150% limit with this then in todays incomes then there will be a huge shortfall in taxes collected, even the low-income earners couldnt fill that void.



Purple said:


> Overall tax receipts should be reduced as we reduce costs in delivering services.



How do you reduce the costs in delivering services other than primarily through pay cuts and reduced numbers in the public service?



Purple said:


> 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)



Average by EU standards fair enough. Average international standards, no way. Too many basket cases dragging that average down.



Purple said:


> We should strive to have wage costs as a proportion of healthcare spending at OECD average levels.



See above re international standards.



Purple said:


> Welfare rates for short term unemployed should be increased and those for long term unemployed should be decreased.



Or decreasing to a minimum set level.



Purple said:


> 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.



What happens after 5yrs? Evictions?



Purple said:


> 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.



Yep, no problem.



Purple said:


> 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.



No problem with that but it will take time and investment, more money. Would you be prepared for the government to increase borrowing if an agreed program was established?


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> 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?



I don't understand this to be honest. Teachers are paid during summer months, so why shouldn't they work? I can't see how it involves asking them for something for free. Of course the other option is to not pay them for the summer months.


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> 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).



I don't think that is correct. They do chose to use them - the state pays the salaries of teachers in private schools and some people chose to send their children there - they are still using the services that they have paid for. If all the private schools closed tomorrow, all that would happen is that the state schools would need to hire more teachers there - the costs would stay the same. 

I get the feeling that a lot of people from the left have issues with private schools. I can understand where the feelings come from - equality of opportunity and all that. We will be sending our boy to a private school in Cork - he is currently going to a feeder school (it's not officially a feeder school but the majority of boys from there go). We're quite involved in the primary school and the vast majority of parents are normal, professionals trying to give their children the best. We're putting money aside already and our fella is only 6. Others chose to smoke 20 fags a day, go to the pub 3 or 4 times a week, buy cars they can't afford and other things. Good luck to them but it's not for us.


----------



## PGF2016

TheBigShort said:


> What happens after 5yrs? Evictions?



A re-assessment of need should be done. Do you really think someone who gets a house early in life should have it for the next 50 - 60 years?


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> 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).


 Unless there are state schools sitting empty, with teachers but no students, to match the number of students in private schools, then those public schools are a subsidy on the state sector. 
As you say, the parents have already paid for their children to be educated through their taxes. Because they send their kids to private schools they are not consuming those services. If someone pays my company for goods or services we do not have to provide that's a bonus.
The same goes for healthcare; people fund the states health service through their taxes but then buy that service from a private hospital. That is a saving to the state.  

If there were no private schools tomorrow and the kids in those schools all want to state schools would the state have to provide more schools?

If there were no private hospitals or private beds in public hospitals and all those patients had to be looked after in the state funded facilities. That would add extra cost to the state system; private healthcare is a subsidy of the state system.


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> I don't understand this to be honest. Teachers are paid during summer months, so why shouldn't they work? I can't see how it involves asking them for something for free. Of course the other option is to not pay them for the summer months.



For the same reason that every other employee doesn't work during their holidays but still get paid. Its called holiday pay.
Dont get me wrong, I think teacher holidays are too long. But thats the terms they have negotiated, if you want them to work additional hours, days, weeks, etc then expect to pay for it.
No different to any other employer wanting staff to work over and above what has already been agreed to.


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> I get the feeling that a lot of people from the left have issues with private schools.



I have no issue with people wanting to pay over and above what they already pay through their taxes. That is there choice.


----------



## TheBigShort

PGF2016 said:


> A re-assessment of need should be done. Do you really think someone who gets a house early in life should have it for the next 50 - 60 years?



Re-assessments are fine.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> Rates are too high at too low a level. Given the cost of living, headline VAT rate, stealth refuse, property, car taxes, I would disagree that taxes are too high at the highest levels (say top 20%). Remember, the top 20% will benefit also in take home pay with any increase of the tax band from €33,800.


 If you agree that nobody should be paying marginal tax rates above 45% then you must agree that the current rates are too high. 52% for private sector earners and even high for state sector earners (when you include the pension levy tax).

By the way, they aren’t stealth taxes, it’s called broadening the tax base and reducing taxes on work. It’s what the World Bank, the OECD and just about everyone else says we should do.




TheBigShort said:


> There may be some scope for the lower rate to kick in at lower levels but in the round the yield will be small.


 Not if it kicks in at €5000.




TheBigShort said:


> If benefits are to remain capped.


 Agreed. If not then they should be proportional to what is paid in.




TheBigShort said:


> Dont agree entirely with this. Adjusted yes, but not abolished.


 So you think that a temporary emergency tax should be kept in place forever?




TheBigShort said:


> Why 10% and not 9% or 11%. I agree in principle that a contribution should be made but it should be relative to services provided.


 Agreed.




TheBigShort said:


> No real sense to this, flies in the face of what you want to achieve. If average industrial wage falls (or more likely a greater portion of low wage jobs are created then a greater portion of higher earners will get caught paying higher rates of tax - causing threads like this to opened, back to square one.


 That’s why we have budgets. If we reduce the tax burden on hard work and achievement then we are more likely to get hard work and achievement.




TheBigShort said:


> I dont necessarily disagree with the sentiment but if you combine your 150% limit with this then in todays incomes then there will be a huge shortfall in taxes collected, even the low-income earners couldnt fill that void.


 That’s why we should strive to get to the average level of efficiency in the OECD when it comes to value for money in the delivery of public services.




TheBigShort said:


> How do you reduce the costs in delivering services other than primarily through pay cuts and reduced numbers in the public service?


 LEAN, Kaizen, and other process improvement tools can and should be used to improve processes and efficiency. Duplication of services, duplication of actions, inefficient use of capital resources and restrictive work practices all lead to massive waste. Gets GP’s providing the same level of service as they do in most other countries. Get nurses providing the same level of service as they do in other countries. All of these things will yield significant savings. Just look at the fiasco in Waterford where the consultants and local politicians wanted a second lab but if it simply opens from 8 to 6 instead of 9 to 5 the existing and future demand can be met. I can get an out-patient X-Ray appointment in private hospital between 7am and 10pm. Why can’t I get the same thing in a public hospital? Why is multi-million Euro equipment such as CT and CAT scanners not used 20 or 24 hours a day?




TheBigShort said:


> Average by EU standards fair enough. Average international standards, no way. Too many basket cases dragging that average down.


 We are the basket cases dragging the average down.




TheBigShort said:


> See above re international standards.


 As above.




TheBigShort said:


> Or decreasing to a minimum set level.


 Agreed.




TheBigShort said:


> What happens after 5yrs? Evictions?


The possibility should certainly be there. A review and maybe a move to a smaller property. If you aren’t making the effort to fend for yourself then your fellow citizens shouldn’t have to keep paying your way.




TheBigShort said:


> Yep, no problem.


 Good.




TheBigShort said:


> No problem with that but it will take time and investment, more money. Would you be prepared for the government to increase borrowing if an agreed program was established?


 No, they could increase taxes or spend money saved elsewhere but we should be reducing borrowing, not increasing it.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> I have no issue with people wanting to pay over and above what they already pay through their taxes. That is there choice.


OK, so you agree that they are subsidising the state system then; they are paying over and above what they have already paid for.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> Unless there are state schools sitting empty, with teachers




Well according to Firely, the state pays the salaries of teachers in private schools. So they do use the resources.



Purple said:


> Because they send their kids to private schools they are not consuming those services



Paid teachers, state examinations. They do utilize the resources of the state.



Purple said:


> The same goes for healthcare; people fund the states health service through their taxes but then buy that service from a private hospital. That is a saving to the state.



All these people pay for private health insurance. Are these the same people who pay too much taxes? And want tax breaks? How about stop paying private health insurance? Introduce a universal healthcare system, not for profit? High earners would save a packet on private healthcare, me included.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> Well according to Firely, the state pays the salaries of teachers in private schools. So they do use the resources.
> 
> Paid teachers, state examinations. They do utilize the resources of the state.


Absolutely. The State pays a significant portion of the costs but the bit they don't pay; that's a subsidy.





TheBigShort said:


> All these people pay for private health insurance. Are these the same people who pay too much taxes? And want tax breaks? How about stop paying private health insurance? Introduce a universal healthcare system, not for profit? High earners would save a packet on private healthcare, me included.


 That's a different point. The point here is that they are paying those high taxes to fund a healthcare system and then they are paying health insurance because the state is so bad at providing that healthcare system. Ergo they are paying for something they do not consume or do not fully consume and so are subsidising the public system they have already paid for.
The reason the state use to make these payments fully tax deductible is because they understood it was a subsidy.


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> For the same reason that every other employee doesn't work during their holidays but still get paid. Its called holiday pay.
> Dont get me wrong, I think teacher holidays are too long. But thats the terms they have negotiated, *if you want them to work additional hours, days, weeks, etc then expect to pay for it.*
> No different to any other employer wanting staff to work over and above what has already been agreed to.



Based on this, teachers are extremely well paid. For them to work the same hours / days as everyone else, I'd imagine the average teacher would earn close to 100k.

Regarding the bit in bold, the opposite could also be argued, if the teachers want more pay then they should be expected to work additional hours, days, weeks etc.


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> How about stop paying private health insurance? Introduce a universal healthcare system, not for profit?



I'm actually with you on that - I would like to see private healthcare banned and force everyone, rich & poor, government ministers up to and including the president himself to go through the same system. No queue jumping, no special treatment for anyone. THEN we would see immense pressure on the HSE, from the great and the good to clean up its act....if the President had to wait on a trolley like everyone else, it wouldn't take long for the HSE to get its house in order!!


----------



## Purple

Firefly said:


> I'm actually with you on that - I would like to see private healthcare banned and force everyone, rich & poor, government ministers up to and including the president himself to go through the same system. Not queue jumping, no special treatment. THEN we would see immense pressure on the HSE from the great and the good to clean up its act.


I'd like to see everyone with insurance and no public health system at all. The state should regulate (properly and with teeth) and no nurse or doctor or any other healthcare industry worker should be employed by the state.


----------



## jjm

Purple and i am not picking on you ,Can you explain who is going to shoulder the cost of paying off the people in the public health system,


----------



## Purple

jjm2016 said:


> Purple and i am not picking on you ,Can you explain who is going to shoulder the cost of paying off the people in the public health system,


about 3% of people retire or leave each year. There's no quick fix. Indeed there's no one fix. The solution is thousands of little things over 5-10 years.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> The point here is that they are paying those high taxes to fund a healthcare system and then they are paying health insurance because the state is so bad at providing that healthcare system.



Nobody is compelling anyone to pay private health insurance (albeit the new higher charges in lifetime community ratings are effectively a stick to beat people with). 
Nobody is compelling anyone to send children to private schools. This is made out of choice, of free wiil.
Just because I choose to use a private car does it mean im subsiding public transport? This is a nonsense argument. The taxation system is there to provide the fabric of our society, social services, education, health services, transport etc...that would otherwise not be available to the population at large due to cost restrictions of funding private education, health, transport, housing etc.
It is impossible to gauge from one generation to the next, as to who could and could not afford such services out of their own pocket. In effect, without the use of public infrastructure - roads, legal system, planning, energy grid, education, etc it is unlikely any of the above would be available in any reasonable way for private consumption in the first place.
If people choose to pay privately for services that is there own business. But all it says to me is that there is income there to provide the adequate social services for the public at large, and as a consequence, tax cuts for such people, which inturn are expected to be provided by lower income earners (who cant afford private services) is a redundant arguement.
Btw the reason you can get a private appointment on request outside of a public waiting list is because private insurance helps you skip the que.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> Just because I choose to use a private car does it mean im subsiding public transport?


 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. That's the point about education and healthcare; people are already paying for services but choose to pay for them a second time privately because the State run services, in the case of healthcare anyway, are grossly inefficient. 

You still have not answered my questions;
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?
If the answer is yes then the private systems subsidise the public system.

Let's have a single tier healthcare system; let's make the public system run as well as the private system. It is bigger an has more economies of scale. It should be more efficient.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> Btw the reason you can get a private appointment on request outside of a public waiting list is because private insurance helps you skip the que.


 The queue in a private hospital? The one that starts at 7am and finished as 10pm? Where is that queue in the public system?


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> If people choose to pay privately for services that is there own business. But all it says to me is that there is income there to provide the adequate social services for the public at large, and as a consequence, tax cuts for such people, which inturn are expected to be provided by lower income earners (who cant afford private services) is a redundant arguement.


 It tells me that the state forces people to pay for a service but then is so bad at providing that service that people are willing to pay a second time to buy it from people who are competent.


----------



## jjm

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


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> If people choose to pay privately for services that is there own business. But all it says to me is that there is income there to provide the adequate social services for the public at large, and as a consequence, tax cuts for such people, which inturn are expected to be provided by lower income earners (who cant afford private services) is a redundant arguement.



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.


----------



## Firefly

Purple said:


> It tells me that the state forces people to pay for a service but then is so bad at providing that service that people are willing to pay a second time to buy it from people who are competent.



THIS is why people take out private healthcare in this country.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> 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

Purple said:


> 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

TheBigShort said:


> No, it would be cheaper for everyone.



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


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> 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

Firefly said:


> 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

jjm2016 said:


> 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

TheBigShort said:


> 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

TheBigShort said:


> . 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

Purple said:


> 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

jjm2016 said:


> 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

PGF2016 said:


> 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

jjm2016 said:


> 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

TheBigShort said:


> 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

TheBigShort said:


> 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

TheBigShort said:


> 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

TheBigShort said:


> 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

TheBigShort said:


> 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

Purple said:


> 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.



Purple said:


> 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. 




Purple said:


> 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.



Purple said:


> 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.



Purple said:


> 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.



Purple said:


> 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

Purple said:


> 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.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> 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.


Yep, back in the days when they paid little or no income tax. Now they provide a far larger proportion of their income but do so through the taxation system.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> In the scheme of things, the costs of which would be chicken feed.
> 
> Borne by all taxpayers, in the scheme of things, chicken feed.


Sure, in the scheme of things, but still a subsidy and a significant one on a case by case basis.



TheBigShort said:


> Yes, that is the taxation system. *I, perhaps incorrectly, assumed* that you opposed paying for services that others use that you dont.
> 
> *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.
> 
> Again, *I assumed* the agenda was to be able to avail of such options.


Lots of assumptions. Why not take what people say at face value and comment accordingly? 

As far as I can see we all want the same outcome; a society where work is rewarded and those who need a hand up get it. We just disagree somewhat on how to achieve it.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> If you agree that nobody should be paying marginal tax rates above 45% then you must agree that the current rates are too high



They are too high at incomes of €33,800, not necessarily too high at higher incomes.



Purple said:


> Not if it kicks in at €5000.



Such a drastic reduction if implemented swiftly would cause social unrest, in the end costing the state more. Incremental adjustments would be preferable but I doubt you would ever get to such levels in the absence of universal health care for all, free childcare, higher wages, etc, etc



Purple said:


> So you think that a temporary emergency tax should be kept in place forever?



No, I just dont think it is feasible to abolish anytime soon.



Purple said:


> That’s why we have budgets. If we reduce the tax burden on hard work and achievement then we are more likely to get hard work and achievement.



Without the rewards of such hard work and achievement being distributed fairly, invariably, those who control the wealth will gorge a larger slice of the pie, leading inevitability to the imbalances in our society once again.



Purple said:


> That’s why we should strive to get to the average level of efficiency in the OECD when it comes to value for money in the delivery of public services.



We can do better than average.



Purple said:


> LEAN, Kaizen, and other process improvement tools can and should be used to improve processes and efficiency. Duplication of services, duplication of actions, inefficient use of capital resources and restrictive work practices all lead to massive waste.



All useful tools and ideas applicable to all organizations both public and private, reducing state spending and reducing the cost of private goods and services.



Purple said:


> The possibility should certainly be there. A review and maybe a move to a smaller property. If you aren’t making the effort to fend for yourself then your fellow citizens shouldn’t have to keep paying your way.



And if evictions follow? Homeless families roaming the streets? The construction of shanty towns?



Purple said:


> Yep, back in the days when they paid little or no income tax. Now they provide a far larger proportion of their income but do so through the taxation system.



Are you harking for those days?  Unfortunately, while it was admirable, it was not effective for the population as a whole.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> They are too high at incomes of €33,800, not necessarily too high at higher incomes.


 So you've said.



TheBigShort said:


> Such a drastic reduction if implemented swiftly would cause social unrest, in the end costing the state more. Incremental adjustments would be preferable but I doubt you would ever get to such levels in the absence of universal health care for all, free childcare, higher wages, etc, etc


 Why? They were at that level a short while ago and we didn't have any of those things.



TheBigShort said:


> No, I just dont think it is feasible to abolish anytime soon.


 Not without raising our game as a State drastically; maybe even to average OECD levels.



TheBigShort said:


> Without the rewards of such hard work and achievement being distributed fairly, invariably, those who control the wealth will gorge a larger slice of the pie, leading inevitability to the imbalances in our society once again.


 Why such emotive and offensive language? Would it be ok to describe long term welfare recipients as parasitic scum? I certainly don't think so and by the same token I don't think it's ok to use that sort of language about rich people.



TheBigShort said:


> We can do better than average.


 I see no evidence to support that view.



TheBigShort said:


> All useful tools and ideas applicable to all organizations both public and private, reducing state spending and reducing the cost of private goods and services.


 Agreed. We sell the same products for less now than we did 20 years ago. Those tools are part of the reason we can. 



TheBigShort said:


> And if evictions follow? Homeless families roaming the streets? The construction of shanty towns?


 Not at all; hostels are used in many countries. 





TheBigShort said:


> Are you harking for those days?


 No. Are you?


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> Sure, in the scheme of things, but still a subsidy and a significant one on a case by case basis.
> 
> 
> Lots of assumptions. Why not take what people say at face value and comment accordingly?
> 
> As far as I can see we all want the same outcome; a society where work is rewarded and those who need a hand up get it. We just disagree somewhat on how to achieve it.



No bother, I still wouldn't interpret it as a subsidy, more an affliction to burn money than is really necessary on the part of the individual.
In the end, there are so many state services that few of us are not 'subsidising' or being 'subsidised' one way or another as to cancel each other out.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> the lack of ethical standards and social responsibility by those who choose to adopt a parasitical lifestyle






Purple said:


> Why such emotive and offensive language? Would it be ok to describe long term welfare recipients as parasitic scum?



You have used emotive language yourself before when talking about poor people. Why so coy now?


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> Not at all; hostels are used in many countries.



We use hostels here too, even for people who are working.


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> 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.



I never said I was. I don't think it makes any difference whether children go to a public or private school as far as costs to the state are concerned - the state, ie taxpayer, pays the wages regardless. So we all subsidise each other in that respect. As Purple pointed out, it's probably cheaper for the state if children go to a private school as the state does not have to pay for the upkeep of the buildings.






TheBigShort said:


> 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?



We have and will continue to make sacrifices in our house to be able to send our son to a private school. "Going Private" is not an ideological position for us. In fact out daughter will be going to a public secondary school as the one very near us is regarded as one of the best schools in Cork. If the boys school near us was as good we'd send our son there. For us, it simply comes down to providing the best for our kids. Regarding private school costs, these are a lot lower then you would imagine, in fact they come in at about half the cost of putting a child in creche! And so many normal, working people are able to afford that.






TheBigShort said:


> 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.



Not sure about this example. I use Virgin Media and my mobile is with Tesco.





TheBigShort said:


> The taxation system is there to provide the fabric of our society, social services, education, health services, transport etc...that would otherwise not be available to the population at large due to cost restrictions of funding private education, health, transport, housing etc.



You are assuming that these services would be more expensive if provided by the private sector.





TheBigShort said:


> 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.



A healthcare regulator could be put in place. A private hospital could obtain a license to "trade" as long as they provide the same services as a public hospital (no cherry picking). Ditto for privatising the bus routes...a private operator could tender for a batch of profitable and un-profitable routes and have strict SLAs on delivery.


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> I never said I was. I don't think it makes any difference whether children go to a public or private school as far as costs to the state are concerned - the state, ie taxpayer, pays the wages regardless. So we all subsidise each other in that respect.



Good, you might let Purple know that.



Firefly said:


> it's probably cheaper for the state if children go to a private school as the state does not have to pay for the upkeep of the buildings.



Its probably cheaper for the state if I buy bottled water rather than drink tap water. Its probably cheaper for the state if I use my own septic tank rather than plug into the public waste system. Its probably cheaper for the state if I walk to work rather than rely on a public road system...etc
There are so many ways that it could be 'cheaper for state' if I did things without using state built structures and facilities. But if I do, then most likely so are many others, to the point that we all 'subsidise' each other to some extent.



Firefly said:


> Regarding private school costs, these are a lot lower then you would imagine, in fact they come in at about half the cost of putting a child in creche! And so many normal, working people are able to afford that.



Im sure the costs are cheaper, considering the state pays the salaries of teachers. If they paid the salaries of childcare minders, childcare would be a lot cheaper too.



Firefly said:


> Not sure about this example. I use Virgin Media and my mobile is with Tesco.



The industry is regulated by comreg, a state body. Without which any cowboy outfit could set up shop, consumers ripped off, masts set up all over the place, etc..etc..
(Those things could still happen, but at least there is some deterrent and protections).



Firefly said:


> You are assuming that these services would be more expensive if provided by the private sector.



Im talking about the infrastructure of the state. The roads, the hospitals, schools, ports, water, defence, justice system, industrial parks, community parks, energy grid,  etc...etc..
It is simply not plausible to assume the construct of a civil society in the absence of the organs of the state.


----------



## MrEarl

Leo said:


> .....Sadly, I don't think Ireland and our leaders will somehow be the first country to implement an efficient system that will actually result in a net gain to the exchequer....
> 
> ...Again, I think most other countries in the world have a better track record than us when it comes to administration. ....



Leo,

Any chance of some supporting evidence to back up your claims on things like net costs to other countries who tried to implement these ideas, or the point your making about the dog licences please ?

As for your comments on Ireland's ability to introduce an efficient administration system, all I'll say is that there's nothing to compel us from screwing up in the future, just because we've made such great successes of same in the past  

... for the record, I'd be more inclined to outsource something like this to Capita (or similar) than risk entrusting it with state employees btw.


----------



## Leo

MrEarl said:


> Any chance of some supporting evidence to back up your claims on things like net costs to other countries who tried to implement these ideas



Quite a few links  for [broken link removed] one. 



MrEarl said:


> or the point your making about the dog licences please ?



In , less than 190,000 dog licences were purchased with an estimate of more than 700,000 dogs in the country. That's revenue of less than €380k per annum. An Post are paid for their contract to collect and administer licences, that doesn't leave a lot to fund the dog warden service in each local authority area.


----------



## MrEarl

Leo said:


> Quite a few links  for [broken link removed] one.



Thanks, will have a look at the links.



Leo said:


> In , less than 190,000 dog licences were purchased with an estimate of more than 700,000 dogs in the country. That's revenue of less than €380k per annum. An Post are paid for their contract to collect and administer licences, that doesn't leave a lot to fund the dog warden service in each local authority area.



The factual bit - thats €380k (less costs, which could not be significant) more than the state woudl have had otherwise.  It all adds up !

The estimated bit - estimates are worthless, often plucked out of the air.  No offense Leo 

It is now a legal requirement to have all dogs microchipped and I know that doesn't guarantee 100% compliance, but it should certainly facilitate some sort of accurate head count on the number of dogs in the country and over time, this will become far more accurate. I appreciate that the figures you have provided date back to 2012, so clearly they are well out of date at this stage.

Also, the microchip database gives a very simple list for people to cross check, to see if everyone has paid their dog licence.  Absolutely no excuses for this one and it would be similar, if such a database existed for bike owners 

Finally, as for the dog wardens... I actually wonder if they even exist tbh.  I've never seen one, or heard of anyone else coming across one.  However, if they do exist then I'm sure we could beef up their job spec to include monitoring cyclists (subject to a big arguement with their union and a few days strike action first, needless to say )


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> Its probably cheaper for the state if I buy bottled water rather than drink tap water. Its probably cheaper for the state if I use my own septic tank rather than plug into the public waste system. Its probably cheaper for the state if I walk to work rather than rely on a public road system...etc
> There are so many ways that it could be 'cheaper for state' if I did things without using state built structures and facilities. But if I do, then most likely so are many others, to the point that we all 'subsidise' each other to some extent.



If you (and others) did all of those things, it would be cheaper for the taxpayer yes. I agree that we all 'subsidise' each other to some extent as per post 468





TheBigShort said:


> Im sure the costs are cheaper, considering the state pays the salaries of teachers. If they paid the salaries of childcare minders, childcare would be a lot cheaper too.



Are you suggesing the state not pay the salaries of teachers in private schools? Fees would rise to such an extent that children would go to public schools where the state would then need to hire additional staff - the costs would just move.



TheBigShort said:


> The industry is regulated by comreg, a state body. Without which any cowboy outfit could set up shop, consumers ripped off, masts set up all over the place, etc..etc..
> (Those things could still happen, but at least there is some deterrent and protections).



I agree with you on this - I was referring to the actual providers rather that the regulation aspect. In any case, this is an area where the state provides the regulation but leaves the private sector to provide the product / service and this is a good example of what I believe we should strive for in other areas where the state is currently providing the product / service, such as transport, education and health for example






TheBigShort said:


> Im talking about the infrastructure of the state. The roads, the hospitals, schools, ports, water, defence, justice system, industrial parks, community parks, energy grid,  etc...etc..
> It is simply not plausible to assume the construct of a civil society in the absence of the organs of the state.



I totally agree, but the state should not provide everything, but rather those products / services that are needed but not always economical. Anything the market can provide, the state should not.


----------



## Purple

Firefly said:


> I totally agree, but the state should not provide everything, but rather those products / services that are needed but not always economical. Anything the market can provide, the state should not.


Anything the State can provide better than the Private Sector should be provided by the State. I see no evidence that this is the case with Healthcare but the State generally does a good job with Education as we have an average enough education system which compares well relative to the appalling waste of money in our health service.


----------



## Leo

MrEarl said:


> The factual bit - thats €380k (less costs, which could not be significant) more than the state woudl have had otherwise.  It all adds up !



So go on then, how much of that €380k do you think goes to the exchequer after all costs are covered? Factor in what An Post is charging, the LA dog warden service costs, advertising, etc....



MrEarl said:


> The estimated bit - estimates are worthless, often plucked out of the air.  No offense Leo



None taken, however there's a whole field of science that would take offence to your generalisation that estimates are worthless. Until the CSO start tracking dog ownership, estimates are all we have to go on. The most extensive Irish survey on pet ownership only chose 200 households across the country as being representative, that found 49% of households owned one or more dogs. Work that out across number of households and it's clear the number of licences issued is nowhere close to the real number. How many dogs are currently microshipped?



MrEarl said:


> It is now a legal requirement to have all dogs microchipped and I know that doesn't guarantee 100% compliance, but it should certainly facilitate some sort of accurate head count on the number of dogs in the country and over time, this will become far more accurate. I appreciate that the figures you have provided date back to 2012, so clearly they are well out of date at this stage.



I'd like to see any evidence that micro chipping has made any difference whatsoever. 



MrEarl said:


> Also, the microchip database gives a very simple list for people to cross check, to see if everyone has paid their dog licence.



Dog licence holders are listed in a database too. How is this more recent list going to become a magic cure to address lack of compliance?



MrEarl said:


> Finally, as for the dog wardens... I actually wonder if they even exist tbh.  I've never seen one, or heard of anyone else coming across one.  However, if they do exist then I'm sure we could beef up their job spec to include monitoring cyclists (subject to a big arguement with their union and a few days strike action first, needless to say )



Every local authority either has their own dog warden service, complete with specially trained personnel, equipped vans, etc., or they have contracted those services out. I've never seen a high court judge, I do believe they exist though.


----------



## MrEarl

Leo said:


> So go on then, how much of that €380k do you think goes to the exchequer after all costs are covered? Factor in what An Post is charging, the LA dog warden service costs, advertising, etc....



If your trying to tell me that dog wardens are funded exclusively from this income, then it certainly explains why I have never seen or heard of anyone else meeting one... I seriously doubt thats the case, if they do really exist.  As for what I think the net take should be, if gross is €380k then I'd say net shoud be 15% less and thats being kind. If they made the process more efficient (i.e. changed the current paper based notification and subsequent licence, both sent by post etc.) then that could easily be trimmed to sub 10%.  Anything above that percentage is simply being spent badly, imho.



Leo said:


> ....there's a whole field of science that would take offence to your generalisation that estimates are worthless.



I'm sure they'll get over it 




Leo said:


> ....The most extensive Irish survey on pet ownership only chose 200 households across the country as being representative, that found 49% of households owned one or more dogs.



A sample group that small was rediculous, there's no way that could accurately represent the nation.



> ...How many dogs are currently microshipped?...



I don't know, but I know there's an accurate list in existence so someone knows the answer and thats massive progress on estimates based on sample groups of 200 households for example.



> ....I'd like to see any evidence that micro chipping has made any difference whatsoever.



I'd like to see evidence that it hasn't 



> ....Dog licence holders are listed in a database too. How is this more recent list going to become a magic cure to address lack of compliance?



The list of dog licence holders only has a record of those who have paid the licence fee, so by default those who have not paid it don't appear on the list.  The microchipping is now a legal requirement, so shortly after birth all new dogs will be microchipped and over time, this list will become complete (because older dogs that have not been microchipped will die off).



> ...Every local authority either has their own dog warden service, complete with specially trained personnel, equipped vans, etc., or they have contracted those services out. I've never seen a high court judge, I do believe they exist though.



You can go into a public court and see a High Court judge (working), where can we go to see the wardens (working) ?


----------



## PaddyW

Hi all, just on the income from dog licenses, should it not be €3.8m rather than €380k (190,000 x €20.00)


----------



## Leo

MrEarl said:


> If your trying to tell me that dog wardens are funded exclusively from this income, then it certainly explains why I have never seen or heard of anyone else meeting one... I seriously doubt thats the case, if they do really exist. As for what I think the net take should be, if gross is €380k then I'd say net shoud be 15% less and thats being kind. If they made the process more efficient (i.e. changed the current paper based notification and subsequent licence, both sent by post etc.) then that could easily be trimmed to sub 10%.  Anything above that percentage is simply being spent badly, imho.



You suggested that a licence such as this would be a revenue generator for the state. If you think the state is capable of pulling in a nett gain of 85% or revenue from this or any service, I don't think I'll even get there. Did you know 5 local authorities are listed as having contracted the ISPCA to perform their Dog Warden Services, for this the ISPCA receives over €1M annually. 



MrEarl said:


> A sample group that small was rediculous, there's no way that could accurately represent the nation.



Apologies, the sample was 2000, and chosen so to be representative as would be possible for such a study. I didn't suggest it would be 100% accurate, but the sample size at 2000 is statisticaly significant and the resulting numbers put us in line with the UK and a number of other EU nations. 



MrEarl said:


> The microchipping is now a legal requirement, so shortly after birth all new dogs will be microchipped and over time, this list will become complete (because older dogs that have not been microchipped will die off).



That's a long way from being true. It'll never come close to being complete when there are so many unregulated breeders in operation here. 



MrEarl said:


> You can go into a public court and see a High Court judge (working), where can we go to see the wardens (working) ?



In Dublin, call to Ashton pound, their van is clearly marked as well, or go to Wood Quay to visit the office based staff.


----------



## Leo

PaddyW said:


> Hi all, just on the income from dog licenses, should it not be €3.8m rather than €380k (190,000 x €20.00)



Oops, maybe I should leave the economic issues to those who can do basic multiplication !


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> If you (and others) did all of those things, it would be cheaper for the taxpayer yes. I agree that we all 'subsidise' each other to some extent as per post 468



Yes, but at a cost to the consumer. 



Firefly said:


> Are you suggesing the state not pay the salaries of teachers in private schools? Fees would rise to such an extent that children would go to public schools where the state would then need to hire additional staff - the costs would just move.



It was already mentioned the number of schools in total added and associated costs would amount to chicken feed in the scheme of things.




Firefly said:


> this is a good example of what I believe we should strive for in other areas where the state is currently providing the product / service, such as transport, education and health for example



The health insurance industry is a circus. If what is being provided by the private sector was being provided by the public sector you wouldn't tolerate it. Too bureaucratic, too much red-tape, too many plans etc..but because its the private sector its called 'consumer choice'.
Btw, there are real time apps for Dublin Bus available on Android and the App store.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> It was already mentioned the number of schools in total added and associated costs would amount to chicken feed in the scheme of things.


That didn't answer the question.






TheBigShort said:


> The health insurance industry is a circus. If what is being provided by the private sector was being provided by the public sector you wouldn't tolerate it. Too bureaucratic, too much red-tape, too many plans etc..but because its the private sector its called 'consumer choice'.


Are you suggesting that's the main reason it's so expensive?



TheBigShort said:


> Btw, there are real time apps for Dublin Bus available on Android and the App store.


 Yes, they are excellent. They were developed by private companies and a private company installed the infrastructure at the bus stops which displays the arrival times of the next buses. It is a good example of the Private Sector being contracted to provide or improve a public service.[/QUOTE]


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> That didn't answer the question.



You are quite adept at not answering, editing, deleting questions yourself.
But in further consideration, given the ratio of pupils attending state schools to private schools it is likely that any increase in pupil attendance at state schools would be easily absorbed without any need to increase expenditure. In fact I would say the opposite, the State would save on having to pay for private teachers.




Purple said:


> Yes, they are excellent. They were developed by private companies and a private company installed the infrastructure at the bus stops which displays the arrival times of the next buses. It is a good example of the Private Sector being contracted to provide or improve a public service.



Yes it is.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> You are quite adept at not answering, editing, deleting questions yourself.
> But in further consideration, given the ratio of pupils attending state schools to private schools it is likely that any increase in pupil attendance at state schools would be easily absorbed without any need to increase expenditure. In fact I would say the opposite, the State would save on having to pay for private teachers.


The ratio is the same. The extra teachers are paid for using the fees paid by the parents. Just another subsidy of the State schools by private schools. I think it's great; less tax for me to pay. Thank you, the parents who send their kids to private schools. You save me money. 

The idea that the state providing schools and those extra teachers would actually save the state money, well...


----------



## Purple

Purple said:


> Are you suggesting that's the main reason it's so expensive?


BS, speaking of not answering questions, how about his one?


----------



## MrEarl

Leo said:


> ....Apologies, the sample was 2000....





Leo said:


> Oops, maybe I should leave the economic issues to those who can do basic multiplication !



Eh Leo, I think you might just want to let this conversation slip away down the thread before anything else goes wrong on you 


.... I know we're never going to get to a stage where we both agree on this dog licence issue (which spun off from my proposal to bring in a bike licence / tax), but I'll just ask you to consider two more things when you think about covering the costs of the dog wardens:

There are fines for dog owners caught not cleaning up after their dog, so effective "policing" by your dog warders no doubt helps generate additional funds from that source

There's a health and safety issue, which supports the arguement for government spending general funds to help protect all of our health and not just relying on direct funding from the dog licence (and possible fines for owners not cleaning up after them)


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> The extra teachers are paid for using the fees paid by the parents



Perhaps you and Firefly need to talk



Firefly said:


> the state pays the salaries of teachers in private schools and some people chose to send their children there



In any case, you would need to drill down the figures to see how much im being 'subsidised'. Id be happy to stump up the extra €1 or €2 to facilitate full state provisions but I suspect it would actually get a refund.



Purple said:


> Are you suggesting that's the main reason it's so expensive?



No. Im suggesting the system is deliberately designed to confuse and obfuscate. But regardless of that it is still peddled as 'consumer choice'.
Are you suggesting that if a State body were to offer the layers of plans and options to the public that it would be accepted as an efficient competitive market?


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> It was already mentioned the number of schools in total added and associated costs would amount to chicken feed in the scheme of things.



We could probably argue till the cows come home whether the private schools subsidise the taxpayer or vice-versa. The point is still the same - the teachers in private schools are paid from general taxation. The creche workers aren't. Should they be? perhaps, I don't know, but it's not the point I am trying to make....the point I am trying to make is that thousands of ordinary workers up & down the country are able to send their kids to creche (albeit a lot are struggling) and the fees for private education come in at about half those for a creche...therefore not as expensive as it sounds.



TheBigShort said:


> The health insurance industry is a circus. If what is being provided by the private sector was being provided by the public sector you wouldn't tolerate it.





TheBigShort said:


> Are you suggesting that if a State body were to offer the layers of plans and options to the public that it would be accepted as an efficient competitive market?



The VHI has a myriad of plans! https://www.vhi.ie/health-insurance.

It's great that they do - more choice for people on different budgets, but it only came about due to competition. The VHI has to compete now and the result of that is better choice for consumers. when it was just the good ole VHI there was very little choice and "having VHI" was almost a status symbol. The VHI was to healthcare what Aer Lingus was to travel.




TheBigShort said:


> The health insurance industry is a circus.....Too bureaucratic, too much red-tape, too many plans etc..but because its the private sector its called 'consumer choice'.




I disagree, I think it's much better. Due to competition there are products to suit different levels of income. As already mentioned, in the past one could only select from a few very expensive plans from the VHI...this excluded most from private healthcare. Now however there are plans to suits many different income levels. As for the red tape, I'm not sure what you mean here - I've set up my insurance pretty easily.




TheBigShort said:


> Btw, there are real time apps for Dublin Bus available on Android and the App store.



I am aware of those, but I'm referring to an app that shows you where the bus is as well as when it is expected to arrive. There's a big difference IMO...I've often seen the arrival time increase or drop down significantly....in other words I think it's ok but sometimes unreliable. However, if I can see on a map where the bus is then it would be much better. For example, if I am getting the bus to town and I can see that the bus has left its starting point I  know it's on its way


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> Perhaps you and Firefly need to talk


 Why?





TheBigShort said:


> In any case, you would need to drill down the figures to see how much im being 'subsidised'. Id be happy to stump up the extra €1 or €2 to facilitate full state provisions but I suspect it would actually get a refund.


 So you "suspect" that putting more kids through the public school system would save the state money. If you can draw such an absurd conclusion to a simple example it does kind of weaken your views on something as complex as the impact of QE on the American economy. 





TheBigShort said:


> No. Im suggesting the system is deliberately designed to confuse and obfuscate. But regardless of that it is still peddled as 'consumer choice'.
> Are you suggesting that if a State body were to offer the layers of plans and options to the public that it would be accepted as an efficient competitive market?


 No, but the private health industry buys most of its services from the State and operates in a heavily unionised industry where vested interest groups control so many aspects of the supply side of the market. In far too many cases when the State interfaces with the Private Sector the State gets screwed. That's because the State is rubbish at regulating, rubbish at running and rubbish at business. We have the worst of both worlds; a public health system which is grossly inefficient which is being subsidised to the tune of €2 billion a year in the form of private health insurance payments by the same people who pay for it the first time through their taxes. That gives a two tier system which is unfair and inequitable.


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> Perhaps you and Firefly need to talk





TheBigShort said:


> Good, you might let Purple know that.



Divide and conquer eh?


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> Divide and conquer eh?



I didn't know the State subsidised the salaries for school teachers in private schools at all. You seem to say that all teacher salaries are paid by the State. Purple seems to say that only some teacher salaries are paid by the State.
We cant all be correct.


----------



## orka

TheBigShort said:


> I didn't know the State subsidised the salaries for school teachers in private schools at all. You seem to say that all teacher salaries are paid by the State. Purple seems to say that only some teacher salaries are paid by the State.
> We cant all be correct.


Purple is correct.  My daughter goes to a private school.  Most of the teachers are paid by the state and the school also employs some extra teachers who are paid solely by the school.  I'm pretty sure that's how most private schools operate.  

I can only think of one totally private school - the Institute of Education on Lesson St.  They are not subsidised in any way by the state.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> If you can draw such an absurd conclusion to a simple example it does kind of weaken your views on something as complex as the impact of QE on the American economy



I didn't come to any conclusion, I made an assumption (without all the data, that is all that can ever be epoused here)  based on teacher pupil ratios in State funded schools relative to teacher pupil ratios in private schools.

You seem to say that only SOME teachers salaries in private schools are paid by the State. Firefly seems to say that ALL teacher salaries are paid by the State. I didn't think that ANY teacher salaries were paid by the State to private schools.
We cant all be right. Until the facts emerge as to how many teacher salaries are being paid then all opinion and observations are of 
equal merit.
To dismiss such opinions out of hand is to forgo your own inherent ignorance.


----------



## TheBigShort

orka said:


> Purple is correct.  My daughter goes to a private school.  Most of the teachers are paid by the state and the school also employs some extra teachers who are paid solely by the school.  I'm pretty sure that's how most private schools operate.
> 
> I can only think of one totally private school - the Institute of Education on Lesson St.  They are not subsidised in any way by the state.



Thanks for that Orka, this would imply that as the State already pays the salaries of the bulk of teachers, then what else is left to pay?
If students were absorbed into local State schools then office Secretaries, Caretakers already employed would be of no extra cost.
If it was a case of retaining the school in its current structure, only then would rent, heating, Caretaker, Secretary, some extra teacher salaries etc would come into play.
But the ratio of State run schools to private schools is huge.
In all a tax increase of €1 or €2 pa should cover it, if at all.


----------



## Leo

MrEarl said:


> ..so effective "policing" by your dog warders no doubt helps generate additional funds



Now that is funny!


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> You seem to say that only SOME teachers salaries in private schools are paid by the State. Firefly seems to say that ALL teacher salaries are paid by the State. I didn't think that ANY teacher salaries were paid by the State to private schools.
> We cant all be right. Until the facts emerge as to how many teacher salaries are being paid then all opinion and observations are of
> equal merit.



I would say Orka is right - the state pays the salaries of most teachers in private schools (probably to meet the same pupil / teacher ratio as in public schools). The private schools, through the fees they collect can then pay for additional teachers if they wish. 

It's still cheaper for the state though isn't it as the state doesn't have to pay for the upkeep of the buildings, insurance, rent, heating etc?


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> that thousands of ordinary workers up & down the country are able to send their kids to creche (albeit a lot are struggling) and the fees for private education come in at about half those for a creche...therefore not as expensive as it sounds.



Thousands cannot send their kids to creche because it is cost prohibitive relative to the income on offer in paid employment.
If we were to privatise education, the same would occur.



Firefly said:


> The VHI has a myriad of plans!



Them, and the rest, making my point.



Firefly said:


> It's great that they do



Its a circus.



Firefly said:


> more choice for people on different budgets,



Because people on different budgets have different healthcare needs?



Firefly said:


> but it only came about due to competition.



Perceived competition.



Firefly said:


> Due to competition there are products to suit different levels of income.



Because people on lower incomes dont require healthcare that is as expensive as people on higher incomes?



Firefly said:


> this excluded most from private healthcare



Most are still excluded, cost prohibitive.



Purple said:


> No, but the private health industry buys most of its services from the State and operates in a heavily unionised industry where vested interest groups control so many aspects of the supply side of the market. In far too many cases when the State interfaces with the Private Sector the State gets screwed. That's because the State is rubbish at regulating, rubbish at running and rubbish at business. We have the worst of both worlds; a public health system which is grossly inefficient which is being subsidised to the tune of €2 billion a year in the form of private health insurance payments by the same people who pay for it the first time through their taxes. That gives a two tier system which is unfair and inequitable.



I wouldn't disagree entirely with this.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> I didn't come to any conclusion, I made an assumption (without all the data, that is all that can ever be epoused here)  based on teacher pupil ratios in State funded schools relative to teacher pupil ratios in private schools.
> 
> You seem to say that only SOME teachers salaries in private schools are paid by the State. Firefly seems to say that ALL teacher salaries are paid by the State. I didn't think that ANY teacher salaries were paid by the State to private schools.
> We cant all be right. Until the facts emerge as to how many teacher salaries are being paid then all opinion and observations are of
> equal merit.
> To dismiss such opinions out of hand is to forgo your own inherent ignorance.





orka said:


> Purple is correct. My daughter goes to a private school. Most of the teachers are paid by the state and the school also employs some extra teachers who are paid solely by the school. I'm pretty sure that's how most private schools operate.


Yep, as I said previously private schools have to  pay for additional teachers as the state funds a higher pupil/teacher ratio in those schools. BS, before posting about these things Google can be your friend.


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> I would say Orka is right - the state pays the salaries of most teachers in private schools (probably to meet the same pupil / teacher ratio as in public schools). The private schools, through the fees they collect can then pay for additional teachers if they wish.
> 
> It's still cheaper for the state though isn't it as the state doesn't have to pay for the upkeep of the buildings, insurance, rent, heating etc?



The Dept of Education estimates it to be €22m. Or about €15 a year per taxpayer. I was a bit off, so thanks very much to all the parents of fee paying schools for the €0.28c a wek subsidy.
In a months time im going to put that money together and buy a bottle of water from the shop, reducing the demand on the public water system as a way of showing my gratitude.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> Yep, as I said previously private schools have to  pay for additional teachers as the state funds a higher pupil/teacher ratio in those schools. BS, before posting about these things Google can be your friend.



According to Firefly, there is no 'have to' pay for additional teachers, it is by choice.



Firefly said:


> The private schools, through the fees they collect can then pay for additional teachers if they wish.



Honestly, you guys should talk more. You can't both be right, right?


----------



## MrEarl

Leo said:


> Now that is funny!



Why ?


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> Honestly, you guys should talk more. You can't both be right, right?


You are a master of obfuscation.
The State funds a higher pupil teacher ratio in private schools than it does in public schools.
In order to bring that level down to the same as it is in public schools those private schools fund the cost of those extra teachers from the fees they receive. 
If the State was running those schools they would have to fund those extra teachers from general taxation.
The state would also have to fund the upkeep of the schools and all other costs relating to the running of the schools which are now funded by the State.
Remember that our education system is a voluntary opt-in system for schools so every private school can choose to stop being private and hand over the running, and funding, of the school to the State.
Most schools which are private remained out of the system so that they could maintain an individual ethos. That's why they are usually run by a religious order or are a non-Catholic denomination. 
Personally I'm not a big fan of them but as long as the Catholic Church, and by extension the head of State of a foreign country, has the ultimate say in so many aspects of how our schools are run I'm glad parents have the choice.


----------



## Firefly

Purple said:


> The State funds a higher pupil teacher ratio in private schools than it does in public schools. In order to bring that level down to the same as it is in public schools those private schools fund the cost of those extra teachers from the fees they receive.



This also correlates to what Orka said. I thought the state paid for all teachers in private schools but it appears that they only pay for most of them. This shortfall coupled with the upkeep of the school iteself represents a subsidy from the parents who send their children to private schools to the state.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> You are a master of obfuscation.



In fairness, there are different trains of thought being posted here, out of which confusion can arise.



Purple said:


> If the State was running those schools they would have to fund those extra teachers from general taxation.



We are talking about a tiny number of teachers in the scheme of things?



Purple said:


> The state would also have to fund the upkeep of the schools and all other costs relating to the running of the schools which are now funded by the State.



If the State decided to take on the maintenance of those schools, yes. Alternatively, it may be possible for existing State schools to absorb the numbers pupils concerned from private schools at zero cost.



Purple said:


> That's why they are usually run by a religious order or are a non-Catholic denomination.



And probably in receipt of church funding? Subsidised by church going faithful who dont send their children to private schools?



Firefly said:


> I thought the state paid for all teachers in private schools but it appears that they only pay for most of them.



See, even Firefly was confused.



Firefly said:


> This shortfall coupled with the upkeep of the school iteself represents a subsidy from the parents who send their children to private schools to the state.



Like I said, next month I will buy a bottle of water from a private company to subsidise the public water system. This is my way of acknowledging the solidarity shown by the private fee-paying parents of the State funded education system.
I reckon its worth between €0.28 to €0.89c a week for taxpayers.


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> See, even Firefly was confused.



I wasn't confused, I was incorrect and I'm happy to admit that. I thought the state paid for all teachers in a private school, but the private school pays for additional teachers to bring the school in line with the pupil / teacher ratios in the public school.



TheBigShort said:


> Like I said, next month I will buy a bottle of water from a private company to subsidise the public water system. This is my way of acknowledging the solidarity shown by the private fee-paying parents of the State funded education system.
> I reckon its worth between €0.28 to €0.89c a week for taxpayers.



Every little helps!


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> Alternatively, it may be possible for existing State schools to absorb the numbers pupils concerned from private schools at zero cost.


 So there's a good possibility that the state education is currently over funded. Is that what you are saying?



TheBigShort said:


> And probably in receipt of church funding? Subsidised by church going faithful who dont send their children to private schools?


 Possibly.

Like I said, next month I will buy a bottle of water from a private company to subsidise the public water system. This is my way of acknowledging the solidarity shown by the private fee-paying parents of the State funded education system.
I reckon its worth between €0.28 to €0.89c a week for taxpayers.[/QUOTE] Good man, now you are starting to think the right way! When you get that subsidy up to €3000 to €4000 a year you'll be subsidising the State coffers as much as the parents who send their kids to private schools while already paying for a place in a public school through their taxes. That's the bit you are missing; they are funding two places and only using one.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> So there's a good possibility that the state education is currently over funded. Is that what you are saying?
> 
> Possibly.
> 
> Like I said, next month I will buy a bottle of water from a private company to subsidise the public water system. This is my way of acknowledging the solidarity shown by the private fee-paying parents of the State funded education system.
> I reckon its worth between €0.28 to €0.89c a week for taxpayers.


 Good man, now you are starting to think the right way! When you get that subsidy up to €3000 to €4000 a year you'll be subsidising the State coffers as much as the parents who send their kids to private schools while already paying for a place in a public school through their taxes. That's the bit you are missing; they are funding two places and only using one.[/QUOTE]


Not sure how €0.89c per taxpayer a week is ever going to reach €4,000. Especially when you consider how those same fee-paying parents are being subsidised in other ways by everyone else in so many other ways. For instance, fee-paying Dublin bus passengers. I mean, if they didn't pay their fares the State subvention would have to dramatically increase. Or is it case that you believe only private entities (such as schools) are subsiding the taxpayer, but public entities (Dublin Bus) are subsidised by the taxpayer?


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> I wasn't confused, I was incorrect and I'm happy to admit that. I thought the state paid for all teachers in a private school, but the private school pays for additional teachers to bring the school in line with the pupil / teacher ratios in the public school.



Fair enough, but I was accused of obfuscating. I think it is fair to say that differing views in support of the same principle may cause some confusion.



Firefly said:


> Every little helps!



Yes, we have gone from "Cut the Dole!,Cut higher taxes!", down to the cost of a bottle of water.


----------



## Leo

MrEarl said:


> Why ?



You put effective and policing in the a sentence without a negative.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> So there's a good possibility that the state education is currently over funded. Is that what you are saying?



No.


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> The Dept of Education estimates it to be €22m. Or about €15 a year per taxpayer. I was a bit off, so thanks very much to all the parents of fee paying schools for the €0.28c a wek subsidy.
> In a months time im going to put that money together and buy a bottle of water from the shop, reducing the demand on the public water system as a way of showing my gratitude.



I see what you are doing - making out like the €22m is inconsequential when divided by the number of taxpayers. Here's a better way to look at it....there are an estimated 24,1112 students in private education * . Dividing that number into €22m 
means that the subsidy works out at €913 euro per child per year.

* http://www.independent.ie/irish-new...to-enjoy-the-fruits-of-recovery-34329942.html


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> making out like the €22m is inconsequential when divided by the number of taxpayers.



Well that is the comparison is it not? Parents of fee-paying schools subsidise the State?



Firefly said:


> Dividing that number into €22m
> means that the subsidy works out at €913 euro per child per year.



You could look at that way alright, like you could look at Dublin Bus passengers subsidise the State by paying fares. But then ive never heard that comparison before. Ive routinely heard that taxpayers subsidise public transport passengers. This is wrong apparently, public transport should be privatised right? Like private education? That way it could be claimed that any private entity in receipt of State subvention (like private schools) is the individual paying twice and subsidising the State, but any public entity (like Dublin Bus) is passengers being subsidised by taxpayers and should be privatised, right?


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> You could look at that way alright, like you could look at Dublin Bus passengers subsidise the State by paying fares. But then ive never heard that comparison before. Ive routinely heard that taxpayers subsidise public transport passengers. _This is wrong apparently, public transport should be privatised right? Like private education? That way it could be claimed that any private entity in receipt of State subvention (like private schools) is the individual paying twice and subsidising the State, but any public entity (like Dublin Bus) is passengers being subsidised by taxpayers and should be privatised, right?_



Not being smart, but I can't make out your points in italics above, would you mind re-phrasing?

Thanks.


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> Not being smart, but I can't make out your points in italics above, would you mind re-phrasing?
> 
> Thanks.



No problem, admittedly badly written.

The point was that a private entity (school) receives subsidy in the form of teacher salaries but the arguement is made that by virtue of private fees paid by parents the State is being subsidised.
I have never heard that arguement made for a Dublin Bus passenger. That they are effectively subsiding the State twice through taxes and paying fares. Have you?
In fact I have heard the opposite. That because Dublin Bus receives a subsidy that it would be better if the sector was opened to private competition as the subsidy is a burden on the taxpayer (albeit heavily subsidised by fee-paying passengers).


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> No problem, admittedly badly written.
> 
> The point was that a private entity (school) receives subsidy in the form of teacher salaries but the arguement is made that by virtue of private fees paid by parents the State is being subsidised.
> I have never heard that arguement made for a Dublin Bus passenger. That they are effectively subsiding the State twice through taxes and paying fares. Have you?
> In fact I have heard the opposite. That because Dublin Bus receives a subsidy that it would be better if the sector was opened to private competition as the subsidy is a burden on the taxpayer (albeit heavily subsidised by fee-paying passengers).


A Dublin Bus passenger is using the public transport infrastructure paid for by the tax payer.
If they were using a private bus which brought them on the same journey for a higher fee which received a lower subvention by the state, while also paying for a ticket with Dublin Bus, then they would be subsidising the public transport system.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> If they were using a private bus which brought them on the *same journey for a higher fee *which received a lower subvention by the state, *while also paying for a ticket with Dublin Bus,*



Which like happens...never, perhaps once, inadvertently, by someone who is on drugs, or where the private market concept of providing cheaper services and better efficiencies has collapsed, by people on drugs.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> Which like happens...never, perhaps once, inadvertently, by someone who is on drugs, or where the private market concept of providing cheaper services and better efficiencies has collapsed, by people on drugs.


I don't understand that but I still like it


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> No problem, admittedly badly written.
> 
> The point was that a private entity (school) receives subsidy in the form of teacher salaries but the arguement is made that by virtue of private fees paid by parents the State is being subsidised.
> I have never heard that arguement made for a Dublin Bus passenger. That they are effectively subsiding the State twice through taxes and paying fares. Have you?
> In fact I have heard the opposite. That because Dublin Bus receives a subsidy that it would be better if the sector was opened to private competition as the subsidy is a burden on the taxpayer (albeit heavily subsidised by fee-paying passengers).



Thanks for that.

I see your point. Re: private education, I've called it a subsidy to the state as the costs are lower. Although the costs to the State are lower, I accept it's not a "subsidy" per se - I don't think there are too many parents sending their kids to private schools with the intention of subsidising the state. It's just happens to be cheaper for the state.

Dublin Bus clearly receives a subsidy via the subvention. Any losses are absorbed by the state.

Last year Dublin Bus received almost 100m from the state http://www.irishtimes.com/news/irel...almost-100m-to-dublin-bus-last-year-1.2786090 That's just Dublin Bus, never mind Irish Rail and the Bus Eireann.

I really think the buses should be open to competition. I've heard the argument that the private operators would cherry pick the routes, but if routes were tendered in batches (e.g. 2 profitable routes and 1 loss making route) with clear SLAs on delivery then it could work.


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> Thanks for that.
> 
> I see your point. Re: private education, I've called it a subsidy to the state as the costs are lower. Although the costs to the State are lower, I accept it's not a "subsidy" per se - I don't think there are too many parents sending their kids to private schools with the intention of subsidising the state. It's just happens to be cheaper for the state.
> 
> Dublin Bus clearly receives a subsidy via the subvention. Any losses are absorbed by the state.
> 
> Last year Dublin Bus received almost 100m from the state http://www.irishtimes.com/news/irel...almost-100m-to-dublin-bus-last-year-1.2786090 That's just Dublin Bus, never mind Irish Rail and the Bus Eireann.
> 
> I really think the buses should be open to competition. I've heard the argument that the private operators would cherry pick the routes, but if routes were tendered in batches (e.g. 2 profitable routes and 1 loss making route) with clear SLAs on delivery then it could work.



Dublin Bus also carried 122m passengers last year. A subsidy of €0.82c per passenger ride.
I have no issue with opening up private competition other than assurances for socially necessary but economically unviable routes. I would be sceptical in the long run that any private carrier would not persist in dumping these routes eventually.


----------



## MrEarl

TheBigShort said:


> Dublin Bus also carried 122m passengers last year. A subsidy of €0.82c per passenger ride.
> I have no issue with opening up private competition other than assurances for socially necessary but economically unviable routes. I would be sceptical in the long run that any private carrier would not persist in dumping these routes eventually.



Hello,

In my view, the first step that needs to be taken with regards to Dublin Bus, is to remove some of the routes that badly overlap or "mirror" the Luas and Dart lines... the rail lines can take more traffic (with justification for buying more carraiges if necessary from the savings made at Dublin Bus), while it's complete madness having a bus route from numerous locations, such as: Greystones, Howth or Malahide into the city centre with the Dart able to get people there quicker and probably more efficiently and environmentally friendly.

Thereafter, I would look at privatising certain routes, but subject to strict conditons on the provision of the service over a minimum pre-determined schedule with risk of losing the route (without compensation) if they default on this agreement.


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> I have no issue with opening up private competition other than assurances for socially necessary but economically unviable routes. I would be sceptical in the long run that any private carrier would not persist in dumping these routes eventually.



I would agree with that - the market will not always provide a service that is deemed necessary from a society perspective. Either the state provides that service or the SLAs to the private company providing that service at water-tight. Another safe-guard would be to have short contracts - a few years in length. That way any mistakes would not last forever and if there are changing requirements (such as new routes) these can be implemented in a shorter time frame.

Possibly an example of where this works quite well is the school bus system where private operators up & down the country provide a service that the state does not.


----------

