# Tim Hartford on Basic Income and other suggestions



## Firefly (6 May 2015)

Hi,.

The idea of a Basic Income has been knocking around for a long time now, but this article by Tim Hartford (Financial Times columnist) puts forward clear numbers against it along with proposals to privatise education and how to shake up the housing market. I've been a fan of Tim's for a long time now and have a few of his books. I would be interested in what others think of his proposals.

http://timharford.com/2015/05/what-a-radical-conservative-government-could-do

Firefly


----------



## Firefly (25 May 2016)

The Swiss are voting on June 5th whether or not to go with a Basic Income....

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...nsive-countries-is-debating-giving-away-money


----------



## Codogly (25 May 2016)

Hi Firefly,

Very interesting article ... while i can see a lot of merit in most of the suggestions ... two points that stood out to me :
1. No mention of self - employed and how they are taxed ... this is a real issue, the proposal will only work if ww can be sure we are getting all the taxes due from the self-employed.
2. You can be sure that some would blow the 8k basic wage and come back looking for more based on their disability i.e. drug and drink addiction / gambling etc ... if society were to operate a basic wage system then we would need to be prepared to allow those who abuse it to fall below the poverty line and suffer the consequence, one of the big problems in current day society is a lack of personal responsibility.


----------



## Purple (25 May 2016)

Codogly said:


> one of the big problems in current day society is a lack of personal responsibility


 It is indeed and it's getting worse.
Handouts that people haven’t earned and will never earn are now called “entitlements” as if to give the impression that they have some intrinsic right to get them or that they have somehow paid for them.

We live in a society where hard work and success are treated as bad things, as if wealth cannot be created but only re-distributed and so those with wealth must somehow have it at the expense of those who are poor. This is of course rubbish but we behave as if it’s an immutable truth.


----------



## Gerry Canning (27 May 2016)

Purple , Kinda disagreeing with some of your comment.

Is it not true ? that the very very wealthy , have skewed the other end of the system to make them untouchable .
It seems we have a cohort of (entitlers) at the top end that are screwing us .
It seems we have a cohort of (entitlers) at the other end that are screwing us. 
It seems Mr Average who worked hard to provide for himself gets screwed from both ends.

Both cohorts can,t see their responsibilities .


----------



## T McGibney (27 May 2016)

Gerry Canning said:


> Is it not true ? that the very very wealthy , have skewed the other end of the system to make them untouchable .
> It seems we have a cohort of (entitlers) at the top end that are screwing us .



Is this true at all in Ireland, Gerry? I honestly don't think it is. Anyone earning serious money is paying serious tax, as far as I can see.


----------



## Purple (27 May 2016)

Gerry Canning said:


> Purple , Kinda disagreeing with some of your comment.
> 
> Is it not true ? that the very very wealthy , have skewed the other end of the system to make them untouchable .
> It seems we have a cohort of (entitlers) at the top end that are screwing us .
> ...


Internationally the super rich, i.e. multi-billionaires, skew things in their favour but not here in Ireland. 
The people in the middle here, Mr/Ms Average, actually pay very little tax and in the vast majority of cases are net recipients from the state. It is only the top 20 or 30% of earners who are net contributors and the rest of us lean on them. Them's the facts, although it doesn't suit the ideological agenda of many people in politics and the media so it is ignored and public figures are allowed to get away with spouting the most ludicrous BS.


----------



## T McGibney (27 May 2016)

The top 1% of income tax payers pay something like 22% of total income tax receipts. A substantial percentage of income earners pay nothing.


----------



## Protocol (27 May 2016)

It's true that high earners in Ireland pay a disproportionate share of direct taxes, yes.

But this is linked to their disproportionate share of the income.

Legal, medical, accounting, property costs are all too high in Ireland, so as a result it's no surprise that landlords, lawyers, medical consultants, etc. pay a lot of tax, it's because they charge too much.

It is now well established that we have some of the highest legal fees in the world, which didn't drop much during the Great Recession.

See here:




Commercial rents are still way too high, some of them need to fall 90%. UORR are still in force for many leases.

Example: Debenhams have paid 100 million in rent to the Roche family.

GPs in Ireland charge 50, while French GPs charge 25 [I realise the 50 is partly to subsidise the GMS patients].


----------



## Sarenco (27 May 2016)

Protocol said:


> It is now well established that we have some of the highest legal fees in the world



Really?  Could you link to anything to support that claim?  There's certainly nothing in the linked Indo article that backs it up.

Landlords, etc., will rationally charge whatever the market will bear.  The same applies to anybody selling a service or product - that's simply the way markets work and there's nothing peculiar about Ireland in this regard. 

In any event, high taxes will ultimately feed into prices paid by end-users so this becomes a rather circular argument.


----------



## T McGibney (27 May 2016)

Protocol said:


> It's true that high earners in Ireland pay a disproportionate share of direct taxes, yes.
> 
> But this is linked to their disproportionate share of the income.



You ignore the obvious point though that the Irish income tax system is sharply progressive - which really puts the kibosh on Gerry's charge that "the rich" are screwing us.


----------



## Gerry Canning (30 May 2016)

T Mc Gibney.

Is the Irish system {sharply progressive} ? I thought the big yowl was that because the base is too narrow only PAYE people get really hit.
I wasn,t saying that {the rich} are screwing us ,but it seems too big a % of the (elite) get inordinate breaks, and maybe as per Protocol earn too much !
Or could it be that the argument should be total taxes paid not just income tax.
(I am NOT an expert atall just observing)


----------



## newirishman (30 May 2016)

Gerry Canning said:


> T Mc Gibney.
> 
> Is the Irish system {sharply progressive} ? I thought the big yowl was that because the base is too narrow only PAYE people get really hit.
> I wasn,t saying that {the rich} are screwing us ,but it seems too big a % of the (elite) get inordinate breaks, and maybe as per Protocol earn too much !
> ...



Here's one for a good read: "Debunking Irish Income Tax myths"


> The top 1% of all income tax cases in Ireland earn 9.1% of income and pay 30.4% of the taxation
> The top 5% pay almost 55% of all taxation from 22.7% of the income



Not sure where you seen inordinate breaks for the "elite" - but the top 1% paying 30% of taxation doesn't look like a tax break to me.

In terms of overall taxes paid, I assume you are also referring to VAT?

- No VAT pretty much on any food stuff to cook for yourself
- No VAT on kids clothing, or most hygiene articles
- Reduced VAT rate on heating fuel and electricity
So in terms of necessities the VAT system is quite OK I think.

(Note that I do think the standard rate of VAT (23%) is way too high)

Add to that things like free travel scheme, medical cards, etc.

Here's a link to more Revenue statistics: http://www.revenue.ie/en/about/statistics/income-distributions.html


----------



## Gerry Canning (30 May 2016)

Newirishman,
Thanks for that but more questions,

Was there not inordinate tax breaks on various {development} type things over the years ? Benefitted, I presume the (elite).
The infamous tax amnesty benefitted the (elite)
Low rate tax payer couldn,t get full breaks on pension funding .Directors could do (funnies).
Medical facilities , is it not true that even the elite are subsidised?
If Vat reduces , problem is what taxes replace it?

I always worry about statistics, as its very hard to get a fair overview from them and all vested interests are adept at selling their sectional interest.

I am NOT in the {hang those dastardly rich people}
but there seems to be a cohort of professions/people who visually appear to be doing better than their efforts justify.
I sense that Mr Average is being screwed , this may well be lazy reading by me or lazy reporting of statistics by media.

(just commenting, I don,t have nuff knowledge to be sure )


----------



## newirishman (30 May 2016)

Gerry Canning said:


> Was there not inordinate tax breaks on various {development} type things over the years ? Benefitted, I presume the (elite).
> The infamous tax amnesty benefitted the (elite)
> Low rate tax payer couldn,t get full breaks on pension funding .Directors could do (funnies).


The obsession with property development in this country - and related tax breaks, subsidies, and other crazy stuff - is "unhealthy" to say the least.

It is true that if you don't pay taxes you won't get a lot of tax breaks. Which is why for many reasons it is a not always a good idea to use the income tax system to distribute money (taxsaver ticket another example)



Gerry Canning said:


> Medical facilities , is it not true that even the elite are subsidised?


The elite (which I am not sure who that group is in your opinion) tends to have and pay for private medical insurance. Without it, the HSE would be in even bigger trouble.




Gerry Canning said:


> If Vat reduces , problem is what taxes replace it?


Maybe reduce spending instead?




Gerry Canning said:


> but there seems to be a cohort of professions/people who visually appear to be doing better than their efforts justify.
> I sense that Mr Average is being screwed , this may well be lazy reading by me or lazy reporting of statistics by media.



What efforts should that cohort of professions/people (again, clarify who) be making so that they are in your opinion "allowed" to be doing better?
I am probably in the top 10% income group in this country. I usually work 40-45 hours a week, but I can't say that I am killing myself over work.
Am I allowed to do "better" then someone who is on half my salary, and maybe working his/her buttocks off at all hours of the day?

This all sounds a bit like "entitlement" culture to me.


----------



## T McGibney (30 May 2016)

Gerry Canning said:


> T Mc Gibney.
> 
> *Is the Irish system {sharply progressive}* ? I thought the big yowl was that because the base is too narrow only PAYE people get really hit.
> I wasn,t saying that {the rich} are screwing us ,but it seems too big a % of the (elite) get inordinate breaks, and maybe as per Protocol earn too much !
> ...



With respect Gerry, if you need me to answer those questions for you, I can only conclude that your earlier rhetorical questions were just trolling. 

As for the tax amnesties being some sort of tax break for the wealthy - the last tax amnesty was 22 years ago FFS.


----------



## Gerry Canning (30 May 2016)

T Mc Gibney,

Not trolling ,
Just can,t see overall tax system as progressive ?
The Tax amnesty was one helluva tax break! I know a long-long -long time ago and I know a few loopholes have been plugged recently.
It seems the TAX the RICH camp reckon the RICH are creaming it .
It seems the NO PAY TAX DOWNTRODDEN workers are paying nought.

Is there any unbiased info that has been honestly collated.
Bit like the UK Brexit debate , each camp trumpets the argument that suits them .

(again I am just commenting)


----------



## T McGibney (30 May 2016)

Tired of your ranting tbh Gerry. Sorry.


----------



## newirishman (30 May 2016)

Gerry Canning said:


> T Mc Gibney,
> 
> Not trolling ,
> Just can,t see overall tax system as progressive ?
> ...



You are clearly not reading the replies.
You might argue that the tax bands might need adjustment, but it overall the taxation system is very much progressive. 
It is simply: the more you earn, the higher the tax rate. 

Follow the links posted and *read* the stuff, otherwise it isn't commenting but trolling.


----------



## 44brendan (30 May 2016)

Gerry Canning said:


> Is there any unbiased info that has been honestly collated.


Read the report supplied with the earlier post Gerry! Generally you have come across as being a fair arbiter of what is right and wrong but on this occasion I do feel that you are generalizing on an issue without listening to any of the counter arguments made.
Why not be more specific in terms of your assertions that the "rich" are not carrying a fair burden of taxation? Look up the information that is available on comparable economies and see whether the Irish higher earners are being preferably treated by the taxman!


----------



## Gerry Canning (30 May 2016)

I hear you 44brendan and admit I have a jaundiced view of  stats.
So   You are correct I ain,t listening too well to counter arguments,or maybe I am getting too mistrusting of stats and views.
I have the (unscientific) notion ,not so much that higher earners are being preferably treated by revenue  but more that there is a cohort of (rich)people who have tweaked things and appear to benefitting too much .
Just to balance , I also have the (unscientific) notion that too many of (the tax the Rich) are work shy !

Maybe its just a fact of life that Mr Average gets squeezed from either side?


----------



## Jim2007 (30 May 2016)

Firefly said:


> The Swiss are voting on June 5th whether or not to go with a Basic Income....



Yap, cast my vote last night!  Daft on two counts - first you could not live on 2.5K per month and second have recently rejected the idea of a minimum wage by 76%, the changes of this every passing is zero!

But that is the thing about direct democracy - you get to vote often (4 times a year in our case) and more often than not on issues that have no chance of every flying.


----------



## Sophrosyne (30 May 2016)

newirishman said:


> Here's one for a good read: "Debunking Irish Income Tax myths"
> 
> Not sure where you seen inordinate breaks for the "elite" - but the top 1% paying 30% of taxation doesn't look like a tax break to me.



Gerry Canning is right to mistrust how statistics are represented by interest groups.

The figures in this report are unreliable.

IBEC used Revenue’s statistical report for 2012 – based on the year 2011.

It's top 1% to refer to those with incomes of €200,000 or more.

The number of cases with incomes of 200,000 or more is correctly stated as 18,741,

Their income % is also correct at 9.11%,

But the combined income tax and USC % paid by this group - €2,616m, is 18.02% of total income tax and USC paid € 14,515m - and not 30.4% as claimed in the IBEC report. You can check this out yourself - Table IDS20 - 2011.
Other figures in this report are also incorrect.

Now, while top earners still payed 18.02% of all income tax and USC paid on 9.11% of all income earned, claiming that they payed 30.4% seems rather mischievous.


----------



## Purple (31 May 2016)

Can you post a link Sophrosyne?


----------



## Protocol (31 May 2016)

http://www.revenue.ie/en/about/statistics/income-distributions.html

Might this help?


----------



## T McGibney (31 May 2016)

But who on earth takes anything IBEC - the big employers' union whose biggest subscribers are RTE, the ESB, Eir and the banks - says seriously?


----------



## Sophrosyne (31 May 2016)

Purple said:


> Can you post a link Sophrosyne?



As mentioned, IBEC used Revenue's statistical report for 2012 based on the year 2011.

[broken link removed]

Select Income Distribution Statistics pdf.

Table ISD20 is on the final page of the document.


----------



## Gerry Canning (31 May 2016)

T McGibney said:


> But who on earth takes anything IBEC - the big employers' union whose biggest subscribers are RTE, the ESB, Eir and the banks - says seriously?



That's an issue .
On economic type things,
 IBEC can present an argument that the Rich are being screwed.
 Nevin institute can present an argument that the Rich are in clover .

From pure observation I do note that those we perceive as Rich have weathered the Recession quite well.
From pure observation I do note that those we perceive as Poor have weathered the Recession quite well.

It still appears to be that Mr Average has been (played) , am I cynical ?


----------



## T McGibney (31 May 2016)

I honestly think you are paying too much attention to vested interest press releases and too little to actual statistics Gerry. Take nothing you hear on radio/tv/web news at face value and make your own inquiries.


----------



## Purple (31 May 2016)

Gerry Canning said:


> From pure observation I do note that those we perceive as Rich have weathered the Recession quite well.
> From pure observation I do note that those we perceive as Poor have weathered the Recession quite well.
> 
> It still appears to be that Mr Average has been (played) , am I cynical ?


No, you are just believing the populist lies trotted out by left wing talking heads which are left unchallenged by our left wing media.
The reality is that Mr. Average has done best out of the recession; lowest tax increases, lowest cuts to state hand-outs as a proportion of income. The so called squeezed middle is in reality the least squeezed sector of society.


----------



## Sophrosyne (31 May 2016)

Gerry Canning said:


> It still appears to be that Mr Average has been (played) , am I cynical ?



It depends on what you mean by "average".

What is "average"?


----------



## Gerry Canning (31 May 2016)

I know Sophrosyne,
Would it be fair to say anyone working with income k25 to k100 ?

Purple,
You could be correct that Mr Middle was least squeezed but could still perversely ended up hardest hit in the recession. ?

T Mc Gibney,
Can agree with you.


----------



## Purple (31 May 2016)

Gerry Canning said:


> Purple,
> You could be correct that Mr Middle was least squeezed but could still perversely ended up hardest hit in the recession. ?


 I don't see how that could be the case. People who lost their jobs were hardest hit. The rest of us are not in the same league. If you are lucky enough to have a job for life then you are fortunate indeed, pay cuts and tax increases notwithstanding.


----------



## Sophrosyne (31 May 2016)

Gerry Canning said:


> I know Sophrosyne,
> Would it be fair to say anyone working with income k25 to k100 ?



That is rather a wide spread Gerry.

But don't forget that a "tax unit" may be a single or widowed individual with or without children or a one or two income source couple.

Typically, a childless single individual with an income of €100,000 would pay considerably more tax than a one-income source couple with the same income.

Similarly, two single individuals have an income of €100,000, one pays and obtains a deduction for pension contributions, the other does not contribute and so will pay more tax.

It is not just about incomes, it is also about personal circumstances and the extent of the tax reliefs for which they qualify.

Individualized tax reliefs prevent meaningful averaging.


----------



## Leo (31 May 2016)

Sophrosyne said:


> Similarly, two single individuals have an income of €100,000, one pays and obtains a deduction for pension contributions, the other does not contribute and so will pay more tax.



Both will pay tax, just the one contributing to the pension is deferring paying that tax until retirement.


----------



## Purple (31 May 2016)

Leo said:


> Both will pay tax, just the one contributing to the pension is deferring paying that tax until retirement.


And due to the resulting higher income when retired may qualify for fewer hand-outs than the lower income individual, thus saving the country money (and therefore getting less of their tax back).


----------



## Sophrosyne (31 May 2016)

Leo said:


> Both will pay tax, just the one contributing to the pension is deferring paying that tax until retirement.



That is true, but we look at statistics for a year.

Difficulties in ascertaining income for a tax year and the effective rate of tax paid on that income is usually behind the Basic Income and also the Flat Tax Rate theories.

An individual may have a "taxable" income of, say, €10,000 per annum, but may also have sizeable non-taxable income and/or payment exemptions and grants from a variety of interdepartmental and agency sources, depending on their personal and business situation.

There are no available statistics which tell us the totality of either individual or household income and other forms of assistance, including for instance, the yearly cost of their medical card usage.

Neither are there statistics which tell us the diminishing effect of tax reliefs on the tax paid in the various income groups.


----------



## Purple (1 Jun 2016)

Sophrosyne said:


> There are no available statistics which tell us the totality of either individual or household income and other forms of assistance, including for instance, the yearly cost of their medical card usage.
> 
> Neither are there statistics which tell us the diminishing effect of tax reliefs on the tax paid in the various income groups.


Very true. Another example of income which is not seen is those who have a defined benefit pension. It's value can be considerable but is not seen as income. This applies to everyone from civil and public servants to GP's who have a GMS contract.


----------



## Gerry Canning (2 Jun 2016)

From reading the posts .
To get to an agreed income/tax/fairness/hardest hit etc is difficult as there are many variables, and each comment I view has value in itself but amalgamating and getting income  correct is like getting 6 lotto numbers. .

From my perch , I can only rely on observation and it (appears) the disparity on (richer)(poorer) is widening.
Trying to figure (real income) is like holding an eel !
I do like the idea of basic income .

Anyway I am sure our Great Leaders will sort it !


----------



## Purple (2 Jun 2016)

Gerry Canning said:


> From my perch , I can only rely on observation and it (appears) the disparity on (richer)(poorer) is widening.
> Trying to figure (real income) is like holding an eel !
> I do like the idea of basic income .



I am in favour of a basic income but if the income gap is widening then the state should ensure competition in the markets, particularly in areas like law and medicine, and work to narrow the skills gap through education. Unskilled people will always earn less than skilled people. That's the way it is and that's the way it should be. If you want to earn more than make your labour more valuable.

If you are unskilled and low paid then do something about it and no, that doesn't just mean going back to full or part time education. Most skills are learned in the workplace.


----------



## T McGibney (2 Jun 2016)

Purple said:


> I am in favour of a basic income



The FT's John Kay: Simple arithmetic shows why basic income schemes cannot work  http://www.johnkay.com/2016/06/01/simple-arithmetic-shows-why-basic-income-schemes-cannot-work


----------



## Purple (2 Jun 2016)

T McGibney said:


> The FT's John Kay: Simple arithmetic shows why basic income schemes cannot work  http://www.johnkay.com/2016/06/01/simple-arithmetic-shows-why-basic-income-schemes-cannot-work


Yep, makes sense.
I'm more thinking about refundable tax credits or the like and the basic income should not be a percentage of average wages or anything like that.


----------



## Firefly (2 Jun 2016)

Purple said:


> Unskilled people will always earn less than skilled people. That's the way it is and that's the way it should be. If you want to earn more than make your labour more valuable. If you are unskilled and low paid then do something about it and no, that doesn't just mean going back to full or part time education. Most skills are learned in the workplace.



Big +1 to this.

I can't see a Basic Income working in this country. 5 milliseconds after it's introduction someone would pop out with "Yeah, dat's grand n'all, but where's me sick?"


----------



## Gerry Canning (7 Jun 2016)

T McGibney said:


> I honestly think you are paying too much attention to vested interest press releases and too little to actual statistics Gerry. Take nothing you hear on radio/tv/web news at face value and make your own inquiries.


......
.....................................................................................................................................................................................
I agree with you but in the fog of what appears plausible it is hard to kill the link between what seems plausible versus actuality and like most people I don,t have the inclination to check/re-check.

eg., I see Charlie Weston in Saturdays Indo, he mentioned the neat ploy of the (rich ) were they Buy? houses for their kids (kids are supposed to live in them )and hence these (rich) avail of 52 million tax break ?
It is my niggling doubt that the system is loaded in a way that can only suit those who have money that narks me.
To be clear I am not going after the Rich but why give extra breaks that can,t be generally availed of by most people  and costs us in foregone taxes?


----------



## T McGibney (7 Jun 2016)

That particular tax relief is open to everyone Gerry, and has been in place for decades and for a very good reason. The idea that its use by a small number of seriously well-heeled families represents some sort of conspiracy against the public is laughable. Even if a newspaper can find little else newsworthy on a slow bank holiday Saturday.


----------



## Gerry Canning (7 Jun 2016)

How can a tax relief be open to everyone , when by its nature it can only be accessed by well heeled.
To me if well-heeled families can get a break that is not able to be used by most , it becomes  nothing but an unfair tax benefit to them.

I do understand there may be (very good reasons) ?
What I also understand is that it is open to abuse and if Mr Westons 52 million is anywhere near right ,it is time it was scrapped or at least policed.

Again to be clear , I am NOT in hit the RICH mode, but in fairness why give them extra advantages?


----------



## T McGibney (7 Jun 2016)

It is open to everyone Gerry. We're in a sorry position if having a roof over one's head qualifies one to be counted as being "well-heeled." 

Like all tax reliefs this one can be abused (if you count its use in respect of valuable properties as "abuse") but like all tax reliefs it is policed.

I don't understand your question about giving "the rich" extra advantages. You might as well pose the same question about our roads network.


----------



## Gerry Canning (7 Jun 2016)

Everyone can use the Roads.
Not everyone can avail of this.

It has the whiff of unfairness.


----------



## T McGibney (7 Jun 2016)

Gerry Canning said:


> Everyone can use the Roads.
> Not everyone can avail of this.


You're wrong, Gerry. What part of "this tax relief is open to everyone" do you not understand? 



Gerry Canning said:


> It has the whiff of unfairness.



How?


----------



## Gerry Canning (7 Jun 2016)

The word (everyone)  , it is only open to few .


Unfairness? 

Marie Antoinette reportedly said (let them eat cake ) 
Problem was they did not even have bread. 

..............
If we lived in an equal opportunity society you are spot on .
Otherwise those in (better) positions seem incapable of accepting that some of their tax reliefs are in practise, unfair to most.


..............
I maybe am wrong ?
I think not.


----------



## Sophrosyne (7 Jun 2016)

Gerry, I think you are being influenced by Charlie Weston’s slant on this tax relief.

The more usual situation is where a son or daughter lives in the family home and inherits it on the death of their parents. Even if the property has a modest value the son or daughter, in the absence of this relief, might be forced to sell their home in order to pay the CAT.


----------



## T McGibney (7 Jun 2016)

Gerry Canning said:


> The word (everyone)  , it is only open to few .



It is open to every family in the country who own the roof over their heads. 

Your rantings about unfairness etc doesn't change this fact.


----------



## Purple (7 Jun 2016)

Gerry Canning said:


> Marie Antoinette reportedly said (let them eat cake )
> Problem was they did not even have bread.


That’s a good example to bring up as she never used the phrase and was a compassionate and generous woman who was deeply moved by the plight of the poor and was strongly of the opinion that she and her husband had a duty to help them.

The king for his part refused to order his soldiers to fire on a mob which was preventing his escape even though he knew not doing so would likely lead to his death.


----------



## Gerry Canning (7 Jun 2016)

Purple
God but I hate you smart people !
Then again, if my memory serves me, on frequent user forums you have been called a heathen by me before!

ps . I hate these suicidal Monarchs ,to the Mob he should have said  ,   off with their heads ,or was that the Monarchs head ?

T Mc Gibney,
Your choice of word {rantings} is unwarranted and can I suggest unfair.
I have been asked on forums to check my facts . I do not propose to check all things but fairness can be very visible and does not need to be hidden in stats..
Can I suggest you read this weeks Economist Magazine , one of their stats show that the GENI co-efficient on equality has got appreciably worse these 2 decades.


----------



## Gerry Canning (7 Jun 2016)

Sophrosyne said:


> Gerry, I think you are being influenced by Charlie Weston’s slant on this tax relief.
> 
> The more usual situation is where a son or daughter lives in the family home and inherits it on the death of their parents. Even if the property has a modest value the son or daughter, in the absence of this relief, might be forced to sell their home in order to pay the CAT.



That has fairness in it.
I picked up that a (fair) relief is being abused by too many (smart) folk. I do not know if it is a big issue..


----------



## T McGibney (7 Jun 2016)

Gerry Canning said:


> T Mc Gibney,
> Your choice of word {rantings} is unwarranted and can I suggest unfair.
> I have been asked on forums to check my facts . I do not propose to check all things but fairness can be very visible and does not need to be hidden in stats..
> Can I suggest you read this weeks Economist Magazine , one of their stats show that the GENI co-efficient on equality has got appreciably worse these 2 decades.



I stand by my "rantings" charge. You repeatedly ignored and tried to bend my (100% factual) comment that the dwelling house CAT exemption is open to any family who own their home. Attempting to divert the discussion to Marie Antoinette and something you read in The Economist is the essence of ranting.


----------



## Purple (7 Jun 2016)

Gerry Canning said:


> Purple
> God but I hate you smart people !
> Then again, if my memory serves me, on frequent user forums you have been called a heathen by me before!


I take exception to one of the things you said about me but an happy to be called a heathen.


----------



## Gerry Canning (7 Jun 2016)

100% factual that CAT exemption is open to everyone who can avail of it  = no argument atall from me.
100% factual that only those in more favoured positions can tweak and abuse it.
AAM to my knowledge, is not a legalistic forum where everything has to be fully supported or stay exactly as (charged).

Indeed as we show on our postings  we too have gone off topic.
So maybe nuff said.


----------



## Gerry Canning (7 Jun 2016)

Purple.

Absolutely NIL offence intended,


----------



## T McGibney (7 Jun 2016)

Gerry Canning said:


> 100% factual that CAT exemption is open to everyone who can avail of it  = no argument atall from me.
> 100% factual that only those in more favoured positions can tweak and abuse it.



Except nobody is talking about tweaking anything. The legislation is clear and, as these things go, simple. 

As for "abuse", this seems to be code for "someone better off than me has availed of it".


----------



## Gerry Canning (7 Jun 2016)

T Mc Gibney,

I hear you and hope I ain,t come across as a begrudger . Fair dues to fair wealth.!


----------



## Sophrosyne (7 Jun 2016)

In reply to a Dáil question on 24 May last, Michael Noonan provided the following figures for the dwelling house exemption:

Year – No of Claims  - Cost

2011   – 565       – 45m
2012   – 499       – 38m
2013   – 538       – 35m
2014   – 614       – 41m
2015   – 741       – 52m

The €52m in 2015 was spread among 741 claimants giving an average of €70,175 per claimant.

I cannot see any evidence of abuse in those figures.


----------



## losttheplot (7 Jun 2016)

Gerry Canning said:


> Everyone can use the Roads.
> Not everyone can avail of this.
> 
> It has the whiff of unfairness.



Only those with cars can use roads, tax breaks can only benefit people who pay tax.


----------



## Purple (8 Jun 2016)

Gerry Canning said:


> Purple.
> 
> Absolutely NIL offence intended,


I was trying to be funny.


----------



## Leo (8 Jun 2016)

losttheplot said:


> Only those with cars can use roads, tax breaks can only benefit people who pay tax.



Do these others not walk or cycle? Do they not avail of public transport? Do they not benefit indirectly from the reduced cost of transporting the goods they buy to their local shops? Bottom line, unless they never leave the house and are 100% self-sufficient in all regards, they benefit from the road infrastructure.


----------



## losttheplot (8 Jun 2016)

Leo said:


> Do these others not walk or cycle? Do they not avail of public transport? Do they not benefit indirectly from the reduced cost of transporting the goods they buy to their local shops? Bottom line, unless they never leave the house and are 100% self-sufficient in all regards, they benefit from the road infrastructure.


They do. But they can't "use" the road.  Others may benefit indirectly from someone else availing of a tax break that they themselves can't avail of.


----------



## Sophrosyne (9 Jun 2016)

The main principle here is that the current system warts and all, strives to alleviate the effect of taxation and to provide welfare assistance in certain commendable circumstances.

This necessitates complexity, as personal and business circumstances are so diverse and so evolving.

The Basic Income or Flat Tax theories, while notionally striving to achieve fairness, ignore diversity and evolution.

They are too inflexible and defeat fairness and evolving economic need in favour of legal and administrative simplicity.


----------



## Leo (9 Jun 2016)

losttheplot said:


> They do. But they can't "use" the road.  Others may benefit indirectly from someone else availing of a tax break that they themselves can't avail of.



Never using the road suggests never even being a passenger in a private or public vehicle? 

It's the nature of the tax/welfare system though. I don't have kids, so I can't avail of a range of tax breaks or benefits. I have a job, so can't avail of job seekers allowance...


----------

