# Plans to help the Economy - posters suggestions.



## csirl (30 Jun 2008)

Starting a new thread seeking peoples ideas on how to help the economy and keep us the Government out of debt.

6 things that the Government could do to help us back on our feet.


Abolish the HSE.
Lay off the 120k staff lock stock and barrel. Pass employment risk back to the hospital managements, set up a service level agreement with each and payment dependant on adherence to it. Dept of Health, who appear to have very little to do at the moment, can perform the monitoring, regulation and tendering roles and are adequately resourced to do so.

Reasons: Cut costs and making service to public more efficient. Significantly reduced tax burden.



Abolish most local authorities.
According to recently published Green Paper on local government reform we have 114 local authorities in this country (29 County Councils, 5 City Councils, 80 Town Councils). This is a joke for a country of only 4.25million. There should be at most 1 local authority per county and there is a case for having some local authorities covering a number of smaller counties

Reasons: Cut costs and making service to public more efficient. Significantly reduced tax & rates burden. Significantly reduced administrative burden.



Reform of Legal Profession.
Our legal profession is organised in an archaic way. The barriers between barristers and solicitors need to be broken down. Barristers should be allowed form firms or join legal firms. The regulation and education of the professions needs to be separated with the education opened up – there should be multiple educational institutions qualifying legal professionals in multiple ways thus reducing barriers to entry into the professions. 

Reasons: A more competitive and flexible legal profession will significantly reduce legal costs, which are a big issue for most businesses. Will also lead to a more efficient resolution of disputes thus making it easier to do business in Ireland. 



Skill Up Workforce.
More money needs to be invested in persuading our workforce to get as educated as possible. A well educated workforce attracts higher worth employment that is impacted less by production costs. Teenagers need to be encouraged to finish school and get a third level qualification. Workers need to be encouraged to return to education. Most importantly, there needs to be more facilities to encourage people to train to alleviate skill shortages e.g. IT, financial services, medical profession, nanotechnology etc.

Reasons: A genuinely highly educated and flexible workforce will attract high worth industries thus reducing unemployment and increasing tax income for the Government.



Infrastructure.
The NDP needs to be done more quickly, not delayed. This should be a priority. All the State agencies involved in its delivery need a shake-up. World leading experts should be brought in to deliver the projects e.g. Swiss people to run the railways. The giving of contracts to international companies with a track record in delivery of large projects e.g. an entire underground system, an entire road system etc. should replace the piecemeal giving of small contracts to local firms with poor records of delivery. 

Reason: Better infrastructure will attract business and employees. 



Reform Welfare.
Having 100,000s of people on welfare at a time when 10% of the workforce has to be imported makes no sense. People who are able to work should be working. There should be more back to work schemes and stricter application of seeking work rules with regard to welfare recipients. Those who refuse to re-enter the workforce should not get paid. Mandatory training courses should be provided to those with few skills.

Reason: Significantly reduced tax burden as every person on welfare is a significant drain on State resources. Increases the number of taxpayers.


----------



## ccbkd (30 Jun 2008)

Conveyancing knocked on the head as sole remit of solicitors, Money for old rope during the boom in my opinion!


----------



## Purple (30 Jun 2008)

csirl, if we could get that much done I'd be happy.


----------



## Flax (30 Jun 2008)

In Australia you have to work for the dole. It should be the same here. For a start, Dublin is filthy. They can collect litter and wash the street.

/This type of thing should free up a lot of council jobs/force people to seek employment


----------



## Mpsox (30 Jun 2008)

1: Lead by example and not just forego their planned payrises but take a 10% pay cut as well

2: install a proper performance based pay system in the public sector

3: Scrap benchmarking and install a pay freeze in all Public sector jobs bar those earning more then €30kpa (I'm being nice to the lower paid)

4: "Sell" all outstanding uncollected fines to a debt collection agency if they have not been paid within 6 months

5: complete review of state assets to ascertain if they know what they state actually owns and then either sell of what is not needed or only use these assets for building things like new prisons etc. Surelt the state had a couple of hundred acres they could have used for Mountjoys replacement instead of paying a fortune for land


----------



## shnaek (30 Jun 2008)

Great post, csirl.


----------



## p45 (30 Jun 2008)

Astonsihing to see that we have 114 local authorities!


----------



## jimbob1234 (30 Jun 2008)

Mpsox said:


> 1: Lead by example and not just forego their planned payrises but take a 10% pay cut as well
> 
> 2: install a proper performance based pay system in the public sector
> 
> 3: Scrap benchmarking and install a pay freeze in all Public sector jobs bar those earning more then €30kpa (I'm being nice to the lower paid)


 
this has no chance at all of happening im afraid


----------



## jimbob1234 (30 Jun 2008)

Flax said:


> In Australia you have to work for the dole. It should be the same here. For a start, Dublin is filthy. They can collect litter and wash the street.
> 
> /This type of thing should free up a lot of council jobs/force people to seek employment


 

that is just a fantastic idea. no reason whatsoever why they cudnt do it. but they wont, they are not pro active enough


----------



## rmelly (30 Jun 2008)

csirl said:


> Lay off the 120k staff lock stock and barrel.[/quote]
> 
> I wonder what impact this would have on the tax take (120k less paying tax), and on welfare payouts, I suppose overall it might be cash neutral or better though, in the short term anyway, assuming they get statutory redundancy, or no redundancy.


----------



## csirl (30 Jun 2008)

> I wonder what impact this would have on the tax take (120k less paying tax), and on welfare payouts, I suppose overall it might be cash neutral or better though, in the short term anyway, assuming they get statutory redundancy, or no redundancy.


 
I would advocate statutory redundancy only, nothing more and no reason why we should pay more. The better ones would be hired directly by the hospitals, but not on public sector contracts (this 120k includes hospital employees paid out of HSE payroll). The rest would be competing with the laid off local authority employees for jobs in McDonalds and Spar etc. that are currently being done imported non-EU workers (we could stop importing for a short while & cancel work permits for unskilled labour).  

Seriously, in tandem with the welfare restrictions, there will be plenty of incentives for these ex-public sector workers to get retrained to do another job in an area of skilled shortage. Yes, short term there will be some impact on the exchequer, but long term it will work out well. In spite of downturn, the economy is still dependant on importing workers, so there must be employment opportunities out there. Mind you, some, particularly in middle and upper management will be in for a shock - will have to work for their money and lower their expectations.


----------



## Humdinger (30 Jun 2008)

Can I add a couple of suggestions to the list of inefficiencies

 - the proliferation of quango's and some serious questions around the appointment of members to state boards/bodies etc ... jobs for the lads
 - ministers of state , oireachtas committees who deliver nothing apart from nice expenses and a payrise for its members, an oireachtas which passes legislation that might involve sitting for more than 92 days per year ...

There are many great suggestions on this thread ... sadly most require a) leadership b) political will ....... and worse the combination of both,  Real political leadership


Back to reality !!!


----------



## Green (30 Jun 2008)

While I support the efforts of posters to get the economy back on track, and think some of the suggestions have merit, I would question whether they will ever happen, as, as Humdinger suggests, the suggestions require real political leadership. Also, Government needs to know the people need and want change and as we will have the same Government from 1997 - 2012, they are not getting this message..


----------



## ubiquitous (30 Jun 2008)

csirl said:


> [*]Abolish the HSE.
> [/LIST]Lay off the 120k staff lock stock and barrel.




Not a bad post overall, but to be honest this idea is crazy. You cannot just sack every employee in the health service. Are you going to turf the sick, the dying and the infirm out onto the streets while this Great Leap Forward is underway?


----------



## csirl (30 Jun 2008)

> Not a bad post overall, but to be honest this idea is crazy. You cannot just sack every employee in the health service. Are you going to turf the sick, the dying and the infirm out onto the streets while this Great Leap Forward is underway?


 
You give the hospitals notice that this is happening - maybe 3-6 months - so that they can directly hire whatever medical staff they need to perform whatever public service contracts they have. My guess would be that the majority of medical people would get hired - hospitals would use the exercise to not re hire any wasters - however, the majority of HSE admin staff wouldnt. The main issue here is that the hospitals will be managing their own employees rather than the State taking the employment risk.


----------



## Humdinger (30 Jun 2008)

csirl said:


> You give the hospitals notice that this is happening - maybe 3-6 months - so that they can directly hire whatever medical staff they need to perform whatever public service contracts they have. .............hospitals will be managing their own employees and would have to ensure efficiencies i.e. that the ratio of admin staff is lower, and medical staff higher, in order to perform their contracts and get well paid.


 

Sounds like "near privitisation"


----------



## ubiquitous (30 Jun 2008)

csirl said:


> You give the hospitals notice that this is happening - maybe 3-6 months - so that they can directly hire whatever medical staff they need to perform whatever public service contracts they have. My guess would be that the majority of medical people would get hired - hospitals would use the exercise to not re hire any wasters - however, the majority of HSE admin staff wouldnt. The main issue here is that the hospitals will be managing their own employees rather than the State taking the employment risk.



And who is going to underwrite the financial risks faced by each hospital, particularly the ones that skimp on hiring admin staff and risk being defrauded as a result?

What you are proposing has been tried already in several areas of State administration as what are termed Public Private Partnerships. They are commonplace in the UK and increasingly so here. Opinion is divided as whether PPPs work. Many people, myself included, suspect that they are vehicles for inefficiency and corruption.


----------



## z109 (30 Jun 2008)

Have a referendum to remove the neutrality clause from the constitution. Sell Leitrim to the Americans or Russians to use as a missile base.

Legalise all forms of drugs as long as the government are selling them. Open licensed drug cafes.

Get rid of car tax and third party insurance - add 50c to the cost of petrol and diesel to cover this.

Abolish local government everywhere. Make anyone that wants anything queue at one of four regional centres. All planning decisions to be outsourced to Germany where they can only apply the rules as layed down in the relevant acts.

Privatise the NRA and the road network. Give them a fixed budget each year and let them get on with it. Anything over and above that, they have to introduce tolls.

Turn Roscommon into a giant paintball theme park.

Increase the primary school starting age to seven years old like it is in Switzerland.

Increase the old age pension age to sixty-seven.

Abolish all closed shops - solicitors, barristers, doctors, consultants, dentists, grave-diggers.

Hire a few thousand Hungarian doctors and dentists, give them a geographic location for their clinic and a setup grant and let them get on with it.

Introduce a property tax on empty homes.

Abolish mortgage interest relief, rent relief, investor interest relief, section 23, hotels relief, nursing home relief and all the other daft property reliefs.

Put DAFT in charge of the Affordable Housing scheme. Paid by each person who takes up a house. Anyone who refuses to be housed after six months can go and sort themselves out.

Introduce mandatory state pensions for all classes of worker (public and private). All existing pension funds to be expropriated for the purposes of these funds to the value of the tax relief that they contain. The remainder to be turned into an investment fund that is taxed as normal and is available to the person whenever they want to cash it in. Add fivepence to the basic rate to pay for this.

Draw up a list of every manager in the HSE. Make half of them redundant at random. Do the same for all other classes of staff, but only make a quarter of them redundant. The rest get a 10% pay rise for the extra work they will be doing, reviewed at the end of the year.

Vote for me.


----------



## z103 (30 Jun 2008)

1. Break up the unions
2. Privatise ESB and Bord Gais
But don't introduce any poll/property taxes.


----------



## television (30 Jun 2008)

csirl said:


> Starting a new thread seeking peoples ideas on how to help the economy and keep us the Government out of debt.
> 
> 6 things that the Government could do to help us back on our feet.
> 
> ...


 
1 and 6 Norman Tebbit esque Vodoo economic nonsence. 2 3 4 5 I am with you on.


----------



## television (30 Jun 2008)

1. private sector workers should stop blaming the public service for the woes of the economy and swallowing IBEC propaganda. 

2. All homeless people, refugees, unemployed (like those layabouts from Hibernian insurance to be forced to clean up the streets of Dublin starting with DunLaouraigh and Sutton. 

3. All employment law and workers rights leglislation to be revoked. it makes our economy weak and if those workers effected by the subsequent exploitation complain they are to be shown 24 hour video of sweat shop workers in Vietnam (reprogramming)


It must be terrible being a Progressive Democrat voter given their current electorial position. And next election Harney is retiring. Happy days


----------



## shnaek (1 Jul 2008)

television said:


> It must be terrible being a Progressive Democrat voter given their current electorial position. And next election Harney is retiring. Happy days


And the new Minister for health? Jackie Healy-Ray!


----------



## Purple (1 Jul 2008)

television said:


> 1. private sector workers should stop blaming the public service for the woes of the economy and swallowing IBEC propaganda.


I agree that public sector employees should not be blamed for all the countries ills but I don’t know where you are coming from with “IBEC propaganda”.



television said:


> 2. All homeless people, refugees, unemployed (like those layabouts from Hibernian insurance to be forced to clean up the streets of Dublin starting with DunLaouraigh and Sutton.


 Get that chip off your shoulder…



television said:


> 3. All employment law and workers rights leglislation to be revoked. it makes our economy weak and if those workers effected by the subsequent exploitation complain they are to be shown 24 hour video of sweat shop workers in Vietnam (reprogramming)


 I don’t think that this would be a good idea. 
Maybe you should take a look at the manufacturing facilities that multinations build in Vietnam (and other developing countries) where wages are higher than average and employees enjoy much better working conditions than those in the indigenous economy.
While you are at it read up on the extensive anti child labour and employee standards legislation that America forces it’s companies to comply with when they operate overseas. Alse read up on how extensive their enforcement regime is.
The sweat shops mainly supply the mid-sized companies in the European based rag trade and indigenous or regional damands.




television said:


> It must be terrible being a Progressive Democrat voter given their current electorial position. And next election Harney is retiring. Happy days


 I doubt that most of those you are debating with are PD voters. I know I am not.


----------



## ubiquitous (1 Jul 2008)

television said:


> It must be terrible being a Progressive Democrat voter given their current electorial position. And next election Harney is retiring. Happy days



And it must be terrible being a socialist or a Shinner given their current electoral position  Happy days indeed


----------



## television (1 Jul 2008)

ubiquitous said:


> And it must be terrible being a socialist or a Shinner given their current electoral position  Happy days indeed


 
I voted for labour in the last election 22 seats. Not a bad haul. And if they had a leader with a bit of carisma they might have got further.

However Finna fail have had a good record when it comes to issues of social justice in the last 10 years also. 

Never voted for the Sinners never will.

But oh how laughed at the sad face of McDool in the last election and I am going to celebrate when the PDs are sent packing for good in the next one. Happy days!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1


----------



## ubiquitous (1 Jul 2008)

television said:


> I voted for labour in the last election 22 seats. Not a bad haul.



Labour actually won 20 seats in the last election, an increase of zero on their performance in 2002 - bad enough to keep them out of government despite the fact that their prospective coalition partners won 20 extra seats. And, like the PDs, bad enough to force their leader to resign.


----------



## television (1 Jul 2008)

ubiquitous said:


> Labour actually won 20 seats in the last election, an increase of zero on their performance in 2002 - bad enough to keep them out of government despite the fact that their prospective coalition partners won 20 extra seats. And, like the PDs, bad enough to force their leader to resign.


 
yes 20 seats, how many did the PDs get again. The great champions of privatistion?


----------



## ubiquitous (1 Jul 2008)

The PDs got 2 seats, after losing most of their support and practically all of their credibility over the previous 5 years. Their share of first preference votes was a measly 2.7% - which puts them clearly in the "irrelevant" category among Irish political parties and really makes me wonder why you seem so fixated on bashing them.


----------



## television (1 Jul 2008)

ubiquitous said:


> The PDs got 2 seats, after losing most of their support and practically all of their credibility over the previous 5 years. Their share of first preference votes was a measly 2.7% - which puts them clearly in the "irrelevant" category among Irish political parties and really makes me wonder why you seem so fixated on bashing them.


 
Because I read so many of what I would call "PD Parrots" on here.


----------



## ubiquitous (1 Jul 2008)

As above...


Purple said:


> I doubt that most of those you are debating with are PD voters.





Purple said:


> I know I am not.


Me neither...


----------



## television (1 Jul 2008)

ubiquitous said:


> As above...
> 
> 
> 
> Me neither...


 

PD Sympathisers


----------



## ubiquitous (1 Jul 2008)

television said:


> PD Sympathisers



Is this what the debate is now reduced to? Maybe you might be better off sticking to the topic rather than trying to falsely label other contributors.


----------



## television (1 Jul 2008)

ubiquitous said:


> Is this what the debate is now reduced to? Maybe you might be better off sticking to the topic rather than trying to falsely label other contributors.


 
Listen at various times in the debate i have been refered to as a "shinner" "loony left" "joe higgins" etc etc,. i.e



ubiquitous said:


> And it must be terrible being a socialist or a Shinner given their current electoral position  Happy days indeed


 


 I think its a bit rich of you to get all precious all of a sudden.


----------



## shnaek (1 Jul 2008)

How is a debate between labour and PD's a plan to help the economy?


----------



## autumnleaf (2 Jul 2008)

One thing that hasn't been covered: energy costs. What can we do to improve efficiency or encourage alternative energy sources, or is this out of our hands?


----------



## shnaek (2 Jul 2008)

autumnleaf said:


> One thing that hasn't been covered: energy costs. What can we do to improve efficiency or encourage alternative energy sources, or is this out of our hands?


Indeed. I am starting to believe that a rethink on nuclear is necessary. Look at the French - few rises in electricity costs over the last decade. Then look at us - with our oil and gas dependence -and the price rises for electricity alone in the last decade. With a few nuclear plants we could electrify our rail and thus lower our dependence on gas and oil. Not likely to happen though. Instead we'll get some more nonsense about biofuels.


----------



## Purple (2 Jul 2008)

Nuclear power is the only realistic alternative to oil and gas.


----------



## shnaek (2 Jul 2008)

Purple said:


> Nuclear power is the only realistic alternative to oil and gas.



And here's an interesting article supporting that view:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/06/20/mackay_on_carbon_free_uk/


----------



## redstar (2 Jul 2008)

csirl for Taoiseach !!   


If you tried to sack all in HSE you'd have an almighty national strike on your hands. The health system would collapse, and the unions would block all attempts at hiring new staff for the HSE's replacement.


----------



## z103 (2 Jul 2008)

> Indeed. I am starting to believe that a rethink on nuclear is necessary.


This needs a new thread.
Nuclear (total life span of reactor, including decommissioning) is very, very expensive. This, coupled with the fact that Uranium ore is also a limited resource should make nuclear a non-starter.


----------



## ubiquitous (2 Jul 2008)

TheRed said:


> Spending public services too thinly across the whole country instead of concentrating on provided excellent services in areas where a critical mass exists is non-sensical.



Do you propose then to unilaterally withdraw public services from people who already live in rural areas and have done so for decades?



TheRed said:


> 3. Built up tourist industry but providing CPOing a network of walking/cycling trails across mountains, along canals and rivers. Growing market.


Would this be economic? Look at the cost of CPO-purchased land for road developments. If there was a market in this, the landowners would be doing it already.



TheRed said:


> 4. Heavily audit public and civil service, ideally by Comptroller and Auditor General



Sorry, the C&AG have already been doing this for many years.



TheRed said:


> Should offer voluntary redundancy to the mad, the bad and the sad.


.

The public sector already offers exceptionally generous early retirement terms to employees who are sick or otherwise unable to work. Also, fwiw, given the amount of depression and suicide in this country, some people might find the use of terms such as "the mad, the bad and the sad" objectionable. I certainly do.


----------



## Welfarite (2 Jul 2008)

CSIRL: "Having 100,000s of people on welfare at a time when 10% of the workforce has to be imported makes no sense. People who are able to work should be working. There should be more back to work schemes and stricter application of seeking work rules with regard to welfare recipients. Those who refuse to re-enter the workforce should not get paid. Mandatory training courses should be provided to those with few skills."

This does not make sense. In 2007, the Live Register (i.e unemployed and part-time workers) was at 4.6%. In May 2008 it was 5.4%. This could be considered "full employment" (economicts vary this as between 2% and 7%), given that it would include those between jobs and those casually employed. The actual "unemployed" cnumbers were under 100k, not "100,000s". Unless you want to abolish "welfare" for those that are ill and on pensions? 

How can "stricter application of seeking work" rules apply when there are no jobs out there? Would you have plumbers forced to take computer course in order to fulfil this strict criteria? 


But I do like your "thinking outside the box". I would agree that mandatory training could play a role but shudder to think how this would work if FAS were put in charge of it! We must rememebr that Ireland is a welfare state" and that no politician will let anybody starev of the streets. That is why we have such schemes as Rent supplement (which enriches the landlords), Supplementary Welfare Allowance (which is basically paid to anybody who fails to qualify for the plethora of SW schemes. Is is why limiting the period of payment would not work either to 6 months or else....


----------



## Firefly (2 Jul 2008)

Ban private healthcare. If the wealthier and more influencial people had to use the public system things would get sorted pretty quickly


----------



## ninsaga (2 Jul 2008)

csirl said:


> According to recently published Green Paper on local government reform we have 114 local authorities in this country (29 County Councils......



What/ have we taken back half of the 6 counties? When did this happen....


----------



## Mpsox (2 Jul 2008)

ninsaga said:


> What/ have we taken back half of the 6 counties? When did this happen....


 
I would imagine it is 25 counties +Fingal, Dun Laoighre Rathdown and Tipp North Riding and Tipp south riding


----------



## S.L.F (2 Jul 2008)

Welfarite said:


> That is why we have such schemes as Rent supplement (which enriches the landlords),



I perfer to think that LL's are providing a service.
I doubt very much you would want your boss saying to you, he or she enriches you by paying you what you are due.
.........................................

My own way to help our govt to balance it's books would be to put all of our politicians on an average industrial wage with no expenses.

That should save several million!


----------



## ubiquitous (2 Jul 2008)

S.L.F said:


> My own way to help our govt to balance it's books would be to put all of our politicians on an average industrial wage with no expenses.



Of course when this was tried before, only either the very rich or the very corrupt or both could afford a career in politics.


----------



## Purple (3 Jul 2008)

S.L.F said:


> My own way to help our govt to balance it's books would be to put all of our politicians on an average industrial wage with no expenses.


There was a time when MP's in the House of Commons were not paid anything. This was done in order to keep the commoners out of the Commons.


----------



## michaelm (3 Jul 2008)

1. Cut corporation tax to 9%.
2. Simplify/cut VAT, 0% for essentials & 15% on other goods and services.
3. Do a detailed appraisal of NDP/Transport 21, forget Metro and other silliness, borrow for essential infrastructure (ignoring EU limits).
4. Cut lower rate of income tax to 18% (maybe increase higher rate to 42% to balance).  Cut employer PRSI and give corresponding wage increases (in line with inflation).
5. Charge stamp duty only on the aggregate difference in house prices and charge a tax on any residence that isn't a principal primary residence. 
6. Scrap de-centralisation; Lay-off 10-25% of the public service (but with a decent redundancy package). 
7. Cull the quangos/regulators. 
8. Build 3 nuclear power stations.
9. Stop wasting taxpayers money on carbon credits.
10. Stop paying Early Childcare supplement for children not resident in this State.
11. Do not issue any more PPS numbers to non EU-15 workers until unemployment drops or until we have to in 2011.
12. Unemployment benefit should time-out after 6 months rather than the current 15 months.
13. Build a new Port north of Dublin.
14. Develop the vacated Dublin Port with high rise office space, conference facilities, Casino, hotels, other tourist facilities, extend LUAS - already serviced by Port Tunnel.
15. Offer free return flights (minimum 1 week) to Ireland for US tourists.  Maybe offer to all 'claimed' tourists but charge the flight to their credit card if they fail to make the return flight.
16.  There seems to be endless opportunities (other than public services, quangos, carbon credits)  where the government could save money: too many advisers and PR people in the pay of the State; we're still paying to store Electronic Voting machines; the OPW is spending money like it's going out of fashion; It's time to end current Tribunals - we need a different, speedy and frugal method for future such investigations . . .


----------



## television (3 Jul 2008)

michaelm said:


> 1. Cut corporation tax to 9%.
> 2. Simplify/cut VAT, 0% for essentials & 15% on other goods and services.
> 3. Do a detailed appraisal of NDP/Transport 21, forget Metro and other silliness, borrow for essential infrastructure (ignoring EU limits).
> 4. Cut lower rate of income tax to 18% (maybe increase higher rate to 42% to balance). Cut employer PRSI and give corresponding wage increases (in line with inflation).
> ...


 
Micheal O Leary, Is that you?


----------



## S.L.F (3 Jul 2008)

Of course there is a large bunch of people who are getting paid to sit around for 2 or 3 months at tax payers expense.

Teachers.

If teachers were only paid when they work they that would save a lot of money too.


----------



## michaelm (3 Jul 2008)

television said:


> Micheal O Leary, Is that you?


17. or let Michael O'Leary run the country for the next 3 years.


----------



## television (3 Jul 2008)

S.L.F said:


> Of course there is a large bunch of people who are getting paid to sit around for 2 or 3 months at tax payers expense.
> 
> Teachers.
> 
> If teachers were only paid when they work they that would save a lot of money too.


 
Cheap shot SLF, whats your excuse. Get a life will ya. Should not dignify that with a responce.


----------



## ubiquitous (3 Jul 2008)

S.L.F said:


> Of course there is a large bunch of people who are getting paid to sit around for 2 or 3 months at tax payers expense.
> 
> Teachers.
> 
> If teachers were only paid when they work they that would save a lot of money too.



Indeed. But we would then end up in the same position as in New York (and possibly other US cities) where teaching in publicly-funded schools is on a par career-wise with working in McDonalds, and where competent and experienced teachers have no incentive to work there. Instead they teach in  privately-funded schools. If you can afford to pay for private education you're grand. If not, then your kids won't get a decent education in the public sector schools.


----------



## S.L.F (3 Jul 2008)

television said:


> Cheap shot SLF, whats your excuse. Get a life will ya. Should not dignify that with a responce.



Sorry tv only messing!

I have tremendous respect for our teachers.
I think they do a great job and don't get paid enough for their time nor experience
I don't believe our govt puts enough money into education


----------



## csirl (3 Jul 2008)

> 4. Cut lower rate of income tax to 18% (maybe increase higher rate to 42% to balance). Cut employer PRSI and give corresponding wage increases (in line with inflation).


 
michaelm, a lot of good ideas.

But I would question no. 4 above.

Would it not be better to cut the higher rate of tax to give people more of an incentive to improve their employment?

Personally, I dont agree with tax bands. Think it should be a straight percentage of income across the board on all income. I believe that the tax rate in Ireland would be somewhere in the mid teens if it were a straight percentage without exemptions. Just think of the stimulus the economy would get if at the next Budget it was announced that tax would be flat rate 15% on all income - would really incentives people to work.


----------



## michaelm (3 Jul 2008)

csirl said:


> But I would question no. 4 above. Would it not be better to cut the higher rate of tax to give people more of an incentive to improve their employment?
> Personally, I dont agree with tax bands. Think it should be a straight percentage of income across the board on all income. I believe that the tax rate in Ireland would be somewhere in the mid teens if it were a straight percentage with exemptions.


I did put 'maybe . . . to balance' in there, it was more a cosmetic 'social justice' thing.  I wouldn't have a problem with replacing tax bands with a flat rate however I would want to see a tax credit per child, to support families.


----------



## shnaek (3 Jul 2008)

csirl said:


> Personally, I dont agree with tax bands. Think it should be a straight percentage of income across the board on all income. I believe that the tax rate in Ireland would be somewhere in the mid teens if it were a straight percentage without exemptions. Just think of the stimulus the economy would get if at the next Budget it was announced that tax would be flat rate 15% on all income - would really incentives people to work.


I agree, but this won't happen unless we are truly in dire straits.


----------



## joe sod (3 Jul 2008)

Rather than talking about what should happen and I agree with many postings, what do people think actually will happen as economy worsens, I think that if the euro continues at these levels there will be big pressure on the government to pull out of the euro, i think events are now going to dictate policy and not politicians, the politicians let things go too far when they had the power to change course but now it is out of their hands


----------



## z103 (3 Jul 2008)

> what do people think actually will happen as economy worsens


The government will pander to the unions and increase taxes to pay for it. There will also be massive cut backs.


----------



## shnaek (3 Jul 2008)

joe sod said:


> Rather than talking about what should happen and I agree with many postings, what do people think actually will happen as economy worsens, I think that if the euro continues at these levels there will be big pressure on the government to pull out of the euro, i think events are now going to dictate policy and not politicians, the politicians let things go too far when they had the power to change course but now it is out of their hands


And if we pull out of the Euro, what do you think the PUNT would be worth? We'd find out the 'value' of our houses then alright 




leghorn said:


> The government will pander to the unions and increase taxes to pay for it. There will also be massive cut backs.



If this happens we are in the crap for a decade.


----------



## room305 (3 Jul 2008)

csirl said:


> Would it not be better to cut the higher rate of tax to give people more of an incentive to improve their employment?


 
I think this is a great idea. There's probably no reason why the entire body of tax legislation could not be simplified such that it would fit on a single A4 page. I'd personally like it if income tax was abolished in its entirety and replaced with a consumption tax, but a flat rate of income tax would be a huge improvement. Perhaps we could align it with our existing corporation tax rate of 12.5%.

Since any exemptions are inevitably unfair on _someone_ (no matter how well intentioned) I'd suggest scrapping them all. Think about much productivity is wasted every year by intelligent people trying to avoid tax, with an equal waste in productivity trying to close all these loopholes. Mind boggling.



shnaek said:


> I agree, but this won't happen unless we are truly in dire straits.


 
I know but that was pretty much the motivation for lowering corporation tax and look how the economy prospered! It could happen again.


----------



## Purple (3 Jul 2008)

room305 said:


> I'd personally like it if income tax was abolished in its entirety and replaced with a consumption tax, but a flat rate of income tax would be a huge improvement.


This, in my opinion, would be unfair on low earners.


----------



## ubiquitous (4 Jul 2008)

room305 said:


> I think this is a great idea. There's probably no reason why the entire body of tax legislation could not be simplified such that it would fit on a single A4 page. I'd personally like it if income tax was abolished in its entirety and replaced with a consumption tax, but a flat rate of income tax would be a huge improvement. Perhaps we could align it with our existing corporation tax rate of 12.5%.
> 
> Since any exemptions are inevitably unfair on _someone_ (no matter how well intentioned) I'd suggest scrapping them all. Think about much productivity is wasted every year by intelligent people trying to avoid tax, with an equal waste in productivity trying to close all these loopholes. Mind boggling.
> 
> I know but that was pretty much the motivation for lowering corporation tax and look how the economy prospered! It could happen again.



Albert Reynolds once said in a Budget Speech as Finance Minister that "simplicity is the enemy of equity". In other words, if the tax system is equitable it will not be simple. If it is simple it will not be equitable.

Tax avoidance and tax planning is not a waste of productivity, merely rational financial housekeeping and cost minimisation by intelligent individuals and businesses.


----------



## csirl (4 Jul 2008)

> This, in my opinion, would be unfair on low earners.


 
You could apply a flat percentage for all earning above minimum wage.

However, I've never seen how a flat tax is unfair. Surely it is fairer - everyone pays the same proportion, no discrimination.

With flat tax, Revenue would only need a fraction of its staff thus saving more money.


----------



## csirl (4 Jul 2008)

Lets do the figures and see how it works out.

No. of PAYE taxpayers in Ireland = 2,585,504
PAYE tax receipts = 10,155m
source Revenue 2007 Annual report.

Therefore average PAYE worker pays 3,938 per annum.

Average industrial wage = 41,028 (source D/Finance monthly economic bulletin July 08).

So a flat rate tax based on these figures would be *9.6%.*

Now, even if you exempted the first 20k from tax (to help low earners) the tax rate would be *18.7% on all income in excess of 20k.*


9.6% of all income OR 18.7% of all income in excess of 20k !!

As far as I'm concerned, this is a no-brainer. I cant see how most people wouldnt be in favour of this type of flat tax.


----------



## shnaek (4 Jul 2008)

ubiquitous said:


> Albert Reynolds once said in a Budget Speech as Finance Minister that "simplicity is the enemy of equity". In other words, if the tax system is equitable it will not be simple. If it is simple it will not be equitable.
> 
> Tax avoidance and tax planning is not a waste of productivity, merely rational financial housekeeping and cost minimisation by intelligent individuals and businesses.



I don't think a quote from Albert Reynolds proves anything! I have done no reading on the subject however, so I couldn't comment further in an educated fashion.  Though I agree with csirl above on a personal level.


----------



## ubiquitous (4 Jul 2008)

shnaek said:


> I don't think a quote from Albert Reynolds proves anything! I have done no reading on the subject however, so I couldn't comment further in an educated fashion.  Though I agree with csirl above on a personal level.



Do you not see his point, though? I don't think you should need to read up on much in order to understand it.


----------



## shnaek (4 Jul 2008)

I see his 'opinion', but I am a bit fan of simplicity. I believe the greatest geniuses of humanity were the ones who were able to make things simple. And I cannot see how simplicity is the enemy of equity - in fact the opposite should be the case. Making things simple makes them universally understandable, thus leveling the playing field.
So to move that philosophy on to tax - simplifying the system should result in a more understandable system. And a more understandable system should be more equitable.


----------



## ubiquitous (4 Jul 2008)

shnaek said:


> And I cannot see how simplicity is the enemy of equity



The tax system would be simpler if 
- tax relief on medical expenses was scrapped. 
- tax credits for the blind/elderly/incapacitated/widowed parents following bereavement were scrapped
- tax bands were abolished
- income tax exemptions for low earners was abolished
- VAT applied to all items including food and basic necessities
- CGT applied to gains on principal private residences.

Would these steps be deemed equitable?


----------



## shnaek (4 Jul 2008)

ubiquitous said:


> The tax system would be simpler if
> - tax relief on medical expenses was scrapped.
> - tax credits for the blind/elderly/incapacitated/widowed parents following bereavement were scrapped
> - tax bands were abolished
> ...



I understand the points you are making, but those are all extreme cases. We don't have to simplify to the lowest possible level.


----------



## ubiquitous (4 Jul 2008)

But how on earth can you simplify the system while retaining policy-based variations among tax reliefs, credits, bands and exemptions, such as those I mentioned above?


----------



## Purple (4 Jul 2008)

shnaek said:


> I understand the points you are making, but those are all extreme cases. We don't have to simplify to the lowest possible level.


I understand what he’s saying as well and I agree with him. The governments job it to manage the economy for the benefit of society, not the other way around. This requires a level of indirect social engineering. Our tax system is one of the tools at their disposal.


----------



## shnaek (4 Jul 2008)

ubiquitous said:


> But how on earth can you simplify the system while retaining policy-based variations among tax reliefs, credits, bands and exemptions, such as those I mentioned above?


Charlie McCreevy simplified the system, and it is far more equitable now than it was in the days of multiple income tax bands. Would you agree?


----------



## Mpsox (4 Jul 2008)

ubiquitous said:


> The tax system would be simpler if
> - tax relief on medical expenses was scrapped.
> - tax credits for the blind/elderly/incapacitated/widowed parents following bereavement were scrapped
> - tax bands were abolished
> ...


 
Certainly it would be simpler to administer. However, in effect this would raise inflation and the cost of living(via VAT increases) and reduce the income of low earners to the point where they simply may not be able to afford to live. 
In addition, is there not a risk that Social Welfare payments could be greater then the after tax salaries of the lower paid thus acting as a disincentive for them to work.


----------



## ubiquitous (4 Jul 2008)

Mpsox said:


> Certainly it would be simpler to administer. However, in effect this would raise inflation and the cost of living(via VAT increases) and reduce the income of low earners to the point where they simply may not be able to afford to live.
> In addition, is there not a risk that Social Welfare payments could be greater then the after tax salaries of the lower paid thus acting as a disincentive for them to work.



Do bear in mind that these were cited as rhetorical examples not suggestions


----------



## csirl (4 Jul 2008)

There are taxation think tanks around the world who are of the opinion that you should abolish income tax altogether and just charge extra VAT. Their rationale is that this is equitable as taxation would be based on spending power, so rich would pay more as they usually spend more. They also say that it encourages saving as income that is not spent is not taxed. 

Another radical idea out there is that instead of having income tax, you just bill everyone in the country for 1 lump sum amount which would be equivalent to dividing the current income tax take by the number of people in the workforce. If this was introduced in Ireland, everyone would just get an annual bill for c.4k. Supporters of this system say that it is the ultimate fair taxation system as every citizen pays and identical amount as every citizen has an equal right to State services.

I'm not proposing that we should introduce either of the above, but I think we should have a fundamental review of our income tax system with a view to making it easier, fairer and reducing costs. The problem with such a review is that there are 1,000s of civil servants in Revenue and 10,000s of accountants, tax experts etc. who have a vested interest in maintaining the current system as otherwise they'd all be out of a job.


----------



## room305 (5 Jul 2008)

ubiquitous said:


> Albert Reynolds once said in a Budget Speech as Finance Minister that "simplicity is the enemy of equity". In other words, if the tax system is equitable it will not be simple. If it is simple it will not be equitable.


 
This is condescending balderdash. For Reynolds statement to carry any weight, he would have to convince people that

a) The government can and will be aware of all the possible ramifications of all the amendments, exemptions, credits and various other "complications" designed to provide more equity to the tax system.

b) That intervening in this manner will not cause inequity or negatively impact the economy (e.g. tax breaks for one industry leading to rampant overproduction to the detriment of other industries)

c) That such complications can be availed of easily by those who need them most. Who for example is more likely to apply for and avail of the plethora of extra tax credits available - low or high bracket income earners?



ubiquitous said:


> Tax avoidance and tax planning is not a waste of productivity, merely rational financial housekeeping and cost minimisation by intelligent individuals and businesses.


 
Prudent perhaps for the businesses and individuals involved. Wasted productivity on the wider scale because it adds so little to the economy.



Purple said:


> This, in my opinion, would be unfair on low earners.


 
Only if you don't believe spending is proportional to income. To avoid penalising low income earners, the FairTax movement in the US propose providing a monthly rebate up to a defined poverty level. I'm not sure it is entirely necessary to do so, but might help assuage the worst fears people would have about such a system. Certainly, with a consumption tax, low income earners would be encouraged to save and invest their income, thereby creating and building wealth.


----------



## Purple (5 Jul 2008)

room305 said:


> a) The government can and will be aware of all the possible ramifications of all the amendments, exemptions, credits and various other "complications" designed to provide more equity to the tax system.
> 
> b) That intervening in this manner will not cause inequity or negatively impact the economy (e.g. tax breaks for one industry leading to rampant overproduction to the detriment of other industries)
> 
> ...


Excellent points


----------



## television (5 Jul 2008)

room305 said:


> . I'm not sure it is entirely necessary to do so, but might help assuage the worst fears people would have about such a system. Certainly, with a consumption tax, low income earners would be encouraged to save and invest their income, thereby creating and building wealth.


 
What is the "worst fears" that people might have of this system.


----------



## television (5 Jul 2008)

shnaek said:


> - simplifying the system should result in a more understandable system. And a more understandable system should be more equitable.


 
I got a simple system. Those earning over 100,000 E pay no tax
those under pay 42 on all income.

Simple and equitable.


----------



## television (5 Jul 2008)

room305 said:


> Certainly, with a consumption tax, low income earners would be encouraged to save and invest their income, thereby creating and building wealth.


 
In a tax based on consumption would thinks like education products be included, like computers, school books, etc. or perhaps perscription drugs etc,


----------



## Purple (5 Jul 2008)

I can see the argument for an income limit beyond which you stop paying tax (for example say € one million) as very high net worth people add to the economy in other ways.


----------



## Complainer (5 Jul 2008)

Purple said:


> very high net worth people add to the economy in other ways.


Could you expand on what kind of ways HNW people add to the economy, other than in proportion to their income?


----------



## Purple (6 Jul 2008)

Complainer said:


> Could you expand on what kind of ways HNW people add to the economy, other than in proportion to their income?



Have a look at the big extension in Trinity College and check up on who gives money to the national art gallery and you will see what one HMW person gives. On a more mundane level rich people spend more money than poor people in the consumer economy. I would also suggest that once someone has paid over €400'000 in income tax they have paid their fair share.

Trust me, this does not apply to me (and probably never will), it’s just an observation.


----------



## Complainer (6 Jul 2008)

Purple said:


> Have a look at the big extension in Trinity College and check up on who gives money to the national art gallery and you will see what one HMW person gives. On a more mundane level rich people spend more money than poor people in the consumer economy. I would also suggest that once someone has paid over €400'000 in income tax they have paid their fair share.
> 
> Trust me, this does not apply to me (and probably never will), it’s just an observation.



I specifically mentioned 'proportion' in my query. Many alumni donate to Trinity and many people donate to the national gallery, including a large team of volunteer guides. 

I suspect that many of the large high-profile donations to universities have been about buying of honorary doctorates. There is no evidence that HNW donate a higher proportion of their income than others, and therefore therefore this is no justification for tax breaks.

To each according to their needs, from each according to their ability.


----------



## Purple (7 Jul 2008)

Complainer said:


> I specifically mentioned 'proportion' in my query. Many alumni donate to Trinity and many people donate to the national gallery, including a large team of volunteer guides.
> 
> I suspect that many of the large high-profile donations to universities have been about buying of honorary doctorates. There is no evidence that HNW donate a higher proportion of their income than others, and therefore therefore this is no justification for tax breaks.


 Half of what Martin Naughton earns in a year does a lot more for the national gallery than half of what you or I earn. Many very rich people give money and no one ever hears about it.





Complainer said:


> To each according to their needs, from each according to their ability.


 I think that charities would like to see the HNW guy coming before Joe Bloggs (no matter how well intentioned).
By the way, that quote is what communism is based on. I don't like it as it suggests that a drug addict who "needs" €500 a day should get more than someone who studied hard and works hard but doesn't need much to stay fed and warm.


----------



## ubiquitous (7 Jul 2008)

room305 said:


> This is condescending balderdash. For Reynolds statement to carry any weight, he would have to convince people that
> 
> a) The government can and will be aware of all the possible ramifications of all the amendments, exemptions, credits and various other "complications" designed to provide more equity to the tax system.
> 
> ...



Its very easy to bandy about terms like "condescending balderdash" in relation to Reynolds' statement. However  unless and until you are in a position to cite at least four or five concrete suggestions of ways in which they tax system can be simplified without sacrificing equity and fairness, your criticism may equally not be taken seriously.


----------



## csirl (7 Jul 2008)

> Its very easy to bandy about terms like "condescending balderdash" in relation to Reynolds' statement. However unless and until you are in a position to cite at least four or five concrete suggestions of ways in which they tax system can be simplified without sacrificing equity and fairness, your criticism may equally not be taken seriously.


 
1. Flat rate of taxation for everyone - fair because everyone pays the same percentage, compliance is easy on the customer and less costly to administer.

OR

2. Lump sum rate of taxation for everyone - we are all equal citizens, so why not have everyone pay exactly the same amount of tax every year. The ultimate fair tax.

OR 

3. Abolish income tax and increase the rate of VAT. Fair tax, because everyone pays in proportion to the disposable income they spend.

OR

4. Refundable tax credit system to replace both taxation and welfare. Everyone is entitled to a certain minimum income. If the earn less, they get a fully refundable tax credit for the difference (this is actual cash paid to them for those not familiar with RTCs). If they earn more, they pay a flat rate percentage on all income above this limit.


We have very little equity and fairness in our current tax system. Tax bands, exemptions, write-offs etc make it is biased in favour of some people and against others.


----------



## ubiquitous (7 Jul 2008)

csirl said:


> 1. Flat rate of taxation for everyone - fair because everyone pays the same percentage, compliance is easy on the customer and less costly to administer.
> 
> OR
> 
> ...



Hard to see how any of the first 3 could be regarded as inherently fair, or at least fairer than the above system. No. 1 would see big gains for high earners, financed by low earners and those who are not earning enough to be paying tax at present. Ditto No. 2 & No. 3

No. 4 is not a tax simplification measure so I will ignore it.

ps I would be interested in how precisely you reckon that a Flat rate of taxation would mean that "compliance is easy on the customer and less costly to administer"?


----------



## csirl (7 Jul 2008)

> Hard to see how any of the first 3 could be regarded as inherently fair, or at least fairer than the above system.


 
Given that they are proportionate and non-discriminating, can you explain how they are not fair? Can you also explain how the current system is fairer? I've asked loads of times over the years, but never received any explanation as to why are current regressive discriminatory tax system is fair?

Note, I've used both "regressive" and "discriminatory" in their taxation meaning which is as follows:

Regressive = paying a higher proportion of tax as your income increases.
Discriminatory = not everyone with the same income & personal circumstances pays the same tax.



> ps I would be interested in how precisely you reckon that a Flat rate of taxation would mean that "compliance is easy on the customer and less costly to administer"?


 
Its obvious - everybody knows exactly how much tax they have to pay. Dont need an accountant, dont need to do complex calculations, very difficult to make a mistake, cant be misinterpreted. How easy can you get?


----------



## ubiquitous (7 Jul 2008)

csirl said:


> Its obvious - everybody knows exactly how much tax they have to pay. Dont need an accountant, dont need to do complex calculations, very difficult to make a mistake, cant be misinterpreted. How easy can you get?



A flat tax would not make accountants redundant. 

Most accountants working in industry and practice spend most of their time preparing accounts in order to calculate an entity's profit or loss for any given period. The adoption of a flat tax would not change this. All that would change would be the rate on which tax is levied on the income as calculated. Neither would it get rid of the need for employers to operate PAYE on employee earnings, nor would it (presumably) get rid of VAT.

The introduction of the standard 12.5% Corporation Tax rate for companies has increased accountants' work, not decreased or eliminated it.


----------



## ubiquitous (7 Jul 2008)

csirl said:


> Given that they are proportionate and non-discriminating, can you explain how they are not fair? Can you also explain how the current system is fairer? I've asked loads of times over the years, but never received any explanation as to why are current regressive discriminatory tax system is fair?



I can only repeat my earlier post


ubiquitous said:


> The tax system would be simpler if
> - tax relief on medical expenses was scrapped.
> - tax credits for the blind/elderly/incapacitated/widowed parents following bereavement were scrapped
> - tax bands were abolished
> ...


----------



## Complainer (7 Jul 2008)

Purple said:


> Half of what Martin Naughton earns in a year does a lot more for the national gallery than half of what you or I earn.


Indeed it is. But I don't see any relevance of this in terms of your proposal for a non-proportional tax break for the super-wealthy. 



Purple said:


> Many very rich people give money and no one ever hears about it.


As do many not-so-rich people.



Purple said:


> By the way, that quote is what communism is based on.


Did you watch the cartoon series Wait Till Your Father Gets Home as a child. There was one farcical character, the [broken link removed] who was cold war conspiracy theorist, and saw reds under the beds in every room, even those with no beds. Anyone he couldn't understand or whose world view disagreed with his own was labelled as a no-good commie.



Purple said:


> I don't like it as it suggests that a drug addict who "needs" €500 a day should get more than someone who studied hard and works hard but doesn't need much to stay fed and warm.



It suggests absolutely nothing about what a drug addict needs, with or without the inverted quotes. Your interpretation says more about you than about communism.


----------



## shnaek (8 Jul 2008)

Complainer said:


> Did you watch the cartoon series Wait Till Your Father Gets Home as a child. There was one farcical character, the [broken link removed] who was cold war conspiracy theorist, and saw reds under the beds in every room, even those with no beds. Anyone he couldn't understand or whose world view disagreed with his own was labelled as a no-good commie.


Look up your quote in google. First link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_each_according_to_his_ability,_to_each_according_to_his_need


To quote from it:
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need (or needs) is a slogan popularized by Karl Marx in his 1875 Critique of the Gotha Program. The phrase summarizes the idea that, under a communist system, every person shall produce to the best of one's ability in accordance with one's talent, and each person shall receive the fruits of this production in accordance with one's need, irrespective of what one has produced. In the Marxist view, such an arrangement will be made possible by the abundance of goods and services that a developed communist society will produce; the idea is that there will be enough to satisfy everyone's needs."


----------



## Purple (8 Jul 2008)

Complainer said:


> Indeed it is. But I don't see any relevance of this in terms of your proposal for a non-proportional tax break for the super-wealthy.


 There are none so blind as those who will not see. 



Complainer said:


> As do many not-so-rich people.


 I was responding to your insinuation that very rich people donate for ego or self-gratification.



Complainer said:


> Did you watch the cartoon series Wait Till Your Father Gets Home as a child. There was one farcical character, the [broken link removed] who was cold war conspiracy theorist, and saw reds under the beds in every room, even those with no beds. Anyone he couldn't understand or whose world view disagreed with his own was labelled as a no-good commie.


 That was very interesting (I didn’t watch the cartoon, it was before my time J) but what’s your point? I pointed out that the phrase you used in inextricable associated with Carl Marx and communism.



Complainer said:


> It suggests absolutely nothing about what a drug addict needs, with or without the inverted quotes. Your interpretation says more about you than about communism.


 It was merely an extreme case used to illustrate the innate flaw in the philosophy your espoused.


----------



## Guest114 (8 Jul 2008)

The government should build at least three nuclear power stations. This would provide massive employment for the next few years. At the end of it, we would have cheap efficient energy (just like the French have had for years)


----------



## murphaph (10 Jul 2008)

autumnleaf said:


> One thing that hasn't been covered: energy costs. What can we do to improve efficiency or encourage alternative energy sources, or is this out of our hands?


Quite the opposite! I'm no green loony leftie but by God-we live on a windswept, wave battered, rained on rock in the North Atlantic! We should be developing these assets NOW. Wind, wave, tidal and traditional hydro renewables should be prioritised. The nuclear option must be looked at to cover gaps in the bad weather (increasingly rare, lol). The entire rail network should be electrified and local public transport massively enhanced with bold moves to take back roadspace from the private car. 

The government should carefully evaluate ho much we are selling oil exploration rights for. Norway has a high standard of living due in no small part to OWNING Statoil 100%. We do not know how large our oil reserves are (if we have any) but we should be prepared to make the most of them if they materialise.

Energy self-sufficiency will be more and more important very soon.


----------



## room305 (10 Jul 2008)

murphaph said:


> The government should carefully evaluate ho much we are selling oil exploration rights for. Norway has a high standard of living due in no small part to OWNING Statoil 100%. We do not know how large our oil reserves are (if we have any) but we should be prepared to make the most of them if they materialise.


 
Are you suggesting the Irish government should start drilling for oil? Maybe we should aside a certain percentage of our GDP to play the Euromillions lottery as well?


----------



## Complainer (10 Jul 2008)

Purple said:


> There are none so blind as those who will not see.
> 
> I was responding to your insinuation that very rich people donate for ego or self-gratification.


Yet again, you are failing to produce any substantiation for your proposal for a non-proportional tax. There is no evidence that HNW donate a high percentage of their salary. Indeed, the figures released by Revenue in the last 12 months showed that (iirc) the average percentage of tax paid by those with income over €1million was in the region of 11%. The many tax breaks kindly provided by McCreevy and Cowan pay nothing near their fair share of tax at present, and yet you propose another break? Give us a break, will ya?



Purple said:


> That was very interesting (I didn’t watch the cartoon, it was before my time J) but what’s your point? I pointed out that the phrase you used in inextricable associated with Carl Marx and communism.
> 
> It was merely an extreme case used to illustrate the innate flaw in the philosophy your espoused.



The point is that when you start seeing reds under the bed in every theory, you've somewhat lost the plot. Try understanding the words rather than digging up irrelevant historical context or making up extreme hypothetical cases, and you might just find some enlightenment.


----------



## shnaek (11 Jul 2008)

Complainer said:


> The many tax breaks kindly provided by McCreevy and Cowan pay nothing near their fair share of tax at present, and yet you propose another break?


What specific tax breaks are you referring to? How do tax breaks pay their fair share of tax?




Complainer said:


> Try understanding the words rather than digging up irrelevant historical context or making up extreme hypothetical cases, and you might just find some enlightenment.


Nothing made up there. The words are part of the communist manifesto. That is fact. As for their meaning, perhaps you would care to enlighten us as to the meaning of the words?


----------



## murphaph (11 Jul 2008)

room305 said:


> Are you suggesting the Irish government should start drilling for oil? Maybe we should aside a certain percentage of our GDP to play the Euromillions lottery as well?


I didn't suggest the state drill for oil anywhere in my post.


----------



## Complainer (12 Jul 2008)

shnaek said:


> What specific tax breaks are you referring to? How do tax breaks pay their fair share of tax?


Tax breaks are income foregone to the state. Some will argue that the economic activity would not have happened without the tax break. However, it is very, very hard to see any justification for the state subsidies given to the property industry, the horse-racing industry and the private medical industry for a start - these are all big enough to stand on their own feet.


shnaek said:


> Nothing made up there. The words are part of the communist manifesto. That is fact. As for their meaning, perhaps you would care to enlighten us as to the meaning of the words?


Purple's 'drug addict' scenario was indeed 'made up' and was indeed an extreme example. The meaning of the words is self-explanatory. Just read them.


----------



## Purple (14 Jul 2008)

Complainer said:


> Yet again, you are failing to produce any substantiation for your proposal for a non-proportional tax. There is no evidence that HNW donate a high percentage of their salary. Indeed, the figures released by Revenue in the last 12 months showed that (iirc) the average percentage of tax paid by those with income over €1million was in the region of 11%. The many tax breaks kindly provided by McCreevy and Cowan pay nothing near their fair share of tax at present, and yet you propose another break? Give us a break, will ya?


 I simply suggested that we should look at a system where once an individual has paid a certain amount of tax they stop paying. Get down off the socialist moral high-ground.





Complainer said:


> The point is that when you start seeing reds under the bed in every theory, you've somewhat lost the plot. Try understanding the words rather than digging up irrelevant historical context or making up extreme hypothetical cases, and you might just find some enlightenment.


 The words you quoted are from the communist manifesto. 
History shows us what happens when well meaning but extremist, dangerous and stupid policies are followed. 
It shows how utterly bankrupt Marx's fundamentalism is; to ignore it is folly. 

My example was given to shown how absurd Marxism is.


----------



## television (14 Jul 2008)

Purple said:


> History shows us what happens when well meaning but extremist, dangerous and stupid policies are followed.


 
I wonder what historians will be saying in a hundred years about the domination of neo liberalist ideology at the beginning of this century.


----------



## redstar (14 Jul 2008)

television said:


> I wonder what historians will be saying in a hundred years about the domination of neo liberalist ideology at the beginning of this century.



Who knows ?


----------



## television (14 Jul 2008)

redstar said:


> Who knows ?


  You may have to have some handle on the issue of neo liberalism to understand the implication of my question


----------



## Purple (14 Jul 2008)

television said:


> I wonder what historians will be saying in a hundred years about the domination of neo liberalist ideology at the beginning of this century.


Neo-Liberalism has had 8 years as the dominant political ideology in the USA but it was never all encompassing or anywhere near as extreme as Communism or fascism. It was never dominant in Europe or anywhere else in the world so I don't see how it can be described as the dominant ideology in a global context and certainly not in an Irish context.


----------



## Purple (14 Jul 2008)

television said:


> You may have to have some handle on the issue of neo liberalism to understand the implication of my question


That's a rather condescending answer.


----------



## ubiquitous (14 Jul 2008)

What has any of this to do with the topic being discussed: Plans to help the Economy - posters suggestions.

Time to shut this thread imho


----------



## Purple (14 Jul 2008)

ubiquitous said:


> What has any of this to do with the topic being discussed: Plans to help the Economy - posters suggestions.
> 
> Time to shut this thread imho


I agree, lets get back on topic or kill it.


----------



## television (14 Jul 2008)

Purple said:


> Neo-Liberalism has had 8 years as the dominant political ideology in the USA but it was never all encompassing or anywhere near as extreme as Communism or fascism. It was never dominant in Europe or anywhere else in the world so I don't see how it can be described as the dominant ideology in a global context and certainly not in an Irish context.


 
The neo liberal economic agenda is the dominant economic agenda in Europe over the last ten years or more. A plan to help the economy? Question very carefully the dominance of this model and its implication for the health and education of our children.


----------



## television (14 Jul 2008)

ubiquitous said:


> What has any of this to do with the topic being discussed: Plans to help the Economy - posters suggestions.
> 
> Time to shut this thread imho


 
Discussing various macro economic models has implications for our economy I think.


----------



## television (14 Jul 2008)

Purple said:


> That's a rather condescending answer.


 
Agreed, Apologies


----------



## ubiquitous (14 Jul 2008)

television said:


> A plan to help the economy? Question very carefully the dominance of this model and its implication for the health and education of our children.



Sorry for the life of me I can't see how that is going "to help the economy", ie get us out of recession? 

If you want to discuss the relative merits of neo-liberalism and marxism on another thread, feel free do so...


----------



## television (14 Jul 2008)

Technically are we in a recession yet?


----------

