# "We are the only OECD state where some get back more than they pay in income tax"



## Brendan Burgess

Great article by Fiona Redden in the Irish Times on Tuesday week last. Why has this not been on every radio programme in the past week?

*Ireland the only OECD state where some get back more than they pay in income tax*

* Thanks to child benefit, lower income families lose nothing to income tax *


----------



## Brendan Burgess

Check out the OECD data


----------



## Brendan Burgess

This has got very little coverage 

Cliff Taylor in the Irish Times again 
*Think you pay too much tax? The OECD finds you don’t *

Eamon Quinn in the Irish Examiner: 
*OECD: Ireland among lowest taxed in world*

The only discussion I can find online is some responses to an old thread on politics.ie 
[broken link removed]


http://www.irishexaminer.com/business/oecd-ireland-among-lowest-taxed-in-world-392677.html


----------



## Purple

Hi Brendan,

Is there a calculator for this?
A married couple with 4 kids are getting €3,240 a year on top of the €34,143 amount in the article you posted above. That means they are up into the mid €40,000's earned income wise before they are paying any net income taxes (PRSI, PAYE and USC are all just income taxes). When you take the social transfer into account, the cost of funding their state pension, the cost of educating their children, state infrastructure and state employees etc the gap looks massive. 
It all just backs up the fact that it is the top 20% of earners who are paying for everything. 

The next time you see a rich person do remember to thank them!


----------



## demoivre

Purple said:


> The next time you see a rich person do remember to thank them!



Thanks big fella.


----------



## demoivre

Purple said:


> Hi Brendan,
> 
> Is there a calculator for this?
> A married couple with 4 kids are getting €3,240 a year on top of the €34,143 amount in the article you posted above. That means they are up into the mid €40,000's earned income wise before they are paying any net income taxes (PRSI, PAYE and USC are all just income taxes). When you take the social transfer into account, the cost of funding their state pension, the cost of educating their children, state infrastructure and state employees etc the gap looks massive.
> It all just backs up the fact that it is the top 20% of earners who are paying for everything.



I know of a chap working part time earning €12500 per year. He has a wife and 4 kids, three of whom are in college. He gets FIS of €18700 per year and the three grants come in at €26700. His total disposable income is €57900 per annum. If this guy gets a job for €50k, and contributes to the state coffers his kids have to give up college as he cant afford it. Zero joined up thinking in this country and that is one of the main problems.


----------



## Purple

demoivre said:


> Thanks big fella.


 Lol


----------



## vandriver

I just checked and yes we have a negative tax rate.
(4 in family,1 average wage earner)


----------



## Protocol

With Working Tax Credit and Child Tax Credit in the UK, I would have thought that low earners there face a negative income tax............??


----------



## Buddyboy

vandriver said:


> I just checked and yes we have a negative tax rate.
> (4 in family,1 average wage earner)


I don't have to check, with two incomes and no children, I know I am paying through the neck.
However, as I'm now older and hopefully wiser, I do believe that those with children should be subsidised. After all, who is going to pay my pension when I stop working?


----------



## Purple

Buddyboy said:


> After all, who is going to pay my pension when I stop working?


 Ideally we'd all be funding our own pensions with nothing coming from the State (and so less PRSI to pay).


----------



## vandriver

Buddyboy said:


> I don't have to check, with two incomes and no children, I know I am paying through the neck.
> However, as I'm now older and hopefully wiser, I do believe that those with children should be subsidised. After all, who is going to pay my pension when I stop working?


I'm just curious!
Two 50 grand salaries would be a 27% tax take.Two 75 grand salaries would be a 34% tax take.
Is this 'paying through the neck'?


----------



## Purple

vandriver said:


> I'm just curious!
> Two 50 grand salaries would be a 27% tax take.Two 75 grand salaries would be a 34% tax take.
> Is this 'paying through the neck'?


The issue is the marginal tax rate; why work harder or start a business etc when you will be paying well over half of everything extra you earn in tax.
We need to reduce tax rates, reduce allowances and get everyone paying some tax. The net tax take would be the same but the unfair burden on higher earners would be lessened. The reality is we have a squeezed rich, an under-taxed middle and low earners don't pay any tax.


----------



## vandriver

The problem is the undertaxed middle is convinced that they pay way more tax than they actually do.


----------



## Buddyboy

vandriver said:


> I'm just curious!
> Two 50 grand salaries would be a 27% tax take.Two 75 grand salaries would be a 34% tax take.
> Is this 'paying through the neck'?


I was using the expression for emphasis.
There are two salaries, one of 70 and one of 30 (part-time).
As Purple said, the marginal rate is 50% tax. Any extra money I earn is halved in take-home pay.
I don't want to de-rail the thread, but I don't feel overtaxed. Maybe because I don't have the added expense of children. I know friends who have, and agree that the cost is staggering. But then again, they need to be able to afford (in my opinion), to send them to college, so they get well paying jobs and fund both the government pension, and also my employers pension fund.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

PublicPolicy.ie has a note on the OECD report here: 

*Ireland Has The Most Progressive Income Tax System In The EU*


----------



## odyssey06

Any comparison between Ireland and the UK (and similar countries with fully funded public health systems) that doesn't take into account the expenses on private medical insurance, prescription medicines, GPS etc is very misleading... unclear if this report factors in the USC and PRSI that Irish workers pay and get nothing back in return.


----------



## Firefly

_"If raised to Danish or German levels, a single person in Ireland would pay over €5,000 more in tax on an income of about €24,000."
_
That's shocking. Of course we won't hear Ruth Coppinger et al celebrating this!


----------



## cremeegg

Reality check !

Receiving more in Social Welfare than you pay in tax is not a negative rate of taxation. I am surprised that many contributors on here, who know exactly what a tax rate is, are providing convoluted arguments to make point that will be meaningless to reasonable people. Tax rates may be too low, SW rates may be too high, it is just misleading to conflate the two.

Higher tax rates kick in at a very low a rate in this country. The SW system is heavily weighted to supporting children. These are realities of policy in Ireland, obscure mental gymnastics to try to show that certain families have a negative tax rate distract from any discussion of these policies.


----------



## cremeegg

Purple said:


> Ideally we'd all be funding our own pensions with nothing coming from the State (and so less PRSI to pay).



This shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how providing an income in retirement works. 

Briefly, it doesn't matter who owns the factory, the first call on its income must go to the workers, or nothing will get done. Your pension assets are may put you personally at the head of the queue when it comes to income in retirement, but that does nothing to solve the problem of there not being enough income available after paying labour to go around among the projected number of pensioners in the future.


----------



## michaelm

Purple said:


> . . under-taxed middle and low earners don't pay any tax.


Everyone pays VAT.





demoivre said:


> I know of a chap working part time earning €12500 per year. He has a wife and 4 kids, three of whom are in college. He gets FIS of €18700 per year


Probably not a typical example.  FIS is a lifeline for many low-income families.


----------



## Fella

Use the system to your advantage it didn't take me long to realise I'd be better off working part time and paying little or no tax , so that's what i did. 
Me and my wife work part time and are almost out of tax net all together and live comfortably.


----------



## jjm

cremeegg you are on the ball ,Next thing we need to do is Seeing there will not be enough to go round we need to have a discussion on how we are going to manage that fact,OECD REPORTS ONLY LOOK AT THE HEAR AND NOW the are not worth the paper they are written on .What the posters are talking about is away bigger problem, There is no long term plan .For a long term plan to work we need to look at what people have already put in and start acknowledging there should be some payback ,


----------



## AlbacoreA

vandriver said:


> The problem is the undertaxed middle is convinced that they pay way more tax than they actually do.



I think they are wondering why they can't afford anything.


----------



## Purple

cremeegg said:


> This shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how providing an income in retirement works.
> 
> Briefly, it doesn't matter who owns the factory, the first call on its income must go to the workers, or nothing will get done. Your pension assets are may put you personally at the head of the queue when it comes to income in retirement, but that does nothing to solve the problem of there not being enough income available after paying labour to go around among the projected number of pensioners in the future.


No, the current system fundamentally ignores that, using your analogy, there is not enough income available after paying labour to go around among the projected number of pensioners in the future. Individual retirement accounts, funded by individuals or the State or a combination of both, will show everyone exactly what they will have at retirement, based on sustainable levels of contribution. What we have not is a failing ponzi scheme.


----------



## jjm

The middle are working because of there moral compass many would be better off not working most have a problem with the system , They are not really any better off by working, I say that as some one who has worked for over 47 years only to find that when i reach 65 I will be treated the same as someone who never worked a day in there life ,The system is loaded against them,


----------



## Purple

AlbacoreA said:


> I think they are wondering why they can't afford anything.


They should also be looking at whether we as a nation can afford the current levels of State funded pensions. The answer is no and the next question is what we should do about it. Instead of looking at that we are ignoring what's coming down the tracks at us.


----------



## Purple

jjm2016 said:


> The middle are working because of there moral compass many would be better off not working most have a problem with the system , They are not really any better off by working, I say that as some one who has worked for over 47 years only to find that when i reach 65 I will be treated the same as someone who never worked a day in there life ,The system is loaded against them,


I agree. The social contract is broken and as people realise that fewer people will be willing to pay into something from which they get little back.


----------



## Firefly

Purple said:


> I agree. The social contract is broken and as people realise that fewer people will be willing to pay into something from which they get little back.



I wouldn't worry..the national debt will have long been paid off at that stage and we will have a bulging national reserve fund to see us in clover


----------



## cremeegg

Purple said:


> No, the current system fundamentally ignores that, using your analogy, there is not enough income available after paying labour to go around among the projected number of pensioners in the future. Individual retirement accounts, funded by individuals or the State or a combination of both, will show everyone exactly what they will have at retirement, based on sustainable levels of contribution. What we have not is a failing ponzi scheme.



I like that idea, that an individual account would show people what they will have, i.e. very little.

Even if it were only a notional individual account, it would give an much cleared picture of what could be expected in retirement.


----------



## cremeegg

Lets see

average income €37,000 psi at 14.5% (to include employers contribution) €5,457

assume 50% is available for pension 50% to cover other benefits, (I have no better idea what the actual split is)

Thats €2,728 being set aside every year

For 40 years work thats €109,150 plus €65,400 investment income at 3% after inflation over the 40 years gives an individual pension pot of €174,550

At 5% that would give an income in retirement of €8,727 or about two thirds of the current actual.


----------



## jjm

cremeegg other groups are only paying 500 euro per year and the will recive the same benifit


----------



## Purple

jjm2016 said:


> cremeegg other groups are only paying 500 euro per year and the will recive the same benifit


And a large chunk are paying nothing and get the same; the non-contributory pension. 
I'd be surprised if contributions cover even 25% of it.


----------



## cremeegg

jjm2016 said:


> cremeegg other groups are only paying 500 euro per year and the will recive the same benifit





Purple said:


> And a large chunk are paying nothing and get the same; the non-contributory pension.
> I'd be surprised if contributions cover even 25% of it.




The concept of the notional retirement account is to highlight this to people.

So that anyone who paid €500 per year, with no employers prsi, would have a much smaller individual retirement pot, €16,000 in fact based on the same assumptions.

If the government sent out a statement each year showing the size of the notional individual account available to each citizen based on what they had paid in, that would transform the debate.


----------



## Purple

cremeegg said:


> The concept of the notional retirement account is to highlight this to people.
> 
> So that anyone who paid €500 per year, with no employers prsi, would have a much smaller individual retirement pot, €16,000 in fact based on the same assumptions.


Exactly.

An individual retirement account would mean that the proportion of PRSI that goes towards your state pension (say 50%) could be topped up by the account owner.


----------



## jjm

You are correct Purple Now we will let cremeegg  do the figures Non contributory is 222 per week contributory 238euro per week, You get 16 euro for 40 years paying Prsi ,And don't forget PRSI total was higher than 4% lowered to 4% when the USC came in,


----------



## AlbacoreA

Purple said:


> They should also be looking at whether we as a nation can afford the current levels of State funded pensions. The answer is no and the next question is what we should do about it. Instead of looking at that we are ignoring what's coming down the tracks at us.



True. I think a lot of people had invested in property for this reason. The Govt seem to be discouraging that also. Ignoring Landlords and tightening up on inheritance.


----------



## Purple

jjm2016 said:


> You are correct Purple Now we will let cremeegg  do the figures Non contributory is 222 per week contributory 238euro per week, You get 16 euro for 40 years paying Prsi ,And don't forget PRSI total was higher than 4% lowered to 4% when the USC came in,


Add to that the fact that the total income taxes take from State employees is about equal to the pensions paid to former state employees. In effect they either fund their own pension and don't pay any income tax or they pay income tax and they don't fund their own pension.


----------



## Purple

AlbacoreA said:


> True. I think a lot of people had invested in property for this reason. The Govt seem to be discouraging that also. Ignoring Landlords and tightening up on inheritance.


So do we want part time landlords who don't know how to do that job properly or do we want a hybrid pension fund which the State and the individual can contribute to? Think of all the cash the State would have to invest. The problem is they they have already shown that they are willing to steal from private pension funds in order to fund gold-plated DB pensions. Who would trust them to keep their hands off these new hybrid pension funds?


----------



## Purple

newtothis said:


> The same as the super rich, who also play the tax system to pay little or no tax?


IS that all the super rich? Do you know that "the super rich" are all playing the tax system to pay little of no tax? If you don't know then you should avoid statements which, if said about other groups in society, would be considered bigoted.
To answer your question; if they claim more in benefits than they pay in taxes then yes. If not then no, Fella and his wife are worse.


----------



## Palerider

To obtain a full pension under current rules you must meet minimum contributions to prsi, your personal record can be obtained direct from the Department, if you do not meet criteria then you may fall back on a means tested pension, to say there is only a €16 difference is simplistic, I am a long way off pension age, I have a complete history of contributions since age 18 and plan to ensure I do not miss any, it is fair to say the return from the state contributory pension is terrific but it reflects a lifetime for most people paying into the system, I speak to the situation now not speculating on future changes.

People making the most from any system is not unusual, it is the responsibility of those that design the systems to have checks and balances, to decide anybody on the forum who has posted honestly as social parasites is demeaning, to include the same comment on the posters wife does not warrant any comment.


----------



## Purple

Palerider said:


> To obtain a full pension under current rules you must meet minimum contributions to prsi, your personal record can be obtained direct from the Department, if you do not meet criteria then you may fall back on a means tested pension, to say there is only a €16 difference is simplistic, I am a long way off pension age, I have a complete history of contributions since age 18 and plan to ensure I do not miss any, it is fair to say the return from the state contributory pension is terrific but it reflects a lifetime for most people paying into the system, I speak to the situation now not speculating on future changes.


The system, as it stands now, is unsustainable. We are beggaring our children by imposing the cost of our pensions on them. It is immoral and economically unsustainable. The return on the state pension does not reflects a lifetime for most people paying into the system, it reflects a lifetime of not paying for something and expecting those coming after us to pay for it. It's like the Celtic Tiger boom only much much bigger. 



Palerider said:


> People making the most from any system is not unusual, it is the responsibility of those that design the systems to have checks and balances, to decide anybody on the forum who has posted honestly as social parasites is demeaning, to include the same comment on the posters wife does not warrant any comment.


You are entitled to your opinion but in my view citizenship comes with responsibilities as well as rights and one of those is to contribute to society where one can. To opt out of working full-time in order to live off your fellow citizens shows, in my opinion, a lack of personal integrity and honour and is parasitic. 
The system should not be designed on the premise that the citizen has no integrity and is unwilling to accept the social contract. We are not animals.


----------



## Palerider

Yes some animals are more equal than others...

The system is the system, if you feel as strongly as these posts suggest then get yourself elected, if you can, influence change where you can, this is a community forum, slagging off other posters who post honestly and to do so as personally as you have is unjustifiable ...in my opinion.


----------



## jjm

Purple I have to say you and I are the reason we have the Socialist Republic It is the parties we have voted for who have pulled the wool down over our eyes .You only have to look at when the troiKa came to town they were very fast in taking back PRSI to 4% ,Before 2010 anyone earning over 26000 euro were paying a lot more it was 4% on the first 6604 Euro balance @8% for 2009/2010, If you go back before that it was 4% on the first 6604 Euro and 6% on the balance, The Trioka made them change it back to 4% and bring in the USC for everyone meaning everyone had to pay USC  not just PAYE workers Right now Government are doing away with USC which can only mean one thing they plan to put PRSI back up to where it was before the usc came in on the paye workers,


----------



## jjm

cremeegg oop I posted reply on wrong forum,But i will leave it over there for the people in deniel


----------



## TheBigShort

It's an awful article, totally devoid of any concept of social principles or understanding of how the society and economy are intrinsically linked. One cannot survive without the other.
As too often on this site, the issues of taxation, social protection, economic growth etc are re-hashed through a narrow accounting narrative. 
For example, no, or very little consideration is given to how a couple earning less than €25,000 with children, can actually survive in this country without social protection. Or how wages are skewed to over paying higher earners and suppressing the wages of low earners. 
It stands to reason that if employers paid more wages to lower earners that they would begin to come out of social protection, reducing the (exaggerated) tax bill of high earners.


----------



## jjm

great to see you back


----------



## Firefly

jjm2016 said:


> great to see you back



Thinking the same thing myself. Nearly long enough for a new moniker too !


----------



## Delboy

TheBigShort said:


> It stands to reason that if employers paid more wages to lower earners that they would begin to come out of social protection, reducing the (exaggerated) tax bill of high earners.


It also stands to reason that if an employer has a large pool of potential workers to chose from, he can keep wages down. Hence shop assistants earn a lot less than doctors.
And that's how the system is set up, especially since the enlargement of the EU and the continuing Govt policy of granting thousands of work visas every year to non-EU migrants. 
IBEC love this as it helps keep wages down. The Left want it too because they see potential votes from new migrants as their only chance of ever breaking the status-quo in who runs the country. And the lower paid workers are caught in the cross fire.


----------



## jjm

even with a new moniker i think i would still spot the old TheBigShort  We have not seen a post like no 46 in a long time


----------



## Purple

jjm2016 said:


> great to see you back


It is indeed. While I disagree with most of what he says his points have substance and are well made. It'a always good to read contrary opinions as it should make you question your own views.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> It's an awful article, totally devoid of any concept of social principles or understanding of how the society and economy are intrinsically linked. *One cannot survive without the other*.


I think we all agree with that. Where there is disagreement is at what point we get into a negative cycle, at what point do taxes on work cause fewer and fewer people to work and so damage the economy and society. We also have to ask what sort of society do we want; do we want the State to give a hand up or a hand out.


TheBigShort said:


> As too often on this site, the issues of taxation, social protection, economic growth etc are re-hashed through a narrow accounting narrative.


Maybe it is a counterbalance to most of the media ignoring the numbers completely.


TheBigShort said:


> For example, no, or very little consideration is given to how a couple earning less than €25,000 with children, can actually survive in this country without social protection.


We do have family income support so no couple with children ever has to survive on €25,000 a year.




TheBigShort said:


> Or how wages are skewed to over paying higher earners and suppressing the wages of low earners.
> It stands to reason that if employers paid more wages to lower earners that they would begin to come out of social protection, reducing the (exaggerated) tax bill of high earners.


 If I am making a product I have to sell it at a price people are willing to pay. If my costs of manufacture are higher than the price I can get for the product then my business will go under and the people working for me will have no job. The same goes if I'm running a shop. There is no point in ignoring market forces, they are the reason most Unionised businesses in the competitive sectors of the economy have gone bust. 
I do think that some businesses blame wage costs for losses when the real reason is bad management and inefficient practices and processes.


----------



## TheBigShort

jjm2016 said:


> even with a new moniker i think i would still spot the old TheBigShort  We have not seen a post like no 46 in a long time



Thanks all for the warm welcome. It's good to be back. Took a break for a while, stuff happens, to us all unfortunately. 
Looking forward to some topical and challenging discussions.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> at what point do taxes on work cause fewer and fewer people to work and so damage the economy and society. We also have to ask what sort of society do we want; do we want the State to give a hand up or a hand out.



As we speak, without any real reform of the tax system, the unemployment rate has fallen from 15% to 6.6% and continuing to fall further with projected economic growth to be around 5% this year.
It's hard to see how the taxation system is the cause of fewer and fewer people wanting to work.



Purple said:


> Maybe it is a counterbalance to most of the media ignoring the numbers completely



This topic originates from the media, basing it's detail on the numbers.



Purple said:


> We do have family income support so no couple with children ever has to survive on €25,000 a year.



Yes, I know. The topic highlights how these people take out of the system more than they put in. 
How could that possibly change?



Purple said:


> If I am making a product I have to sell it at a price people are willing to pay. If my costs of manufacture are higher than the price I can get for the product then my business will go under and the people working for me will have no job. The same goes if I'm running a shop. There is no point in ignoring market forces



True, unless you pay your high earners a lot less and redistribute that income amongst low earners. 
Speaking of market forces, it is such that market forces can bring thousands of people onto the streets to protest against things water charged. A sign that working people under certain income thresholds cannot sustain anymore cuts to that income.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> As we speak, without any real reform of the tax system, the unemployment rate has fallen from 15% to 6.6% and continuing to fall further with projected economic growth to be around 5% this year.
> It's hard to see how the taxation system is the cause of fewer and fewer people wanting to work.


 keep looking. Look at how many are wealth creating, export focused indigenous Irish jobs and how many are in non wealth creating State sector or construction jobs.
Our economy was built on internationally traded goods and services jobs in the early 90's. That is the only sustainable economic model for a country like ours, the only one which can provide the income we need for the services we want.




TheBigShort said:


> This topic originates from the media, basing it's detail on the numbers.


 A minor report on an issue which should dominate the media.




TheBigShort said:


> Yes, I know. The topic highlights how these people take out of the system more than they put in.
> How could that possibly change?


 It can't. We need to concentrate on getting more people to a position where their skills command a good income instead of taking hard earned income from those who have valuable skills and giving it to people who don't have them.





TheBigShort said:


> True, unless you pay your high earners a lot less and redistribute that income amongst low earners.


 if that happens they will leave and take jobs with people who pay the market value for their skills.



TheBigShort said:


> Speaking of market forces, it is such that market forces can bring thousands of people onto the streets to protest against things water charged. A sign that working people under certain income thresholds cannot sustain anymore cuts to that income.


 No, that's nothing to do with market forces. It's a sign that an opportunist washed out trade unionists and a couple of communists and populists can lie and distort and our left wing media won't call them out on their lies. That enables them to feed into a general public disgruntlement about politics and politicians and turn a minor environmental charge into a major issue where dimwits and morons want a constitutional referendum about the ownership of a public utility. Meanwhile we still have no controls on water use and the people's front of Dun Laoghaire still get to trot out utter nonsense about area metering, unchallenged by the pinkos and stickies in the Public Sector Broadcaster


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> keep looking. Look at how many are wealth creating, export focused indigenous Irish jobs and how many are in non wealth creating State sector or construction jobs.
> Our economy was built on internationally traded goods and services jobs in the early 90's. That is the only sustainable economic model for a country like ours, the only one which can provide the income we need for the services we want.



You are avoiding the point. More and more people are returning to work, in spite of the apparent unfairness of the taxation system. This is the reality.
You still like to propagate the view that fewer and fewer people are returning to work. This is myth.



Purple said:


> A minor report on an issue which should dominate the media.



It's a minor report because it's easy to pick through the holes in it and identity it's inherent bias.
For it to dominate, it needs to be impartial, factual and convincing. It is none of those.





Purple said:


> It can't. We need to concentrate on getting more people to a position where their skills command a good income instead of taking hard earned income from those who have valuable skills and giving it to people who don't have them.



How can you argue this on the one hand, then argue that we need to keep wages low to remain competitive?




Purple said:


> if that happens they will leave and take jobs with people who pay the market value for their skills.



True, and if low income wages rise too high, business will become uncompetitive and leave also. So we need to keep wages competitive. But those that earn low incomes need to be able to live - roof over their heads, food on table, shirt on back, all that stuff.
So either we build an economy where there is a fairer redistribution of wealth (not going to happen anytime soon), or the State steps in to subsidise high income earners by taxing average income earners too much in order to support low income earners feed, clothe and house themselves.


----------



## Protocol

TheBigShort said:


> You are avoiding the point. More and more people are returning to work, in spite of the apparent unfairness of the taxation system. This is the reality.
> You still like to propagate the view that fewer and fewer people are returning to work. This is myth.



Please note that only 25% of job entries in Ireland remove households from joblessness.

See here:

http://igees.gov.ie/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Household-joblessness-paper-final.pdf

We have an underlying structural problem with inactivity, as well as a cyclical problem.

As the economy has recovered, and as the UNR has fallen towards 6%, the cyclical inactivity has declined, yes.

But we are still left with more people in VLWI household than across the EU, and higher levels of joblessness than elsewhere.

[Note that un is not the same as joblessness]


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> Speaking of market forces, it is such that market forces can bring thousands of people onto the streets to protest against things water charged. A sign that working people under certain income thresholds cannot sustain anymore cuts to that income.



It's funny, when I was chatting to the guy putting in our water meter he said the only areas where they encountered any hassle where those where "people were used to getting everything for nothing", his words not mine!


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> How can you argue this on the one hand, then argue that we need to keep wages low to remain competitive?



You can still be competitive with high wages. It's all relative to what your/our competition is charging for the same goods/services...


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> You are avoiding the point. More and more people are returning to work, in spite of the apparent unfairness of the taxation system. This is the reality.



How many of those are lower paid and pay virtually no income tax?!!


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> True, and if low income wages rise too high, business will become uncompetitive and leave also. So we need to keep wages competitive.



You should have stopped there!


----------



## TheBigShort

Protocol said:


> As the economy has recovered, and as the UNR has fallen towards 6%, the cyclical inactivity has declined, yes.



So in a multiple choice question, which of the following statements would you tend to agree with in relation to the Irish economy today?

a) there are more and more people returning to work
b) there are fewer and fewer people returning to work


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> You can still be competitive with high wages. It's all relative to what your/our competition is charging for the same goods/services...



I never said you couldn't. I merely pointed out the contradiction in wanting a high skilled high income economy whilst simultaneously wanting to suppress the incomes of low income workers and then to expect low income workers to be able to afford to live in such economy and paying higher rates of tax for welfare benefits that they need to receive because their income is inadequate.



Firefly said:


> How many of those are lower paid and pay virtually no income tax?!!



I don't know. How many of those are lower paid and pay virtually no income tax?


----------



## Protocol

TheBigShort said:


> So in a multiple choice question, which of the following statements would you tend to agree with in relation to the Irish economy today?
> 
> a) there are more and more people returning to work
> b) there are fewer and fewer people returning to work



*Returning *implies that they were previously in work.

So, yes (a) is correct.

But it is also true that in the midst of rising employment, and with many EU and non-EU people getting jobs, there remains a significant amount of non-employment in Ireland.

Our employment rate is rising, yes, but still remains well below the highest employment rates in the EU.


----------



## Gordon Gekko

Firefly said:


> It's funny, when I was chatting to the guy putting in our water meter he said the only areas where they encountered any hassle where those where "people were used to getting everything for nothing", his words not mine!



The salient point. It had nothing to do with affordability and everything to do with the fact that the underclass want a 1st World lifestyle, with the rest of us funding it.

With regard to income, "we" are not suppressing it for lower income earners; the market is. Jobs that can be done by anyone (e.g. taxi driver) used to be a licence to print money. Deregulation in terms of plates and immigration has meant that anyone with a car and a satnav can do the job and will do it for far less. Without education and upskilling, incomes will always fall. It's the wave that Trump rode, but these people are fundamentally goosed.


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> I never said you couldn't. I merely pointed out the contradiction in wanting a high skilled high income economy whilst simultaneously wanting to suppress the incomes of low income workers and then to expect low income workers to be able to afford to live in such economy and paying higher rates of tax for welfare benefits that they need to receive because their income is inadequate.



Who said anything about suppressing incomes? Why is it not fair to pay the market rate for both higher and lower earners? Can you point to a fairer model?




TheBigShort said:


> I don't know. How many of those are lower paid and pay virtually no income tax?



According to the paper of record, one in three or some 920,700 people will be exempt from paying income tax in 2017.

http://www.irishtimes.com/business/...in-three-earners-pays-no-income-tax-1.2841652

For these people, the income tax rates are obviously not a burden and a deterrent to returning to work. I would guess that a bigger percentage than 33% are returning to work on a part-time basis and are probably paying little or no income tax.


----------



## Firefly

Gordon Gekko said:


> The salient point. It had nothing to do with affordability and everything to do with the fact that the underclass want a 1st World lifestyle, with the rest of us funding it.



There are those who would be happy to fund scroungers with Playstations would you believe!


----------



## Tebbit

It would be my view that everyone - whatever the income should pay tax , obviously if you earn less you pay less.  We all use the  roads, libraries, schools etc.. Therefore we should all pay something.  I think its a bad idea to have people who pay nothing .   unfortunately. I think there are people who want to pay for nothing yet feel entitled to everything.  And also unfortunately they seem to get plenty of back up in their belief - no one ever says NO.  Your not entitled to that.


----------



## TheBigShort

It would be just fantastic to have a high-skilled high-income economy with everyone contributing to the payment of running the state through a fair and equitable taxation system. But let me deal with some realities. 
First of all, a high-skilled worker. The very definition of high-skilled means to me, to have obtained a level of skill or qualification that is in general hard-earned and requires the application of a minimum standard of intellect to achieve it, for example, an electronics engineer specialising in microchip design and test engineering. The level of skill to be acquired is out of reach for most. In turn, this high-skilled worker should expect a premium in their income over others for providing the skills to an employer. If the level of skill was easily obtained, then lots of us would do it, and in turn the income would fall and it would no longer be classed as a high-skilled job.
One of the benefits of being a high-skilled worker, of earning a higher wage, is that lots of things that you would like are more affordable to you than other people. Such as nicer homes, cars, holidays, clothes, entertainment, childcare, restaurants etc.
For instance, a high-income earner may think to themselves that there is no need to use public transport. They can afford the city centre parking. They may think, no need to pack a lunch, I’ll buy a sandwhich at the deli or eat at a restaurant.
The only problem with this is if all workers educate themselves to a high level of skill then there will be a lot of private vehicles starting  to clog up the roads (not very productive or environmentally friendly).  Alternatively, the HSW decide they will use public transport, but who will drive the bus? Or operate the train?
Similarly, if everyone is upskilling then who will make the sandwhich at the deli bar or serve the lunch at the restaurant? Even if the HSW decide to pack their own lunches, short of farming their own produce, they will need somebody to serve them at the local convenience store.
Between the bus driver, the train driver, the deli worker, the shop keeper, the waiter and more in-between, the HSW is dependent on having low-skilled workers in the economy. That’s is how he measures the value of skills, through his higher income and what its purchasing power.
So if you agree, that we still need low-skilled workers (until the robots take all our jobs, high-skilled ones too) then you must agree that they should earn an income. A competitive income, but an income that enables investment to profit and employment to earn.
But if the income of the low-paid worker is too low, they wont work for it and perhaps emigrate. If the income of the HSW is too low, they wont work for it either, or alternatively they too might emigrate for better conditions.
But if the low-pay worker income is too high, it acts as a deterrent to investment and unemployment rises. So the rate needs to be competitive. In this country it is €9.25ph or about €19,000 pa. At €19,000 pa, the worker may need to pay his way. Unfortunately, for many, €19,000 is insufficient to meet the day to day costs and demands of living in this country. For some, it is fine, but those with families, rent and mortgage etc it is insufficient. So to get around that, I would suggest employers pay their employees an adequate income. This is a no-no on this site. It will make the country uncompetitive. But without it, the worker and his family could end up homeless. Homelessness can have really detrimental consequences for mental health and the worker and his family could end up in care at a not insignificant cost to the taxpayer. So better that the worker receives a higher income. But if employers  are not prepared to pay higher incomes then how will the worker and his family survive? So  rather than have him homeless and hungry and the potential care costs associated with that, this country has a series of programs to prevent that called Social Protection. The purpose of Social Protection is to protect individuals and families and in turn, society in general against the harms caused by homelessness and hunger. For instance, how do you think the tourist industry would fare if visitors witnessed thousands of homeless  families wandering the streets. It would collapse that industry further perpetuating unemployment and homelessness. So, instead, the low paid worker gets a rent supplement, or Family Income Supplement or some other provision.
But the problem, it appears here, is that this  worker doesn’t pay tax. He shouldn’t receive anything for nothing. So then impose taxes upon him. This will reduce his net pay further pushing him closer to poverty, to the point that it is no longer worth it to work (ditto for the HSW who thinks taxes are already too high here and wont work here) or he may need to rely further on Social Protection.
The arguments being made is that the Social Protections are too generous and encourage people not to work. This has been debated ad nauseum and proven to be false in the main. As can be seen from reducing unemployment figures, if work is available, people will avail of it. For sure, there is a lazy l element in society that wont work and want everything for free, but it has to be asked, if you are an employer, would you employ them? They are a tiny portion of the people who genuinely need a support to keep the roof over their heads, food on the table, shirt on the back etc. 
It is not a perfect system, I doubt if it will ever be. But asking that low income workers pay increase tax in order to supplement welfare provisions that they need to receive is self-defeating.


----------



## Firefly

@TheBigShort, how do you decide what's a fair wage?


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> @TheBigShort, how do you decide what's a fair wage?



That is subjective and dependent on a multitude of variables, such as age, experience, qualifications, past performance, projected earnings of the work provided etc


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> That is subjective and dependent on a multitude of variables, such as age, experience, qualifications, past performance, projected earnings of the work provided etc



Why should someone's age be a factor in determining a fair wage?


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> Why should someone's age be a factor in determining a fair wage?


Correction, it should read age and experience, or simply experience.


----------



## TheBigShort

_Ireland’s child benefit regime, offered at a rate of €135 a month per child, combined with its favourable method of taxing families, means that some families actually pay a negative rate of tax on their income – or in other words they receive more from the State than they pay back in taxes.
_
Of course the article misses the elephant in the room and instead targets minimum wage workers with children to rear. That is, why do high income earners get child benefit? Surely a cut off point in this regard would yield substantial savings for taxpayers and reducing the liability further. Perhaps we could top the charts with the OECD as the least burdened by income tax?


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> So if you agree, that we still need low-skilled workers (until the robots take all our jobs, high-skilled ones too) then you must agree that they should earn an income. A competitive income, but an income that enables investment to profit and employment to earn.


If the supply of low skilled people in the economy decreases faster than the number of low skilled jobs in the economy the value of their labour will increase. Supply and demand. The market. You need not worry; it will sort itself out.



TheBigShort said:


> The arguments being made is that the Social Protections are too generous and encourage people not to work. This has been debated ad nauseum and *proven to be false in the main*.


 In your opinion.



TheBigShort said:


> For sure, there is a lazy l element in society that wont work and want everything for free, but it has to be asked, if you are an employer, would you employ them?


 No. Does that mean money should be taken from their neighbours and given to them to live on?


TheBigShort said:


> They are a tiny portion of the people who genuinely need a support to keep the roof over their heads, food on the table, shirt on the back etc.


 I agree.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> You are avoiding the point. More and more people are returning to work, in spite of the apparent unfairness of the taxation system. This is the reality.
> You still like to propagate the view that fewer and fewer people are returning to work. This is myth.


I do not.



TheBigShort said:


> How can you argue this on the one hand, then argue that we need to keep wages low to remain competitive?


 I argue that we need competitive wages in order to remain competitive. 



TheBigShort said:


> It's a minor report because it's easy to pick through the holes in it and identity it's inherent bias.
> For it to dominate, it needs to be impartial, factual and convincing. It is none of those.


 Nonsense.



TheBigShort said:


> True, and if low income wages rise too high, business will become uncompetitive and leave also. So we need to keep wages competitive. But those that earn low incomes need to be able to live - roof over their heads, food on table, shirt on back, all that stuff.
> So either we build an economy where there is a fairer redistribution of wealth (not going to happen anytime soon), or the State steps in to subsidise high income earners by taxing average income earners too much in order to support low income earners feed, clothe and house themselves.


 If we had an economy with a fairer distribution of wealth we would have lower income taxes and lower rates of welfare, like in places like Sweden. High marginal tax rates discourage wealth creating activity in the economy. We try to make up for this with unjustly high wages in the State sector and by stealing corporation tax from other countries. What we need is a domestic economy which is competitive in an international market. Wage inflation caused by a construction boom and massive public sector wage increases killed the last real boom, turning it into a bubble. 

We now have higher levels of welfare, a massive national debt, a looming crisis in how we will find the money to pay state pensions and a return to demands for an unsustainable public sector wage bill. Do we really want to do that again?


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> No. Does that mean money should be taken from their neighbours and given to them to live on?



No, but what alternative would you propose? Bearing in mind, I use the term 'lazy' very sparingly. A lot of people who choose not to enter the workforce, labeled as 'lazy' will often be from deprived backgrounds. Suffered abuse as children, lack any formal education or training, and effectively institutionalised into a cycle of poverty, drug addictions, alcohol abuse etc.

So, you don't want any of your tax dollars paying for their lifestyles (are you jealous?). And you won't give them a job. 
So let them starve? Execute them? What would you propose to do with them?


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> _Ireland’s child benefit regime, offered at a rate of €135 a month per child, combined with its favourable method of taxing families, means that some families actually pay a negative rate of tax on their income – or in other words they receive more from the State than they pay back in taxes.
> _
> Of course the article misses the elephant in the room and instead targets minimum wage workers with children to rear. That is, why do high income earners get child benefit? Surely a cut off point in this regard would yield substantial savings for taxpayers and reducing the liability further. Perhaps we could top the charts with the OECD as the least burdened by income tax?


We top the chart as the country with the most progressive income tax system where high earners pay more and medium earners pay less than just about anyone else. We should look to move to the Swedish model where low and medium income earners pay their fair share and there are far more indirect taxes such as water charges. 
The real elephant in the room is the terrible value for money we get from our public sector.  I don't believe that's because the individuals working in it are less competent than their European counterparts, I think it has more to do with structural inefficiencies and general bad practices.  If we wasted less money we would be able to deliver better services for the same money or deliver the same services for less money.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> places like Sweden.



It's always nice to randomly pick a European country that suits your agenda, but speaking of Sweden, they also have the most generous maternity leave for parents. They also have a cap on childcare costs. The max is about €250 a month regardless of how many kids. My childcare is €790 a month for two kids. 
The Swedish model is funded by taxation levels that would make you weep.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> No, but what alternative would you propose? Bearing in mind, I use the term 'lazy' very sparingly. A lot of people who choose not to enter the workforce, labeled as 'lazy' will often be from deprived backgrounds. Suffered abuse as children, lack any formal education or training, and effectively institutionalised into a cycle of poverty, drug addictions, alcohol abuse etc.
> 
> So, you don't want any of your tax dollars paying for their lifestyles (are you jealous?). And you won't give them a job.
> So let them starve? Execute them? What would you propose to do with them?


If you don't think that  money should be taken from their neighbours and given to them to live on then what do you propose?
As I suggested in my last post the standard of services provided by the State is not good enough and not good value for money. Better education, better intervention  and better support should help most of those people become productive and active members of society. Do you think it's okay that we just push them to one side to let them live out their days like some sort of a neglected pet? I just don't think that's good enough, not for them and not for society as a whole. 
I've had personal experience of the supports the State offers for young people with addiction and mental health issues and it is utterly deplorable. The Gardai do fantastic work in that area but the State provision of medical care , i.e. where the State interfaces with the medical industry ('cause that's what it is, an industry) is nowhere close to fit for purpose. It's not down to a lack of money. It is down to a lack of competence and just not caring. Therefore the people you want to fund to stay at home scratching their backsides, but are really the people with major mental health and addiction issues, are left to perpetuate the cycle of neglect and abuse and under achievement and low self esteem. 
See that's why I hate socialism; it blames high earners for the ills of others when the real root cause has nothing to do with them. It's based on petty jealousy and resentment, not on a genuine concern for the poor and forgotten. Welfare is a necessary treatment for a symptom of a problem but it is never the solution because nobody ever felt good about themselves by living off others. In the long term it's like treating depression with drugs; unless you deal with the root cause of that depression you are just creating an addict who can just about function but is even less likely to truly recover. I want better for my neighbours and fellow citizens and I just don't accept the same old tired socialist mantra.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> If you don't think that money should be taken from their neighbours and given to them to live on then what do you propose?



In the absence of a credible alternative is what I meant.



Purple said:


> As I suggested in my last post the standard of services provided by the State is not good enough and not good value for money. Better education, better intervention and better support should help most of those people become productive and active members of society.



This is a credible alternative. But it costs money, which means more taxes. I don't object to that if it improves public services. I don't even object to imposing taxes on low earners if it is to enhance services that they can avail of, childcare being a prime example.

I object to taxes being imposed on low earners for the perception of 'fairness'. What is fair is totally subjective. But I for one don't think imposing taxes on low earners for no other purposes than to stop them "getting everything for free" or because they are the "underclass" (these quotes can be found in this thread, I'm not implying you made them) is BS.



Purple said:


> Do you think it's okay that we just push them to one side to let them live out their days like some sort of a neglected pet? I just don't think that's good enough, not for them and not for society as a whole.



Absolutely not, and you already know that. But the ideas you muted, such as more education etc cost money. In other words, higher taxes (for everyone), including corporations. Would you support that?


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> It's always nice to randomly pick a European country that suits your agenda, but speaking of Sweden, they also have the most generous maternity leave for parents. They also have a cap on childcare costs. The max is about €250 a month regardless of how many kids. My childcare is €790 a month for two kids.
> The Swedish model is funded by taxation levels that would make you weep.


I am against all universal welfare benefits including medical cards for kids and rich old people and children's allowance. In reality someone on €200,000 a year had €1000 a month taken from them and then given back less that State's admin costs. All they are doing is part funding a job in the Department of Social Protection. Either don't take it or don't give it back. I'm in favour of a refundable tax credit for each kid. That way there is no admin cost to the State. 
Someone on €100,000 a year wouldn't pay any more tax in Sweden. Someone on €30,000 a year would pay a multiple of what they pay here. Take a look at it, someone on €30,000 a year or €576.92 a week would pay a whopping €181.29 a week in taxes in Sweden. In Ireland the same person pays €89.92 in income taxes (that includes social protection). 
IN Sweden a single person getting €100,000 a year, or €1923 a week, takes home €1104. In Ireland they take home €1171 a week. The tax rates are 6% higher in Sweden for someone on €100,000 a year but twice as high for someone on €30,000. Now take into account that we have much more generous long term welfare supports and see how things look.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> I've had personal experience of the supports the State offers for young people with addiction and mental health issues and it is utterly deplorable.



I agree. But it is not  untypical in a hierarchical capitalist society. Adoration for our brightest and best and sweep under the carpet the 'dregs'.



Purple said:


> See that's why I hate socialism; it blames high earners for the ills of others when the real root cause has nothing to do with them



We don't live in a socialist society. Who was blaming high earners for anything?
The thrust of this topic, and others, is to lament the burden high earners have to endure in the taxation system by targeting, blaming, low earners and welfare recipients for wanting 'everything for free' (I'm thinking I might be able to pin this quote on you someplace).



Purple said:


> It's based on petty jealousy and resentment, not on a genuine concern for the poor and forgotten.



Yes, the topics I engage in are typically that. Whinging and moaning about how poor people get everything for free, while working people 'have to pay for everything!"


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> In the absence of a credible alternative is what I meant.
> 
> 
> 
> This is a credible alternative. But it costs money, which means more taxes. I don't object to that if it improves public services. I don't even object to imposing taxes on low earners if it is to enhance services that they can avail of, childcare being a prime example.
> 
> I object to taxes being imposed on low earners for the perception of 'fairness'. What is fair is totally subjective. But I for one don't think imposing taxes on low earners for no other purposes than to stop them "getting everything for free" or because they are the "underclass" (these quotes can be found in this thread, I'm not implying you made them) is BS.
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely not, and you already know that. But the ideas you muted, such as more education etc cost money. In other words, higher taxes (for everyone), including corporations. Would you support that?


Delivering better services doesn't cost more money. That's a cop out. It involves people doing their jobs better, it involves more efficient systems and processes so that less money is spent on duplication of admin and more is spent on services to the end user. That means lots of people who don't add value losing their jobs and more people who do add value getting jobs (will your mates in the Unions allow that to happen?). It means all those mission statements meaning something and the State being ruthless in making sure every action, every change, moves reality closer to the aspiration. When the waste and inefficiency is gone if more money is needed then increase taxes.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> I agree. But it is not  untypical in a hierarchical capitalist society. Adoration for our brightest and best and sweep under the carpet the 'dregs'.


 It's typical of any hierarchical society and none are more hierarchical than a socialist one as such a structure is required for a command economy.





TheBigShort said:


> We don't live in a socialist society. Who was blaming high earners for anything?
> The thrust of this topic, and others, is to lament the burden high earners have to endure in the taxation system by targeting, blaming, low earners and welfare recipients for wanting 'everything for free' (I'm thinking I might be able to pin this quote on you someplace).


 No, I go on about the so-called "squeezed middle" who don't actually pay for anything either. 





TheBigShort said:


> Yes, the topics I engage in are typically that. Whinging and moaning about how poor people get everything for free, while working people 'have to pay for everything!"


 see above. I don't object to the State taking everything I earn every Thursday and Friday. I do object to people who don't make any net financial contribution to the State telling me I am not paying my fair share and that they do and that they are somehow squeezed.
I object to a Dickensian socialist agenda which is just one step above "the white man's burned" which supposes that the poor are the victims of the rich and that a socialist intelligentsia is required to balance things out, like how the good white men had to look after the poor darkies in Africa as they were just too stupid to look after themselves when confronted by the intrinsically more intelligent white capitalist.
I object to smoked salmon socialist "professionals" (members of the socialist intelligentsia) whose hearts bleed for the "poor" and who lament how the "employer classes" exploit the poor (but are happy to charge those same employers €500 an hour for their opinion) while they ignore the dignity of work and would never come into social contact with someone from West Finglas or Moyross or Jobestown let alone give them a job.
I object to shoddy public services being excused by claiming there is a lack of resources. I'm sure there are in some cases but it's a blanket excuse and people die on hospital trolleys and young men hang themselves because people are allowed to hide behind that excuse. I feel angry about it. We deserve better. The people who need help deserve better. The  young men who are drug addicts and commit crime and devastate their families and communities and live tortured lives, bereft of hope and self worth deserve better, as do those around them. I'm sick of excuses. I'm sick of the same disingenuous cowards trotting out the same tired and trite lines. I'm sick of mediocrity being where the bar is set.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> In reality someone on €200,000 a year had €1000 a month taken from them and then given back less that State's admin costs.





Purple said:


> All they are doing is part funding a job in the Department of Social Protection.



And those jobs need to be funded don't they? Or do you think, given your stated concern for welfare of the poor and needy, that those jobs should be voluntary? Or do you think that it is the poor and needy that should fund those jobs?



Purple said:


> Someone on €100,000 a year wouldn't pay any more tax in Sweden. Someone on €30,000 a year would pay a multiple of what they pay here. Take a look at it, someone on €30,000 a year or €576.92 a week would pay a whopping €181.29 a week in taxes in Sweden. In Ireland the same person pays €89.92 in income taxes (that includes social protection).
> IN Sweden a single person getting €100,000 a year, or €1923 a week, takes home €1104. In Ireland they take home €1171 a week. The tax rates are 6% higher in Sweden for someone on €100,000 a year but twice as high for someone on €30,000.



I couldn't ask for a more illustrative example of how devoid the commentators on this site, that persistently attack low income earners and welfare recipients for not 'paying their share', are than the example above.

The Swedish model, is cited, as an example we should follow. I don't disagree.

So will we see a thread, or topic, on how high earners in Ireland pay 6% less tax than their Swedish counterparts? Will we see a thread on how low-middle income earners are screwed in Sweden, so as to facilitate the generous childcare system that high income earners can avail of?

I doubt it.

To paraphrase a quote from the movie of my username, "I have a funny feeling that when the [economic] crisis is over, we will get back to doing what we always do - blame poor people and immigrants".


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> It's typical of any hierarchical society and none are more hierarchical than a socialist one as such a structure is required for a command economy.
> 
> 
> 
> No, I go on about the so-called "squeezed middle" who don't actually pay for anything either.
> 
> 
> 
> see above. I don't object to the State taking everything I earn every Thursday and Friday. I do object to people who don't make any net financial contribution to the State telling me I am not paying my fair share and that they do and that they are somehow squeezed.
> I object to a Dickensian socialist agenda which is just one step above "the white man's burned" which supposes that the poor are the victims of the rich and that a socialist intelligentsia is required to balance things out, like how the good white men had to look after the poor darkies in Africa as they were just too stupid to look after themselves when confronted by the intrinsically more intelligent white capitalist.
> I object to smoked salmon socialist "professionals" (members of the socialist intelligentsia) whose hearts bleed for the "poor" and who lament how the "employer classes" exploit the poor (but are happy to charge those same employers €500 an hour for their opinion) while they ignore the dignity of work and would never come into social contact with someone from West Finglas or Moyross or Jobestown let alone give them a job.
> I object to shoddy public services being excused by claiming there is a lack of resources. I'm sure there are in some cases but it's a blanket excuse and people die on hospital trolleys and young men hang themselves because people are allowed to hide behind that excuse. I feel angry about it. We deserve better. The people who need help deserve better. The  young men who are drug addicts and commit crime and devastate their families and communities and live tortured lives, bereft of hope and self worth deserve better, as do those around them. I'm sick of excuses. I'm sick of the same disingenuous cowards trotting out the same tired and trite lines. I'm sick of mediocrity being where the bar is set.



I don't disagree with you. What do you propose? Imposing taxes on the poor to relieve the burden on the wealthy? 
Or increasing taxes across the board to implement a Swedish type model?


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> I do object to people who don't make any net financial contribution to the State telling me I am not paying my fair share and that they do and that they are somehow squeezed.



Who are these people?


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> Correction, it should read age and experience, or simply experience.



The cynic in me says that the original post was what was meant. In any case regarding the coupling of age and experience, I still see no reason why age should be a factor in determining a fair wage. If you were getting gas installed in your home and you had two RGI installers quote for the job with 5 year's experience each, would you pay the 55 year old more than the 35 year old just because he/she was older? And if so, how much more?

I also find it interesting that very last on your list is "projected earnings of the work provided". This should be amongst the first factors in determining what someone is paid, along with the supply of labour for the same role. If I need a cleaner for my house and someone is 50 years old with 20 years experience there's no way I am going to pay them more than someone in their 20s and new enough to the job - the role is basic and supply is plenty.

As you have mentioned in any case it's all subjective and this is where the role of the market comes in to help. When you do your weekly shop or renew your car insurance or decide on childcare for your kids, you are primarily focused on value for money, not necessarily the cheapest offering, but the best offering based on your budget. Do you really think about the employees in the companies offering these services and if so do you regularly pay a higher price for those products/services because they have higher costs? Companies themselves are also trying to get the best value for money whether they are buying light & heat, stationary, deciding where to locate or how much they wish to pay for staff.


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> But I for one don't think imposing taxes on low earners for no other purposes than to stop them "_getting everything for free_"





TheBigShort said:


> The thrust of this topic, and others, is to lament the burden high earners have to endure in the taxation system by targeting, blaming, low earners and welfare recipients for wanting '_everything for free_' (I'm thinking I might be able to pin this quote on you someplace).



In Purple's defence, the source of this quote was made to me by someone employed by Irish Water. How does that make you feel?


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> In Purple's defence, the source of this quote was made to me by someone employed by Irish Water. How does that make you feel?



So much better, thank you.


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> So much better, thank you.



All part of the service!


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> And those jobs need to be funded don't they? Or do you think, given your stated concern for welfare of the poor and needy, that those jobs should be voluntary? Or do you think that it is the poor and needy that should fund those jobs?


 No, the jobs are not necessary at all. The welfare could be paid to recipients in a far more cost effective way. Children's allowance can be scrapped and replaced with a refundable tax credit. The jobs are a waste of public money which could be used to cut taxes or deliver more services. It is a perfect example of the State being run for the benefit of State Employees rather than the public.  




TheBigShort said:


> I couldn't ask for a more illustrative example of how devoid the commentators on this site, that persistently attack low income earners and welfare recipients for not 'paying their share', are than the example above.


 Eh? The example I posted showed that people on low to medium incomes in Sweden pay far more tax, i.e. their fair share. 



TheBigShort said:


> The Swedish model, is cited, as an example we should follow. I don't disagree.


 Good, so you agree that low and middle earners in Ireland are under taxed and should pay their fair share. 



TheBigShort said:


> So will we see a thread, or topic, on how high earners in Ireland pay 6% less tax than their Swedish counterparts? Will we see a thread on how low-middle income earners are screwed in Sweden, so as to facilitate the generous childcare system that high income earners can avail of?


 No, because that's not what happens. 





TheBigShort said:


> To paraphrase a quote from the movie of my username, "I have a funny feeling that when the [economic] crisis is over, we will get back to doing what we always do - blame poor people and immigrants".


 Blame them for what?


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> I don't disagree with you. What do you propose? Imposing taxes on the poor to relieve the burden on the wealthy?
> Or increasing taxes across the board to implement a Swedish type model?


Bring it all up Swedish levels of taxation and Swedish levels of short and long term welfare. Then insist that Public Servants perform to Swedish levels. If we did that we'd end up with a large surplus since we have a much younger population.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> I don't disagree with you. What do you propose? Imposing taxes on the poor to relieve the burden on the wealthy?
> Or increasing taxes across the board to implement a Swedish type model?


If you don't disagree with me then what do you propose? Are you happy to leave things as they are with high taxes on high earners, very low taxes on low and medium earners and shoddy public services which leave the poor poor while wasting vast amounts of public money?


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> The cynic in me says that the original post was what was meant.



The cynic in you is wrong. 



Firefly said:


> I still see no reason why age should be a factor in determining a fair wage.



It helps to gauge the level of experience of a prospective employee. If I need to hire a childminder, I may tend to favour a more mature person with a proven track record over someone not long out of school. I may even be prepared to offer more money. 
Age & experience.



Firefly said:


> If you were getting gas installed in your home and you had two RGI installers quote for the job with 5 year's experience each, would you pay the 55 year old more than the 35 year old just because he/she was older? A



No.



Firefly said:


> I also find it interesting that very last on your list is "projected earnings of the work provided"



You have little to be interested in. The list was in no particular order, nor was it a complete list.



Firefly said:


> If I need a cleaner for my house and someone is 50 years old with 20 years experience there's no way I am going to pay them more than someone in their 20s and new enough to the job - the role is basic and supply is plenty.



The roles may be basic and supply plenty, but I may be prepared more for the older worker if it meant greater reliability. A colleague of mine, whose husband runs a small cafe is loathe to hire young people in their 20's. Always ringing in sick, wanting to swap shifts for one party or another. He prefers mature reliable staff.



Firefly said:


> Do you really think about the employees in the companies offering these services and if so do you regularly pay a higher price for those products/services because they have higher costs?



Don't be silly. How, as a retail customer, am I supposed to be able to gauge, with any realistic accuracy, the cost structure of these companies?


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> Delivering better services doesn't cost more money.



Doesn't _necessarily_ cost more money, I agree. But if you are talking about public services in the round, then realistically, investment in IT, new processes, implementation of new strategies and concepts etc, _will, _at some point need extra financial investment. That investment may produce savings in the long run, alternatively, depending on the actual service, it may simply just cost more money. For example, additional cancer screening services for provincial and rural towns will provide a better service for those populations, but cost more money in taxes for everyone.




Purple said:


> That means lots of people who don't add value losing their jobs and more people who do add value getting jobs (will your mates in the Unions allow that to happen?).



For sure, why wouldn't they? 



Purple said:


> When the waste and inefficiency is gone if more money is needed then increase taxes.



And if waste and inefficiency was got rid of in the private sector then prices could start to fall. The regulated industries of telecommunications, health insurance and energy providers would be a good place to start. Instead of the annual circus of finding the 'best quote' for the exact same service, surely 'the free market' would find the true value of the product and charge accordingly.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> Children's allowance can be scrapped and replaced with a refundable tax credit.



What if you have lost your job and are not contributing tax?


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> Eh? The example I posted showed that people on low to medium incomes in Sweden pay far more tax, i.e. their fair share.



Eh? The example you posted showed that people on low to medium incomes in Sweden pay far more tax, _in return for better social services_.

The example you posted also showed that higher income earners in Ireland pay less income tax, 6% less in fact.
So let's see if we can bridge a gap here. Let's impose a 6% increase on higher earners to kick start a tax reform program that provides better public services like in healthcare, maternity care, childcare, education etc. This in turn can relieve the associated costs in this country that have been left to the 'free market' profiteers imposing undue burdens on lower and middle incomes. To such a point that in some cases they are also welfare dependent.
In return for a more just and equitable system, low and middle income earners will be required to pay their 'fair share' of income tax.


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> The cynic in you is wrong.


I'll take your word for it.



TheBigShort said:


> It helps to gauge the level of experience of a prospective employee. If I need to hire a childminder, I may tend to favour a more mature person with a proven track record over someone not long out of school. I may even be prepared to offer more money.
> Age & experience.



But you're not comparing like with like - the mature person in your example has a proven track record whilst the younger person is just out of school. What if the younger person was 25 and a qualified teacher but the 55 year old never looked after kids before?



TheBigShort said:


> You have little to be interested in. The list was in no particular order, nor was it a complete list.



I'll take your word for it.





TheBigShort said:


> The roles may be basic and supply plenty, but I may be prepared more for the older worker if it meant greater reliability. A colleague of mine, whose husband runs a small cafe is loathe to hire young people in their 20's. Always ringing in sick, wanting to swap shifts for one party or another. He prefers mature reliable staff.



Then he is discriminating based on age. Do you agree with this?


----------



## AlbacoreA

What happens once their kids are all too old for the child benefit. 

Are they better off then?


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> What if you have lost your job and are not contributing tax?


They get the unpaid portion of the tax credit in cash. That's why it is called a refundable tax credit.


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> I'll take your word for it.



Good.



Firefly said:


> But you're not comparing like with like - the mature person in your example has a proven track record whilst the younger person is just out of school. What if the younger person was 25 and a qualified teacher but the 55 year old never looked after kids before?



The I would be inclined to hire the 25yr old teacher. What exactly is the point here?



Firefly said:


> Then he is discriminating based on age. Do you agree with this?



No. Because he does hire 20+ yrs olds. They are easier to hire. It is hard to find mature, reliable staff. It is his preference to hire mature reliable staff. They turn up on time, get on with the job, don't need as much supervision etc. The problem as I see it, is he tries to pay the same hourly rate as an inexperienced, unreliable 21yr old. He does this on the basis that the job is low skilled, and Labour supply is plentiful. He does not factor in a sufficient premium for having reliable experienced staff.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> Eh? The example you posted showed that people on low to medium incomes in Sweden pay far more tax, _in return for better social services_.



I posted an example showing that low and middle earners in Ireland pay vastly less tax in Ireland than in Sweden while high earners pay very slightly less tax here. To that you responded 
_"I couldn't ask for a more illustrative example of how devoid the commentators on this site, that persistently attack low income earners and welfare recipients for not 'paying their share', are than the example above."_
What has the quality of services provided got to do with the way in which the burden for paying for those services is applied?



TheBigShort said:


> The example you posted also showed that higher income earners in Ireland pay less income tax, 6% less in fact.
> So let's see if we can bridge a gap here. Let's impose a 6% increase on higher earners to kick start a tax reform program that provides better public services like in healthcare, maternity care, childcare, education etc. This in turn can relieve the associated costs in this country that have been left to the 'free market' profiteers imposing undue burdens on lower and middle incomes. To such a point that in some cases they are also welfare dependent.
> In return for a more just and equitable system, low and middle income earners will be required to pay their 'fair share' of income tax.


Why make the tax system more unfair in the utterly groundless hope that increases in spending will improve services? During the boom we say massive increases in spending in areas such as health and education. During the same period we saw no discernible improvement in the quality of, or outcomes from, those services. Since the crash there have been some minor cuts to the funding of those services. We have seen no discernible decline in the quality of, or outcomes from, those services. 
Why do you think paying people more money to do the same jobs will make them do those jobs better?


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> Doesn't _necessarily_ cost more money, I agree. But if you are talking about public services in the round, then realistically, investment in IT, new processes, implementation of new strategies and concepts etc, _will, _at some point need extra financial investment. That investment may produce savings in the long run, alternatively, depending on the actual service, it may simply just cost more money. For example, additional cancer screening services for provincial and rural towns will provide a better service for those populations, but cost more money in taxes for everyone.


 Additional cancer treatments will save money in the longer term as it will reduce the cost of treating people with advanced cancer.  





TheBigShort said:


> For sure, why wouldn't they?


 Because they always oppose redundancies in the State sector. A good example is the 3000 unnecessary people employed in Irish Water who were moved from local councils. That’s a massive cost to the State. How many other examples are there of duplication or service and/or process throughout the State in the HSE, local government and semi-State sectors? The one thing they all have in common is they are Unionised and they have very low levels of labour flexibility.




TheBigShort said:


> And if waste and inefficiency was got rid of in the private sector then prices could start to fall. The regulated industries of telecommunications, health insurance and energy providers would be a good place to start. Instead of the annual circus of finding the 'best quote' for the exact same service, surely 'the free market' would find the true value of the product and charge accordingly.


 I agree completely. The former “Commercial” Semi-State businesses (an oxymoron if ever there was one) need to be completely open to competition. The only thing worse than a State monopoly is a private sector monopoly.

You could include Banking in your list.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> The problem as I see it, is he tries to pay the same hourly rate as an inexperienced, unreliable 21yr old. He does this on the basis that the job is low skilled, and Labour supply is plentiful. He does not factor in a sufficient premium for having reliable experienced staff.


If you are right then he's not very good at running his business. Your Staff is your biggest asset and while you can train skills you cannot train an attitude. It is worth hiring the right attitude and being willing to pay a premium for it.


----------



## jjm

Anyone with common sense should know why the tax system is the way it is.I don't see any way is could be changed without people wanting change. lots of people who can afford to put money into there pensions do so to avoid income tax so they are not pushing for change.It is the people with family/mortages/high rent who are under pressure,This is putting pressure on  wages you only have to look at the Garda dispute over wages it was fought over the cost of high rents for new garda it finished up with all garda and retired Garda getting a wage increase .They only way of getting back some of this money is through taxing the higher earning garda along with everyone else .The only people finishing up paying this extra tax will be the people who cannot afford to take advantage of the tax break.people who really need the extra pay will pay  income tax people who don't will not.


----------



## Purple

jjm2016 said:


> Anyone with common sense should know why the tax system is the way it is.


 Yea, populist left wing politicians and a populist left wing media telling lies about who pays for what in the State. Putting money into your pension is not what it used to be and it was only ever deferred taxation, not a tax break.


----------



## jjm

I will agree with you that the tax man is investing along with the people who can afford to .You are missing the point that it is driving up the cost on people who cant do so right now and it will have long term cost to the state for the people who cannot afford to because of the system .I never voted for a left wing party and never will but i have to say it is the so called right wing parties who are causing most of the problems you are on about .I think the party who you said you support are in power now so it wont get any better than this for you.


----------



## Purple

jjm2016 said:


> I will agree with you that the tax man is investing along with you .You are missing the point that it is driving up the cost on people who cant do so right now and it will have long term cost to the state for the people who cannot afford to because of the system.


What is driving up the cost on people? 
Is it the gross waste of money which is endemic across the State Sector?
Is it the fact that long term welfare rates are the same as short term rates?
Is it vested interests lobbying weak governments to do things which damage the population at large, be they Unions pushing for pay rises we can't afford or the Construction Industry pushing for tax breaks to subsidise their own grossly inefficient sector.


----------



## jjm

Yes and the most right wing party in this country right now are in power they are rolling over for vested interests to tickle there belly.


----------



## Purple

jjm2016 said:


> Yes and the most right wing party in this country right now are in power they are rolling over for vested interests to tickle there belly.


FG are well left of center and the biggest vest interest group in the country is ICTU.


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> No. Because he does hire 20+ yrs olds. They are easier to hire. It is hard to find mature, reliable staff. It is his preference to hire mature reliable staff. They turn up on time, get on with the job, don't need as much supervision etc.



Change the word "young" below for black, muslim, or women and change the word "old" for white, catholic or men and tell me is this is not discrimination!




TheBigShort said:


> A colleague of mine, whose husband runs a small cafe is loathe to hire young people in their 20's. Always ringing in sick, wanting to swap shifts for one party or another. He prefers mature reliable staff.


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> Change the word "young" below for black, muslim, or women and change the word "old" for white, catholic or men and tell me is this is not discrimination!



You are getting ahead of yourself here. He doesn't discriminate against young people. He has about 6 teens and 20+ employees on his books.
He would _prefer_ to have more mature staff. He _considers_ them to be more reliable, better productivity, less supervision. That is his opinion.
He finds it hard to find these worker's. Probably due to the wages (more or less minimum wage) he offers. Perhaps he can't afford to offer higher wages, perhaps he is tight with his money. Either way it's his business and he gets what he pays for.
There is no discrimination case here. There would be if he refused to employ someone on the basis of what age they were.


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> You are getting ahead of yourself here. He doesn't discriminate against young people. He has about 6 teens and 20+ employees on his books.
> He would _prefer_ to have more mature staff. He _considers_ them to be more reliable, better productivity, less supervision. That is his opinion.
> He finds it hard to find these worker's. Probably due to the wages (more or less minimum wage) he offers. Perhaps he can't afford to offer higher wages, perhaps he is tight with his money. Either way it's his business and he gets what he pays for.
> There is no discrimination case here. There would be if he refused to employ someone on the basis of what age they were.



Still not buying it. Using words like _prefer _and _considers_ to justify the stereoptyping based on age and actively trying to recruit one age profile over another is still discrimination. I would have expected something better from an egalitarian like you! 

Consider the flip-side, if he "is loathe to hire _elderly _people...Always ringing in sick, wanting to swap shifts for (my change: one reason or another). He prefers _younger_ reliable staff." and this was made public how do you think Age Action would act?


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> What has the quality of services provided got to do with the way in which the burden for paying for those services is applied?



Everything.

You keep pointing to the 'unfair' burden on high earners relative to low and medium earners. You also point to the lack of quality in our public services relative to places like Sweden.
But you dismiss the concept that to increase the tax burden on low and middle incomes will require a return on better services provided. But you are convinced that that would not occur



Purple said:


> Why do you think paying people more money to do the same jobs will make them do those jobs better?



So you want to rebalance the tax system by increasing tax on low and medium earners, in return for what? Zero.


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> Still not buying it. Using words like _prefer _and _considers_ to justify the stereoptyping based on age and actively trying to recruit one age profile over another is still discrimination.



Please, this is nonsense. It is only discrimination if it can be shown to have actually happened. It hasn't happened. He employs young people. But by virtue of their age, and experience, _in his opinion _they are harder to manage.  This is not stereotyping, this is the experience of the employer, this is his opinion. It hasn't stopped him recruiting young people. 
He is fully within his right not to hire someone if he believes they are not capable of meeting the required standards. He may deduce, perhaps from an interview, that a particular job applicant will not meet those standards. If that applicant happens to be 20yrs old, it is not discrimination.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> Everything.


How so?



TheBigShort said:


> You keep pointing to the 'unfair' burden on high earners relative to low and medium earners. You also point to the lack of quality in our public services relative to places like Sweden.


 Yes, I do.



TheBigShort said:


> But you dismiss the concept that to increase the tax burden on low and middle incomes will require a return on better services provided. But you are convinced that that would not occur


 I'm not sure what you are saying here. The two sentences don't see to be linked. 
I think we should get better services without increasing taxes through more efficient organisational structures and people just doing their jobs properly. If we just give more money to inefficient organisations and pay more money to people who think mediocrity is okay then the money will just be wasted.   



TheBigShort said:


> So you want to rebalance the tax system by increasing tax on low and medium earners, in return for what? Zero.


 The return would be fairness and as more people contribute more people would look for value. At the moment most people are net recipients and many contribute nothing so as they are getting services for nothing they are not concerned with the value for money those services represent. When the next hair-brained socialist/populist scheme is proposed more people would ask themselves "I wonder what they's going to cost me?". That's no bad thing. It's also good for society when as many people as possible contribute as it strengthens the social contract and provides solidarity amongst us citizens.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> The return would be fairness and as more people contribute more people would look for value



But it still wouldn't be fair. You identity a country like Sweden and point to the tax regime AND the quality of public services.
Here you want to increase taxes on low and middle earners but claim, even if we did that, there will be NO improvement in services, so what is the point? What is the point in increasing taxes on lower earners if there is not a corresponding improvement in services? It would appear that this argument is wholly based on the (your) perception of what is fair and what is not.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> But it still wouldn't be fair. You identity a country like Sweden and point to the tax regime AND the quality of public services.
> Here you want to increase taxes on low and middle earners but claim, even if we did that, there will be NO improvement in services, so what is the point? What is the point in increasing taxes on lower earners if there is not a corresponding improvement in services? It would appear that this argument is wholly based on the (your) perception of what is fair and what is not.


At the moment we should have a fairer taxation system in which low and middle earners pay their fair share. Without any changes in services that should be addressed. Therefore we should balance our tax burden at the same relative levels they have in Sweden; pay tax at the same progressive levels they do there. 
Then we should strive to have average levels of services relative to the money we currently spend. I know we should strive for excellence but lets be realistic and strive for average. 
Then, when that's done, if we want more services we should increase spending and fund that spending by increasing taxation to Swedish levels while at the same time trying to get our levels of value for money in Public Services into the top 25% of the OECD. That way fewer people would die unnecessarily in our hospitals, commit suicide, leave school functionally illiterate, live with no support for mental health issues or freeze to death on our streets. Those are the sort of things which happen when money is wasted and a culture of mediocrity is accepted.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> You are getting ahead of yourself here. He doesn't discriminate against young people. He has about 6 teens and 20+ employees on his books.
> He would _prefer_ to have more mature staff. He _considers_ them to be more reliable, better productivity, less supervision. That is his opinion.
> He finds it hard to find these worker's. Probably due to the wages (more or less minimum wage) he offers. Perhaps he can't afford to offer higher wages, perhaps he is tight with his money. Either way it's his business and he gets what he pays for.
> There is no discrimination case here. There would be if he refused to employ someone on the basis of what age they were.


I see where your friend is coming from and I see his comments as anti-ageism rather than anything else but if he's said the same thing about women (taking time off because of sick kids etc) then it would be seen differently. We have to be careful how we generalise in a work environment. I find Eastern Europeans have a better work ethic and are more skilled than their Irish counterparts but that does not mean I wouldn't take everyone on a case by case basis. I presume your friend operates with the same attitude when it comes to age.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> I see where your friend is coming from





Purple said:


> he's said the same thing about women (taking time off because of sick kids etc) then it would be seen differently.



He is not my friend, he is the husband of a colleague. I met him once at a social event where the topic of trade in the midst of economic crisis. During the discussion he brought up the issue of finding good reliable staff, that young ones were great worker's but they always had parties to attend and wanted to swap shifts etc. He mentioned how much more difficult it was to manage inexperienced staff than it was experienced staff, hence his preference for more mature staff.
No discrimination here. A simple discussion. To discriminate he would have to actively not employ young people. He doesn't do this.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> At the moment most people are net recipients and many contribute nothing



They qualify for welfare because their incomes are so low. Wage increases would resolve that, but that is a complete no-no on this site, without productivity increases. But wait a minute, the economy is growing, so wage increases should be on the way?


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> It is only discrimination if it can be shown to have actually happened.



I'm gobsmacked at the above to be honest. Straight question if I may....In your opinion is the following sentence discriminatory (A Yes or NO would be helpful)

_A colleague of mine, whose husband runs a small cafe is loathe to hire people with disabilities. Always ringing in sick, wanting to swap shifts for one party or another. He prefers people without disabilities_.


----------



## Firefly

The initial post...



TheBigShort said:


> A colleague of mine, whose husband runs a small cafe is _loathe to hire young people_ in their 20's. Always ringing in sick, wanting to swap shifts for one party or another.




The next post, which infers that younger workers don't get on with the job and need much supervision




TheBigShort said:


> It is his preference to hire mature reliable staff. They turn up on time, get on with the job, don't need as much supervision etc



To now saying young workers are "great workers". Tell me, if you friend is loathe to hire young workers as they are always calling in sick, going to parties how in God's name can they be "great workers" ???




TheBigShort said:


> During the discussion he brought up the issue of finding good reliable staff, that young ones were great worker's but they always had parties to attend and wanted to swap shifts etc.



And finally, I am beginning to wonder if you are trying to distance yourself from this person now:



TheBigShort said:


> He is not my friend, he is the husband of a colleague. I met him once at a social event



You certainly keep interesting company!


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> No discrimination here. A simple discussion. To discriminate he would have to actively not employ young people. He doesn't do this.



You could actively under-employ a group of people based on their age, race and religion and still be discriminatory..


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> I'm gobsmacked at the above to be honest. Straight question if I may....In your opinion is the following sentence discriminatory (A Yes or NO would be helpful)
> 
> _A colleague of mine, whose husband runs a small cafe is loathe to hire people with disabilities. Always ringing in sick, wanting to swap shifts for one party or another. He prefers people without disabilities_.



Yes.

Same question to you, same scenario. Just add "_but as people with disabilities are generally the people that apply for jobs he advertises, he does not deny them an employment opportunity."



Firefly said:



			To now saying young workers are "great workers". Tell me, if you friend is loathe to hire young workers as they are always calling in sick, going to parties how in God's name can they be "great workers" ???
		
Click to expand...

_
Good God, you assumed from the initial comment the complete outlook of the employer toward young people. How daft, even though you know he employs at least six young people! 



Firefly said:


> And finally, I am beginning to wonder if you are trying to distance yourself from this person now:



Not at all, I'm just having fun with the ludicrous nature of this discussion. This beats the time you implied I was xenophobic for mentioning "foreigners".


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> The next post, which infers that younger workers don't get on with the job and need much supervision



That is the opinion of this particular employer in relation to his experience of employing young people. You might not agree with him, or you might agree with him. But in no sense of the word does it imply that he actually discriminates against young people.


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> Yes.



Thanks. And do you find the following sentence discriminatory?



TheBigShort said:


> A colleague of mine, whose husband runs a small cafe is loathe to hire young people in their 20's. Always ringing in sick, wanting to swap shifts for one party or another.


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> Thanks. And do you find the following sentence discriminatory?



You asked me a question, I answered. I asked you a question, so...


----------



## TheBigShort

Taken on it's own, yes, it could be construed as being discriminatory. But putting it in to context of how he actually runs his business, that is, employing young people, then it's clear to me that he does not discriminate.
Like I said, you are getting ahead of yourself.


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> You asked me a question, I answered. I asked you a question, so...



I don't think anybody should be denied an employment opportunity based on their race, colour, religion or sexual orientation and most especially if they have disabilities. In fact, for those unfortunate enough to be in the latter group, I have most sympathy. Through education and friendships etc, the former groups can get through life in most cases, but someone with disabilities (particularly mental disabilities) are really at the mercy of the rest of us. And this is my point, age just like the groups of people mentioned should not be used to discriminate. The best person for the job should get the job and not be automatically discounted based on age.

I hope this answers your question. So if I may, do you find the following sentence discriminatory?



TheBigShort said:


> A colleague of mine, whose husband runs a small cafe is loathe to hire young people in their 20's. Always ringing in sick, wanting to swap shifts for one party or another.


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> T_aken on it's own, yes_, it could be construed as being discriminatory. _But putting it in to context of how he actually runs his business_, that is, employing young people, then it's clear to me that he does not discriminate.
> Like I said, you are getting ahead of yourself.



Why the caveats? Why do you find it discriminatory when I substituted young people for people with disabilities?


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> I don't think anybody should be denied an employment opportunity based on their race, colour, religion or sexual orientation and most especially if they have disabilities.



No, neither do I. Can you point to a case of discrimination in this bizarre side-track of the main discussion?


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> No, neither do I. Can you point to a case of discrimination in this bizarre side-track of the main discussion?


Your turn I believe..


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> Why the caveats?



Because you have taken a single comment, which on it's own could be construed as discriminatory, but have failed to grasp the wider context of the situation which clearly shows that no discrimination is being practised. 
It is possible to make a discriminatory remark, without actually discriminating against someone.
It's possible to make a racist, sexist, homophobic remark, without actually being a racist, sexist or homophobic.
Is our Taoiseach a racist? I wouldn't think so do you?
Is Arlene Foster sexist? I wouldn't think so, would you?


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> Because you have taken a single comment, which on it's own could be construed as discriminatory,



So when I asked you if sentence below was discriminatory you said Yes without any caveat, but when I substituted young people in you said, taken on its own it could be construed as discrimination!

_"A colleague of mine, whose husband runs a small cafe is loathe to hire people with disabilities. Always ringing in sick, wanting to swap shifts for one party or another. He prefers people without disabilities."_

I find it interesting that someone who is not your friend and you have only met once has volunteered that he is loathe to hire young people, that they always phone in sick and look for time off and finds older people by comparison turn up on time, get on with the job, don't need as much supervision and yet you emphatically declare that "clearly shows that no discrimination is being practised". How do you know, based on his beliefs? And lastly, I also find it interesting that when you made the post about loathing to hire young people you didn't say you found it in the least bit discriminatory.


----------



## Gordon Gekko

The law is the law, regardless of the size of the employer's business, but I have a lot of sympathy for small businesses. For example, like many people I am aware of businesses that avoid hiring women of a certain age and marital status for fear of them going on maternity leave. Of course that's discrimination and it's wrong, and of course they dress it up as something else, but it must be tough for the small business owner to navigate the vagaries of life.


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> So when I asked you if sentence below was discriminatory you said Yes without any caveat, but when I substituted young people in you said, taken on its own it could be construed as discrimination!



So what is your point? You asked me a question about people with disabilities. A Yes or No answer you requsted. I provided a Yes or No answer. No other context was given.

With regard the young people. There is a context. Plenty of it, and not all shared here, because there was no need to, because a reasonable person could deduce that.


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> I find it interesting that someone who is not your friend and you have only met once has volunteered that he is loathe to hire young people,



Really? Why would you find that interesting? We were in a pub, having drinks, the subject of his business came up. And as far as I can recall, young people were mentioned in the context of the U25 welfare being cut. From there a discussion ensued, about the merits or none, of that proposal. At some point, in the context of all this discussion about recessionary times and it's impact, this employer relayed his experience of employing young people.
Get over yourself!


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> They qualify for welfare because their incomes are so low. Wage increases would resolve that, but that is a complete no-no on this site, without productivity increases. But wait a minute, the economy is growing, so wage increases should be on the way?


 Why do you think there is a link between a growing economy and a growth in productivity? Someone on €40,000 a year with a stay at home wife or husband who has three kids pays no net income taxes. Do you think that's a low income? Should they be on welfare?


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> Why do you think there is a link between a growing economy and a growth in productivity?



Oh, I dunno...just a hunch I had.



Purple said:


> Someone on €40,000 a year with a stay at home wife or husband who has three kids pays no net income taxes. Do you think that's a low income? Should they be on welfare?



1. On an individual basis, no it is not a low income. For a family, assuming, rent and or mortgage to be paid and other associated costs with family life, it is not a high income. Do you think it is a high income?

2. How do you deduce that they pays no taxes?


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> Oh, I dunno...just a hunch I had.


That's alright then 





TheBigShort said:


> 1. On an individual basis, no it is not a low income. For a family, assuming, rent and or mortgage to be paid and other associated costs with family life, it is not a high income. Do you think it is a high income?


 No, but it's not a low income either.



TheBigShort said:


> 2. How do you deduce that they pays no taxes?


 Go to any income tax calculator and do the figures and then subtract the children's allowance from the tax paid.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> Go to any income tax calculator and do the figures and then subtract the children's allowance from the tax paid.



I've used Deloitte. And from the information presented, I'm calculating a net payment of tax of minus €832 a year.
So you have identified a situation where a case could be made to reduce the child benefit. Correct? Perhaps, the reduction would only apply where, as in this case, the family do not have the burden of childcare costs.
So if the CB was reduced by say, half, then in this instance, the familly would be a net contributor, and that would make you, and lots others happier, yes?


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> I've used Deloitte. And from the information presented, I'm calculating a net payment of tax of minus €832 a year.
> So you have identified a situation where a case could be made to reduce the child benefit. Correct?


 I think an increase in income tax would be more appropriate. What this shows is just how under taxed middle income earners are in Ireland.



TheBigShort said:


> Perhaps, the reduction would only apply where, as in this case, the family do not have the burden of childcare costs.


 Why?


TheBigShort said:


> So if the CB was reduced by say, half, then in this instance, the familly would be a net contributor, and that would make you, and lots others happier, yes?


 It's not about making me happy. It is about having a fair taxation system which does not punish hard work and achievement and having an efficient State sector where waste is minimised. Wage levels for individuals in the State sector should not be the issue, rather the overall wage bill. If two people can do what 4 people used to do then split the saving and pay them 50% more each. We talk about what the 100,000 or so people in the HSE get paid. We should be talking about whether we need 100,000 or so people in the HSE.

At the risk of going off on a tangent the issue of the super rich is a difficult topic. The conversation we have in this country is about taxing the hell out of them. The conversation should be about how and why anyone can accumulate billions of Euro in personal wealth. The answer had to do with the shift in production to low cost countries and the massive increase in capital returns which resulted as well as the how the internet has changed the cost of production and distribution of services. It has bugger all to do with deregulation, Thatcher, Reagan or any ideological issue.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> I think an increase in income tax would be more appropriate. What this shows is just how under taxed middle income earners are in Ireland.



They are only under taxed if they are also in receipt of quality services. But you have derided the quality of public services in this country, the phrase "you get what you pay for", comes to mind.
An increase in tax is fine, provided it is used for enhanced public services.
What do you propose, increasing the rate up from 20%? Or cutting tax credits? Either way the impact will be felt on all earners, including those on higher incomes who you think already pay too much tax.
Secondly, the increased tax take will have to show some discernible improvement in services, for instance like in Sweden, a cap on childcare costs.


----------



## Firefly

Purple said:


> We talk about what the 100,000 or so people in the HSE get paid. We should be talking about whether we need 100,000 or so people in the HSE.



You might exclude Mrs. Firefly from that analysis like a good man


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> They are only under taxed if they are also in receipt of quality services. But you have derided the quality of public services in this country, the phrase "you get what you pay for", comes to mind.


 We are paying enough at the moment to expect excellent services but due to waste there is a lack of resources in some areas and due to ineptitude and a culture of mediocrity we get bad value for money in many other areas. 



TheBigShort said:


> An increase in tax is fine, provided it is used for enhanced public services.
> What do you propose, increasing the rate up from 20%? Or cutting tax credits? Either way the impact will be felt on all earners, including those on higher incomes who you think already pay too much tax.
> Secondly, the increased tax take will have to show some discernible improvement in services, for instance like in Sweden, a cap on childcare costs.


 I think everyone should pay some tax. Just go back to the rates we had in the mid 90's when the real economy was booming and the growth was driven by SME and MNC businesses providing internationally traded goods and services.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> We are paying enough at the moment



No tax increases then?



Purple said:


> I think an increase in income tax would be more appropriate. What this shows is just how under taxed middle income earners are in Ireland.



So forgive me for getting somewhat confused, again. 
Enough taxes are being collected, but the collection of those taxes are disproportionately skewed to place the burden on high earners? 

And you want to redress that imbalance by shifting more of the burden from high earners to low and medium earners?

I am asking, how would you propose to do that? 
Bearing in mind, you state we are paying enough taxes already. So any shift in the burden to low and middle income earners will be met with a corresponding decrease in tax on high earners.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> And you want to redress that imbalance by shifting more of the burden from high earners to low and medium earners?
> 
> I am asking, how would you propose to do that?
> Bearing in mind, you state we are paying enough taxes already. So any shift in the burden to low and middle income earners will be met with a corresponding decrease in tax on high earners.


Yes, that would be fair. It won't happen but it would be fairer and it would encourage work. At the moment the State takes over half of everything you earn over a moderate enough income. That is unfair.

I paid income tax from the first year of my apprenticeship. It didn't kill me. I don't understand why taking low income earners out of the tax net is a virtue when most of them live in middle income households, have no dependents and are young people with the expectation of higher incomes in the future.  
I really don't understand why middle income earners consider themselves squeezes, especially by the government. They contribute nothing in income tax and in many cases are net recipients, receiving money which was taken from the same high earners they accuse of not paying their fair share in tax!

I know people who could expand their businesses but don't bother as the return just isn't worth the hassle (extra work, extra hours, less time with family etc) when over half of everything extra they earn will be taken from them. Why would they bother?

If you have 4 kids you would have to earn the equivalent of nearly €50,000 a year to end up with what you get on welfare, assuming that you have a council house and a few kids in college. Why work 50 or 60 hours a week to earn €120,000 and end up with a take home of €75,000 with all the sacrifices of family time and all the stress? 

Do you think the current taxes on earnings are fair? Do you think high earners are over or under taxed? Ditto for low and middle income earners. Fairness always has to be a guiding principle when it comes to taxation. Needs and political expedience have caused fairness to be forgotten about.


----------



## Firefly

Purple said:


> I know people who could expand their businesses but don't bother as the return just isn't worth the hassle (extra work, extra hours, less time with family etc) when over half of everything extra they earn will be taken from them. Why would they bother?



I am firmly in this bracket. I am often asked to work on weekends for clients here and in the UK but unless they are stuck I don't bother...it's just not worth it.


----------



## jjm

Job for someone else  firefly if you are turning down work because of high tax on high earners.So high tax on high earners  creates more jobs unless you work harder when you are at work because of high tax.Less time to keep an eye on TheBigShort.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> Yes, that would be fair. It won't happen but it would be fairer and it would encourage work. At the moment the State takes over half of everything you earn over a moderate enough income. That is unfair.



There is no point in answering by what you think should be done until you explain _how _it will be done.
I have no issue with increasing the tax burden on lower earners, if it results in an increase in public services. I do take issue with the notion of transferring the burden from higher earners on to lower earners for the perceived notion that that would somehow be fair.
For example, comparing our €40,000 one income, three kids family to say an €120,000 in same situation. It transpires that they take out of the tax system in child benefit the exact same amount. It also transpires that on the same income levels, they contribute the exact same amount of tax. 
Now you don't agree with this system, that is fine. But you need to explain how your alternative system would working in practical terms. I've already pointed out that even if you were to cut CB in half the lower earner makes a net contribution. But equally, the higher earner is also contributing more. The overall comparative change would be so miniscule as to make the whole discussion pointless.



Purple said:


> I don't understand why taking low income earners out of the tax net is a virtue



It is not. It is only because of the lack of quality services and the cost of living in this country that it is pursued. Reduce the cost of living, pay fair wages, provide adequate public services and taxing low earners would be justified.



Purple said:


> I really don't understand why middle income earners consider themselves squeezes, especially by the governmIent. They contribute nothing in income tax and in many cases are net recipients, receiving money which was taken from the same high earners they accuse of not paying their fair share in tax!



To say they contribute nothing in tax is bogus. Using your example of the €40,000 earner with 3 kids, his contribution was €404 a week. He was a net recipient to the tune of €16 a week by virtue of having 3 kids. 2, 1 or 0 kids and he is a net contributor. And I would hazard a guess that the great majority of single earning €40,000 income families will have 2 or less kids.






Purple said:


> Why work 50 or 60 hours a week to earn €120,000 and end up with a take home of €75,000 with all the sacrifices of family time and all the stress?



Why do automatically assume that someone on €120,000 must be making the sacrifices of family time and enduring all the stress? A hotel porter on €30,000 a year, a nurse, a garda, a security guard, lorry driver, chefs, waiters, earn a lot less, work unsocial hours and can work in very stressful environments let alone the stress of meeting the bills.



Purple said:


> Do you think the current taxes on earnings are fair?



No, I think they should be increased in return for better public services in education, healthcare, housing etc.



Purple said:


> Do you think high earners are over or under taxed?



Undertaxed. 



Purple said:


> Ditto for low and middle income earners.



Undertaxed.



Purple said:


> Fairness always has to be a guiding principle when it comes to taxation. Needs and political expedience have caused fairness to be forgotten about.



Yes, but your perception of fairness is to reduce the take home pay of low earners in order to increase  the take home pay of high earners.
Mine is to increase taxes in order to provide better public services.


----------



## Firefly

jjm2016 said:


> Job for someone else  firefly if you are turning down work because of high tax on high earners.So high tax on high earners  creates more jobs unless you work harder when you are at work because of high tax.


A lot of the time weekend work is specifically asked for. As I work in IT it tends to be a quiet time for a lot of organisations. Often the work is not done at all or rolled into a project of some sort. 



jjm2016 said:


> Less time to keep an eye on TheBigShort.


That's funny alright. I have far better things to do with my time I can assure you. I'm just naturally drawn to idiotic ideologies. You should look for posts by Complainer and RainyDay on this site and SerialComplaint and RainyDay over on boards.ie. Different people I believe but worrying all the same!


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> I'm just naturally drawn to idiotic ideologies.



Couldn't agree more.


----------



## jjm

Or drawn to conjecture


----------



## Purple

jjm2016 said:


> Job for someone else  firefly if you are turning down work because of high tax on high earners.So high tax on high earners  creates more jobs unless you work harder when you are at work because of high tax.Less time to keep an eye on TheBigShort.


That shows a fundamental lack of understand about how business works in reality. If Firefly doesn't do the work then someone in a different country may do it or his customer may just not get the work done.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> Mine is to increase taxes in order to provide better public services.


 Why do you think increasing taxes will result in better public services? Since the vast majority of our spend on public services goes on wages the most likely outcome will just be higher wages for the same level of services. That's what happened during the boom; a more than 50% increase in average Public Sector wages, along with a massive increase in the number of people employed in the Public Sector, but no substantive increase in the level or quality of services provided. Why do you think there would be a different outcome this time?


----------



## Purple

Firefly said:


> I'm just naturally drawn to idiotic ideologies.


 Lol


----------



## Firefly

Purple said:


> Why do you think increasing taxes will result in better public services? Since the vast majority of our spend on public services goes on wages the most likely outcome will just be higher wages for the same level of services. That's what happened during the boom; a more than 50% increase in average Public Sector wages, along with a massive increase in the number of people employed in the Public Sector, but no substantive increase in the level or quality of services provided.



I have to agree with this. Take the situation with A&E. Things were so bad in 2006 that in 2007 the HSE Produced "Emergency Departments Task Force Report" containing measures to address the situation of over-crowding in A&E departments...this at a time when the country was awash with money! We have more nurses per head than France and Canada. Why the drive to recruit more? Irish teachers, nurses and doctors among best paid in OECD (http://www.independent.ie/business/...-report-ignores-earnings-abroad-35712027.html). 

Paying higher wages is not the answer..


----------



## TheBigShort

I'm not advocating an increase in tax, you are


Purple said:


> I think an increase in income tax would be more appropriate.



Or, then again, maybe you aren't?



Purple said:


> We are paying enough at the moment



So which is it? 

I have no issue with increasing taxes if it provides for better public services. But, as is argued by you and others, increasing taxes will not provide better services. So, taking your word for it for the moment (I would broadly disagree, but accept there is inefficiency in the public sector), then I would not support tax increases.


----------



## TheBigShort

It shows that private sector worker's are being screwed by their employers. "Your lucky to have a job", is the typical self-serving mantra used to belittle working people as if their individual, and collective worth, is nothing more than an 'cost' entry in accounts to be beaten down and beaten back at every juncture.
According to the OECD we are one of the wealthiest countries in the world, but God forbid the people who actually get up in the morning, in both public and private sectors, should even contemplate incomes exceeding the average of the OECD.

http://www.independent.ie/business/...-report-ignores-earnings-abroad-35712027.html

Toilet paper.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> It shows that private sector worker's are being screwed by their employers. "Your lucky to have a job", is the typical self-serving mantra used to belittle working people as if their individual, and collective worth, is nothing more than an 'cost' entry in accounts to be beaten down and beaten back at every juncture.


 Everyone who works is a working person. That includes employees and employers who work in the businesses they own or run. I have never heard anyone being told they are lucky to have a job and paying someone the market rate is not screwing them, it is simply paying them their economic worth. The fact that we have 365,000 people employed by the State, earning 50'000 a year and receiving pensions which they only partially fund is a major contributing factor to the cost of living for those working in the open sectors of the economy. Again, I am not saying that individuals should be paid less but labour mobility and efficiency should mean we can deliver the same services with fewer people.



TheBigShort said:


> According to the OECD we are one of the wealthiest countries in the world, but God forbid the people who actually get up in the morning, in both public and private sectors, should even contemplate incomes exceeding the average of the OECD.


 Many do have incomes exceeding the OECD average. They just get punished by the State for working hard and being smart; over half of anything extra they earn is taken from them.

http://www.independent.ie/business/...-report-ignores-earnings-abroad-35712027.html


TheBigShort said:


> http://www.independent.ie/business/jobs/public-sector-pay-report-ignores-earnings-abroad-35712027.htm
> Toilet paper.



Why, because it tells you the inconvenient truth? What bit of it is incorrect?
That truth is that Public Sector Unions, the strongest vested interest group in the country, screw private sector workers, both employees and management, (whatever "Management" means) in order to protect their middle and high income members. Solidarity me This post will be deleted if not edited to remove bad language, as O'Casey might have said. The Public Sector Unions are the Pigs in Animal Farm. Stop blaming employers and business owners when the chief perpetrators of social injustice are the Comrades in ICTU. Not only that but they drive down standards and frustrate change and improvement. I know people who have left the Public Sector because of that. Most people want to do a good job and don't want to do things which are a waste of time but they are barred from being proactive. As a close friend put it "You don't rock the boat because that could threaten the job of someone who doesn't do any work. You don't get on the wrong side of the Union because there is no bullying like Union bullying". He'd know, he tried and had to leave his job because of Union intimidation.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> I'm not advocating an increase in tax, you are
> 
> 
> Or, then again, maybe you aren't?
> 
> 
> 
> So which is it?


Yes, I was unclear so, to clarify; Increase taxes on low and middle earners and decrease them on moderate to high earners. The net tax take should remain the same.
Improve public services through efficiency and higher standards. Pay people more who are good at their jobs. Pay people less who are not good at their jobs. If 6 people can do what 9 people used to do (due to better ITC or more efficient processes) then pay them more. 



TheBigShort said:


> I have no issue with increasing taxes if it provides for better public services. But, as is argued by you and others, increasing taxes will not provide better services. So, taking your word for it for the moment (I would broadly disagree, but accept there is inefficiency in the public sector), then I would not support tax increases.


 Do you think it is fair that we have such a socialist taxation system where so few are net contributors? Is it fair that the many live off the few?


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> Everyone who works is a working person. That includes employees and employers who work in the businesses they own or run



I agree, and I retract the remark that generalized employers screwing their employees. Most employers themselves are hardworking, decent and only intent on making a better life for themselves. No different to anyone else.



Purple said:


> I have never heard anyone being told they are lucky to have a job



I have, and I don't think you would be too long on this site to find such comments of that nature. Although I stand to be corrected on that.



Purple said:


> and paying someone the market rate is not screwing them, it is simply paying them their economic worth.



Well, that didn't take long. 
The 'market rate' and 'their economic worth' is flowery language for 'you are lucky to have a job'. 
Can I ask where is the market rate for a cleaner? Or security guard? Or bus driver? Or mechanic? Or any other job?

What is the 'economic worth' of a garda? Or a baker? Or a farmer? Particularly the farmer, relative to say, a surgeon? We have had this discussion before. As far as I can recall, you attribute greater economic worth to the surgeon. I would attribute greater economic worth to the farmer. Who is right, who is wrong? How is the economic worth determined?



Purple said:


> The fact that we have 365,000 people employed by the State, earning 50'000 a year and receiving pensions which they only partially fund is a major contributing factor to the cost of living for those working in the open sectors of the economy.



Yes, I agree their is an issue there. But the pension levy imposed goes someway to redressing that.
On the other hand, a compulsory pension contribution, similar to what they have in countries like Australia (around 8% of income) payable by employers could go some way also to funding the pension deficit.



Purple said:


> Many do have incomes exceeding the OECD average. They just get punished by the State for working hard and being smart; over half of anything extra they earn is taken from them.



Higher incomes is what attributes to our higher than average position in the wealthiest countries list. You stated you don't want to reduce incomes, but when it comes to wages, all discussion points to how public sector wages are above OECD averages. As if somehow that is a bad thing.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> I agree, and I retract the remark that generalized employers screwing their employees. Most employers themselves are hardworking, decent and only intent on making a better life for themselves. No different to anyone else.


 Fair enough.





TheBigShort said:


> I have, and I don't think you would be too long on this site to find such comments of that nature. Although I stand to be corrected on that.



I would not be surprised if people did make those comments here but have you ever heard an employer say it to their employee?





TheBigShort said:


> Well, that didn't take long.
> 
> The 'market rate' and 'their economic worth' is flowery language for 'you are lucky to have a job'.
> 
> Can I ask where is the market rate for a cleaner? Or security guard? Or bus driver? Or mechanic? Or any other job?



No, it’s nothing like telling someone they are lucky to have a job.

When the wage offered is sufficient to attract a sufficient number of suitable people to fill the jobs on offer; that’s the market rate. If we as a society decide that people should have more than that then we can increase their income through welfare payments. I’ve no problem with that as long as it doesn’t act as a deflationary effect on wages.  




TheBigShort said:


> What is the 'economic worth' of a garda? Or a baker? Or a farmer? Particularly the farmer, relative to say, a surgeon? We have had this discussion before. As far as I can recall, you attribute greater economic worth to the surgeon. I would attribute greater economic worth to the farmer. Who is right, who is wrong? How is the economic worth determined?


 The economic worth is different from the market rate. Farmers are very valuable because farming draws such high levels of subsidies from the EU. The social impact of that is good for Ireland but devastating for the most vulnerable people in the world. I have long argued that the Common Agricultural Policy and trade barriers in general cause millions of people to die each year.






TheBigShort said:


> Yes, I agree there is an issue there. But the pension levy imposed goes someway to redressing that.


 Some way but less than 25% of the way.



TheBigShort said:


> On the other hand, a compulsory pension contribution, similar to what they have in countries like Australia (around 8% of income) payable by employers could go some way also to funding the pension deficit.


 Where I work we make about 8% net profit a year. Labour accounts for about 60% of our costs. An 8% levy would half our profits and starve us of the capital we need to continuously invest and remain viable in a very competitive international market. That’s the reality for many businesses in the SME sector.






TheBigShort said:


> Higher incomes is what attributes to our higher than average position in the wealthiest countries list. You stated you don't want to reduce incomes, but when it comes to wages, all discussion points to how public sector wages are above OECD averages. As if somehow that is a bad thing.


 It’s bad if the services we offer are below the OECD average due to incompetence and inefficiency. If you want batter than average wages then you need to be better than average, you need to provide services that are better and more efficient than average. The problem here is that relative wage levels between the private and public sectors are way out of kilter with the rest of the OECD. That’s not sustainable, especially when we consider the knock-on pension cost implications.


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> On the other hand, a compulsory pension contribution, similar to what they have in countries like Australia (around 8% of income) payable by employers could go some way also to funding the pension deficit.



Would you be in favour of converting public sector defined benefit pensions to this model also?


----------



## jjm

Purple Are you sure labour is 60% of  your cost .Love to know what % is your overhead cost.love to know gross /net profit .I don't believe any Manufacturing engineering company could survive and be that inefficient.I would say 10% at most  you must not have upgraded in 20 years .(love to know labour cost as a % of your shipping product)


----------



## jjm

jjm2016 said:


> Purple Are you sure labour is 60% of  your cost .Love to know what % is your overhead cost.love to know gross net profit .I don't believe any Manufacturing engineering company could survive and be that inefficient.I would say 10% at most  you must not have upgraded in 20 years (Love to know labour as a % of your shipping product


----------



## Purple

jjm2016 said:


> Purple Are you sure labour is 60% of  your cost .Love to know what % is your overhead cost.love to know gross net profit .Are you telling me if you shipp 1000 euro worth of product payroll takes 600 euro.I don't believe any engineering company could survive and be that inefficient.I would say 10% at most  you must not have upgraded in 20 years .


Wages in general, not just direct manufacturing labour cost. We ship to China and Eastern Europe as well as Central America, the USA, the Middle east and Africa. Given that I take it we are efficient.


----------



## jjm

We shipp to all of the above locations also.


----------



## Purple

jjm2016 said:


> We shipp to all of the above locations also.


Well you must be competitive too.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> If we as a society decide that people should have more than that then we can increase their income through welfare payments. I’ve no problem with that as long as it doesn’t act as a deflationary effect on wages.



??? Family Income Supplement, Child Benefit etc, you are in favour of this??



Purple said:


> Farmers are very valuable because farming draws such high levels of subsidies from the EU.



I would consider that a somewhat shallow perspective of the economic worth of a farmer. 
Farmers, like Fishermen, are food producers. Without food we die. Without farmers and fishermen, we will have to farm and fish for ourselves. If we are all farming and fishing for ourselves, then we will be too busy to do all the other things we would like to do.
The economic worth of a farmer is effectively incalculable.



Purple said:


> Where I work we make about 8% net profit a year. Labour accounts for about 60% of our costs. An 8% levy would half our profits and starve us of the capital we need to continuously invest and remain viable in a very competitive international market. That’s the reality for many businesses in the SME sector.



You are highlighting the elephant in the room. Employers(most)  couldnt afford this contribution on top of wages. Most employees cannot afford the significant contribution required to start a private pension, and taxpayers cannot afford long-term to sustain old-age and public sector pensions.
The answer is clear to me, we are going to have to stay working for longer, until early '70's. 
I think the Tory party in England have floated this idea. It was shot down when it transpired that their proposed retirement age (72) was greater than the life expectancy of men in some of Britain's most deprived areas.



Purple said:


> It’s bad if the services we offer are below the OECD average due to incompetence and inefficiency.



You are having a free ride in your broadsheet derision of public services. To generalise the entire public service in this manner is no different to me generalizing about all employers ripping off their employees. It's not true, it's way off the mark.



Purple said:


> The problem here is that relative wage levels between the private and public sectors are way out of kilter with the rest of the OECD.



There is alternative viewpoints in the article posted by Firefly in this regard. One argument is that, relative to qualifications and experience, public sector wages are catching up with private sector wages.
To compare average public sector wages with private sector wages is a false comparison. The private sector includes a vast amount of industries and trades, many of which are typically low paid, that the public sector does not engage in. These industries will have the effect of reducing average incomes in the private sector.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> ??? Family Income Supplement, Child Benefit etc, you are in favour of this??


 Yes. The problem is at what point does welfare act as a subsidy to employers of low skilled employees. I’m not in favour of the State subsidising employers in that way. I don’t know what the answer is though.






TheBigShort said:


> I would consider that a somewhat shallow perspective of the economic worth of a farmer.
> 
> Farmers, like Fishermen, are food producers. Without food we die. Without farmers and fishermen, we will have to farm and fish for ourselves. If we are all farming and fishing for ourselves, then we will be too busy to do all the other things we would like to do.
> 
> The economic worth of a farmer is effectively incalculable.


 ... or we could buy it from cheaper producers. We don’t make clothes or cars or TV’s but I don’t remember ever hearing about shortages.






TheBigShort said:


> You are highlighting the elephant in the room. Employers(most)  couldnt afford this contribution on top of wages. Most employees cannot afford the significant contribution required to start a private pension, and taxpayers cannot afford long-term to sustain old-age and public sector pensions.
> 
> The answer is clear to me, we are going to have to stay working for longer, until early '70's.


 I agree though it’s a tough ask of a bricklayer or a teacher who has to stay in touch with kids and their interests in order to hold the attention of the class.






TheBigShort said:


> You are having a free ride in your broadsheet derision of public services. To generalise the entire public service in this manner is no different to me generalizing about all employers ripping off their employees. It's not true, it's way off the mark.


 Inefficient businesses go bust, or should do. Inefficient public sector organisations just suck up more money. I see no evidence of improvements in efficiency or better value for money from any public sector organisation, possibly with the exception of Revenue. I have looked for data but I can’t find any. The fact that Irish Water needed 3000 fewer people to run the national water infrastructure than the combined local councils is a good case in point. That doesn’t mean that the people in the local councils were/are not working hard. It means that there are massive structural inefficiencies and duplication of services in how the State is run. We argue about how much those 3000 employees are paid. We should be talking about why those 3000 people are employed in the first place. At €50,000 a year each that’s €150,000,000 a year. What would that do for the A&E crisis or supports for special needs children or homeless people?






TheBigShort said:


> There is alternative viewpoints in the article posted by Firefly in this regard. One argument is that, relative to qualifications and experience, public sector wages are catching up with private sector wages.
> 
> To compare average public sector wages with private sector wages is a false comparison. The private sector includes a vast amount of industries and trades, many of which are typically low paid, that the public sector does not engage in. These industries will have the effect of reducing average incomes in the private sector.


 The differential is 40%. The employment profile accounts for half of that. Pension values are not taken into account.


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> To compare average public sector wages with private sector wages is a false comparison. The private sector includes a vast amount of industries and trades, many of which are typically low paid, that the public sector does not engage in. These industries will have the effect of reducing average incomes in the private sector.



How come the public/private wages differential is a lot closer in the UK?


----------



## Purple

Firefly said:


> How come the public/private wages differential is a lot closer in the UK?


I was thinking about that and the employment profile may be a factor. The UK may employ more low skilled people in the public sector for jobs which are now done by the private sector here. Without better information it's hard to tell.


----------



## Firefly

Purple said:


> I was thinking about that and the employment profile may be a factor. The UK may employ more low skilled people in the public sector for jobs which are now done by the private sector here. Without better information it's hard to tell.



Maybe, but there's been a lot of privatisation in the UK also. I think it must be that we are just so much more highly educated and experienced here


----------



## Purple

Firefly said:


> Maybe, but there's been a lot of privatisation in the UK also. I think it must be that we are just so much more highly educated and experienced here


Maybe...


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> I would consider that a somewhat shallow perspective of the economic worth of a farmer. Farmers, like Fishermen, are food producers. Without food we die. Without farmers and fishermen, we will have to farm and fish for ourselves. If we are all farming and fishing for ourselves, then we will be too busy to do all the other things we would like to do.
> The economic worth of a farmer is effectively incalculable.



I agree, they are vital to our existence and the wonder that is the free market with the law of Supply and Demand ensures that they keep producing what we need at a price we can afford. For some (fortunate) people this could be fillet steak and lobster, for others it could be spag bol and mackerel. When an "in" ingredient like Quinoa comes along and the price rises, more farmers are drawn into the market and the increase in supply causes the price to fall. If a food goes out of fashion, the farmer will produce something else.....as is the case with every other business trying to sell something. All this happens naturally and has done so since the dawn of the ages via bartering before even currencies existed.

Do you have another method to calculate what a farmer should be paid?


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> How come the public/private wages differential is a lot closer in the UK?



Probably because the British government has been a lot better at devaluing and demeaning the efforts of their own employees?
Hence,  The greater levels of privatisation.
If you look at healthcare from sole perspective of value for money in an accounting sense, as opposed to economic sense, then it's easy to see why there are waiting lists that never clear, crisis in A&E etc.
It's because the money is spent in the wrong areas. But this is policy. Create crisis, make sure things don't work, then demotivated staff, defined and then privatise.
From Tatcher, New Labour and now Cameron and May. The NHS is under attack.
We haven't had to endure this level of privatisation yet.


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> the wonder that is the free market with the law of Supply and Demand ensures that they keep producing what we need at a price we can afford



You are kidding me, aren't you? You think the 'free market' determines your grocery bill?
The agriculture industry in Europe is built on a highly centralized and subsidised quota system.
Farmers are guaranteed a fixed payment from their governments in return for a guarantee that they remain on the land producing. If they produce to much, the value of their product falls. But rather than let the 'free market' dictate supply and demand, the EU intervenes to ensure a minimum fixed income. The purpose of this is, ultimately, is to tackle any prospect of demand exceeding supply. When that happens, prices rise, people go hungry, people lose jobs, people revolt.
The so-called 'Arab Spring' is a useful example. The media liked to portray it as some people inspired movement for democracy. It wasn't. Food price hikes were leading to food shortages.



Firefly said:


> If a food goes out of fashion,



You mean if a particular brand goes out of fashion. Between bread, fruit, veg, meat and fish, which are in and which are out in 2017?



Firefly said:


> All this happens naturally and has done so since the dawn of the ages via bartering before even currencies existed.



No it doesn't.


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> Because the British government has been a lot better at devaluing and demeaning the efforts of their own employees.


Care to back this up?




TheBigShort said:


> If you look at healthcare from sole perspective of value for money in an accounting sense, as opposed to economic sense, then it's easy to see why there are waiting lists that never clear, crisis in A&E etc.
> It's because the money is spent in the wrong areas. But this is policy. Create crisis, make sure things don't work, then demotivated staff, defined and then privatise.
> From Tatcher, New Labour and now Cameron and May. The NHS is under attack.



How would you compare the HSE to the NHS in overall terms? Better, the same or worse?




TheBigShort said:


> We haven't had to endure this level of privatisation yet.



I certainly agree with you there! But where we have I think the outcomes are better. Look at the number of options available to people when it comes to airline travel, healthcare, energy and telecoms to name a few.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> Because the British government has been a lot better at devaluing and demeaning the efforts of their own employees. Hence,  The greater levels of privatisation.


And yet our nurses are moving there to work, despite similar levels of pay, because their on the job training and rotas are better. They also have better career advancement for doctors (less of a closed shop). Their doctors do earn far less though and they cannot work in the public and private sector at the same time.   


TheBigShort said:


> If you look at healthcare from sole perspective of value for money in an accounting sense, as opposed to economic sense, then it's easy to see why there are waiting lists that never clear, crisis in A&E etc.
> It's because the money is spent in the wrong areas. But this is policy. Create crisis, make sure things don't work, then demotivated staff, defined and then privatise.
> From Tatcher, New Labour and now Cameron and May. The NHS is under attack.
> We haven't had to endure this level of privatisation yet.


Do you really think there is a multi-party inter-generational Machiavellian plot in the UK to privatise their NHS?
Is the more obvious and credible reason a reaction to the failings of the existing system? It's worth noting that their health system is better than ours and is delivered at a much lower cost.
I want a good healthcare system which offers value for money, i.e. reasonable outcomes at a price we can afford. I don't care how it is delivered but I am of the opinion that where there is little accountability, no sanctions for incompetence and no desire to punish criminal activity by staff (theft is rife in hospitals) I don't see how we can get the outcomes we need. People die unnecessarily because of the waste in our healthcare system. I don't think that's good enough.
I don't see any real evidence that Liam Doran and the INMO, the IMO, the Medical Consultants and the other vested interest groups in our healthcare system have any real interest in improving things, but rather use the sick and vulnerable to further their own goals. Otherwise every discussion wouldn't be linked to their own pay. Maybe that's the problem rather than a grand capitalist plot?


----------



## Firefly

Purple said:


> I don't see any real evidence that Liam Doran and the INMO, the IMO, the Medical Consultants and the other vested interest groups in our healthcare system have any real interest in improving things, but rather use the sick and vulnerable to further their own goals. *Otherwise every discussion wouldn't be linked to their own pay*.



Isn't that the truth!


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> Do you really think there is a multi-party inter-generational Machiavellian plot in the UK to privatise their NHS?



No, just a right-wing capitalist plot to profit out of human suffering.



Purple said:


> Is the more obvious and credible reason a reaction to the failings of the existing system? It's worth noting that their health system is better than ours and is delivered at a much lower cost.



Yes it is, and it is still under pressure to defend and ultimately privatise. Why? Why not increasing funding to enhance a good health system?



Purple said:


> I want a good healthcare system which offers value for money, i.e. reasonable outcomes at a price we can afford. I don't care how it is delivered



I do care. Healthcare provided on the basis of one's ability to pay (through the health insurance circus) is not how I care for it to be delivered.



Purple said:


> People die unnecessarily because of the waste in our healthcare system. I don't think that's good enough.



No it is not. And if we continue on the road as we are we will end up with a US style system, where greater numbers of people will die.




Purple said:


> I don't see any real evidence that Liam Doran and the INMO, the IMO, ....and the other vested interest groups in our healthcare system have any real interest in improving things



I do, and I think that while they have there members interests to the fore (that is their job after all), those interests are complementary to providing good health care.



Purple said:


> Maybe that's the problem rather than a grand capitalist plot?



Nah, it's a capitalist plot.


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> Care to back this up?



I've edited my comment to reflect more accurately my view.



Firefly said:


> How would you compare the HSE to the NHS in overall terms? Better, the same or worse?



For the brief experience I have had with either, HSE. In fairness, I have had very limited experience with NHS.



Firefly said:


> Look at the number of options available to people when it comes to airline travel, healthcare, energy and telecoms to name a few.



Airlines, granted. The other three - just a circus, adding to the cost of providing utilities required to live in a modern world, in order to generate a profit for shareholders.
So much waste and inefficiency. But who cares, it's the private sector, so it's kool!!


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> No, just a right-wing capitalist plot to profit out of human suffering.



I'm quoting this for posterity!!!


----------



## TheBigShort

http://m.independent.ie/irish-news/hospitals-running-out-of-cancer-drugs-35728109.html

More private sector inefficiency.


----------



## TheBigShort

https://www.rte.ie/news/business/20...reland-ceo-to-bring-international-experience/

€950,000 a year salary. These people must be highly talented. Where would BoI share price be without them...oh, wait!


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> No, just a right-wing capitalist plot to profit out of human suffering.


Who is doing the plotting? Who are these people?





TheBigShort said:


> Yes it is, and it is still under pressure to defend and ultimately privatise. Why? Why not increasing funding to enhance a good health system?


 Is it? I haven't seen any evidence of that pressure.





TheBigShort said:


> I do care. Healthcare provided on the basis of one's ability to pay (through the health insurance circus) is not how I care for it to be delivered.


That's how it is consumed, not how it is delivered. Belgium has the best healthcare system in the EU. It is 80% privately delivered but free at the point of consumption.





TheBigShort said:


> No it is not. And if we continue on the road as we are we will end up with a US style system, where greater numbers of people will die.


 Do more people die in the USA? Remember that they spend far more than we do per head of population on socialised medicine.






TheBigShort said:


> No, just a right-wing capitalist plot to profit out of human suffering.


Who is doing the plotting? Who are these people?





TheBigShort said:


> Yes it is, and it is still under pressure to defend and ultimately privatise. Why? Why not increasing funding to enhance a good health system?


 Is it? I haven't seen any evidence of that pressure.





TheBigShort said:


> I do care. Healthcare provided on the basis of one's ability to pay (through the health insurance circus) is not how I care for it to be delivered.


That's how it is consumed, not how it is delivered. Belgium has the best healthcare system in the EU. It is 80% privately delivered but free at the point of consumption.





TheBigShort said:


> I do, and I think that while they have there members interests to the fore (that is their job after all), those interests are complementary to providing good health care.


In what way are their interests complementary with providing good healthcare? The job of vested interest groups is to look after the interests of their members. That's it. They have no mandate to look at any bigger picture. Spending money on pay rises instead of equipment is in their interest. Removing duplication of services which reduces headcounts and frees up more money for equipment and better services is not in their interest.





TheBigShort said:


> No, just a right-wing capitalist plot to profit out of human suffering.


Who is doing the plotting? Who are these people?





TheBigShort said:


> Yes it is, and it is still under pressure to defend and ultimately privatise. Why? Why not increasing funding to enhance a good health system?


 Is it? I haven't seen any evidence of that pressure.





TheBigShort said:


> I do care. Healthcare provided on the basis of one's ability to pay (through the health insurance circus) is not how I care for it to be delivered.


That's how it is consumed, not how it is delivered. Belgium has the best healthcare system in the EU. It is 80% privately delivered but free at the point of consumption.





TheBigShort said:


> Nah, it's a capitalist plot.


Again, who are these capitalists? What is their aim? Since the vast majority of funding comes from the State how do they get our politicians to channel money into their pockets? How will they make money if they are providing bad services when people have the option of going elsewhere?


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> http://m.independent.ie/irish-news/hospitals-running-out-of-cancer-drugs-35728109.html
> 
> More private sector inefficiency.


So it is the private sectors fault that the HSE only has one supplier for a product which can be supplied by other producers? They were told about this 2 years ago.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> You are kidding me, aren't you? You think the 'free market' determines your grocery bill?
> The agriculture industry in Europe is built on a highly centralized and subsidised quota system.
> Farmers are guaranteed a fixed payment from their governments in return for a guarantee that they remain on the land producing. If they produce to much, the value of their product falls. But rather than let the 'free market' dictate supply and demand, the EU intervenes to ensure a minimum fixed income. The purpose of this is, ultimately, is to tackle any prospect of demand exceeding supply. When that happens, prices rise, people go hungry, people lose jobs, people revolt.


Free trade would see prices drop as producers in poor countries got access to our markets. Instead we flood their markets with our subsidised produce and keep them impoverished.


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> You are kidding me, aren't you? You think the 'free market' determines your grocery bill?
> The agriculture industry in Europe is built on a highly centralized and subsidised quota system.
> Farmers are guaranteed a fixed payment from their governments in return for a guarantee that they remain on the land producing. If they produce to much, the value of their product falls. But rather than let the 'free market' dictate supply and demand, the EU intervenes to ensure a minimum fixed income. The purpose of this is, ultimately, is to tackle any prospect of demand exceeding supply.




I should have clarified. You are of course right, the agricultural market is far from free and is highly rigged. What I meant was that within this rigged market, farmers can produce what they like with a price floor for certain produce. That's why we have such a wonderful array of products at so many price points. 

Since you seem to be so against a market economy, can I ask you again, do you have another method to calculate what a farmer should be paid??


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> You mean if a particular brand goes out of fashion. Between bread, fruit, veg, meat and fish, which are in and which are out in 2017?



That's not what I meant and you know it. I mentioned Quinoa and could easily add Pomegranate seeds to that. Taking bread as an example, do yourself a favour and pop in to SuperValu and look at the selection of breads available. Now ask yourself what the selection would look like in a social utopia where no-one would have any incentive to do anything! For real world examples, try Googling North Korea and start reading up on what Hugo Chavez did to one of the worlds largest oil producers. Ditto for which way people moved when the Berlin wall came down and ditto when the USSR opened up and you had all these states clamboring for independence. I thank my lucky stars that I live in a relatively open market society and I joy at the selections available.

I also thank my lucky stars that the oforementioned socialist and communist experiments have already happened and that anyone with half a brain knows that the further we are away from this the better.

PS, you can add Pol Pot to that list and of course Stalin.


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> More private sector inefficiency.



You know, I think this post sums up your core belief system:

Public Sector Good

Private Sector Bad


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> For the brief experience I have had with either, HSE. In fairness, I have had very limited experience with NHS.



Well I would argue that if you asked 100 punters on the street if they would like to have the standard of healthcare in the NHS instead of the HSC they would bite your arm off!!


----------



## Deiseblue

Firefly said:


> How come the public/private wages differential is a lot closer in the UK?



According to the the Public Service Pay Commission report which has concluded that the public-private earnings differential are relatively on a par. 
Such a report is hugely influential as it will basically form a template for the Government/Union negotiations on a successor to the Lansdowne Road Agreement which will undoubtedly hasten pay restoration.


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> pop in to SuperValu and look at the selection of breads available.



Yes, plenty of different brands available.



Firefly said:


> For real world examples, try Googling North Korea and start reading up on what Hugo Chavez did to one of the worlds largest oil producers.



Why? NK is a country technically still at war with SK and with US imposed economic sanctions. It is ruled by a dictator and there are no democratic elections. NK is about as much socialist as the US is. But at least they both have one thing in common, they use their vast resources to build WMD.
Although in fairness to Chavez, he was the democratically elected leader and did try to do a lot for the poor. Those pesky US economic sanctions, CIA attempts to overthrow didn't do him any favours.



Firefly said:


> the USSR opened up and you had all these states clamboring for independence



Oh no! We are back in the USSR again! Why?



Firefly said:


> you can add Pol Pot to that list and of course Stalin.



Dictators. It's fine to label yourself socialist, as a means to achieving power,but if you rule by dictatorship then you are no socialist.
This of course would never happen in our free and open market system. We have democratic values and our capitalist leaders would never engage with brutally dictators in Lybia, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, would they?
I mean, can you imagine if a democratic capitalist society would ever engage in arms sales for the slaughter of innocent people in foreign countries.



Firefly said:


> You know, I think this post sums up your core belief system:
> 
> Public Sector Good
> 
> Private Sector Bad



I've already explained my core belief system to you. I believe we should capitalise on the resources of the earth in an ethically and environmentally sustainable way.
Would you take issue with that core belief?



Firefly said:


> Well I would argue that if you asked 100 punters on the street if they would like to have the standard of healthcare in the NHS instead of the HSC they would bite your arm off!!



I'm not sure. It's the delivery of the service that I think is the issue. Once you are in the system it is generally excellent from my experience.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> So it is the private sectors fault that the HSE only has one supplier for a product which can be supplied by other producers? They were told about this 2 years ago.



Not at all. It is the inefficiency of the private firm to deliver on the product they are contracted to deliver.
The point being, the lauding of the private sector free market efficiency is totally exaggerated. I can think of dozens of examples where there is wastage, inefficiency etc. This all adds to the price I pay as a consumer.
No doubt there are inefficiencies in the public sector but I would hazard a guess that in this case the contract to supply the drugs demanded exclusivity on the part of the supplier. So instead of saying "sorry", how about working with a competitor to temporarily supply the necessary drugs?
Or would that eat into profit margins?


----------



## Firefly

Deiseblue said:


> According to the the Public Service Pay Commission report which has concluded that the public-private earnings differential are relatively on a par.
> Such a report is hugely influential as it will basically form a template for the Government/Union negotiations on a successor to the Lansdowne Road Agreement which will undoubtedly hasten pay restoration.



Firstly I would like to see this backed up. And secondly, am I reading this correct - are you saying that because the gap between earnings in the private and public sectors has narrowed you think it should be widened again? @BigShort, as you have liked Deise's post, can you confirm you would be happy to promote this policy of inequality?

I also note you use the term "pay restoration". That's funny, as when wages were reduced they were roundly referred to as "cuts" but now that there is a move to increase them they are called pay restorations. Of course the flipside of this could equally be argued, that when pay was reduced that was pay restoration back to pre Celtic Tiger madness and the moves to increase pay now are pay rises..


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> Yes, plenty of different brands available.



I agree. And in your opinion do you think there would be a better or worse selection available in a socialist state where nobody has the incentive to make bread?



TheBigShort said:


> Why? NK is a country technically still at war with SK and with US imposed economic sanctions. It is ruled by a dictator and there are no democratic elections.



NK has its origins deeply rooted in socialism. From Wikipedia:

".... in 1948, separate governments were formed: the socialist Democratic People's Republic of Korea in the north, and the capitalist Republic of Korea in the south."
" North Korea officially describes itself as a self-reliant socialist state "
"Juche, an ideology of national self-reliance, was introduced into the constitution as a "creative application of Marxism–Leninism"[29] in 1972."
"The means of production are owned by the state through state-run enterprises and collectivized farms. Most services such as healthcare, education, housing and food production are subsidized or state-funded"





TheBigShort said:


> NK is about as much socialist as the US is.



You should be charging for posts like these..haven't laughed as much all day!




TheBigShort said:


> But at least they both have one thing in common, they use their vast resources to build WMD.


According to the World Bank (http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.GD.ZS), the US spent 3.3% of its GDP on its military in 2015. Predictably there is no entry for NK, but judging its recent show of strength and the fact that any pictures I've seen show people practically emaciated from malnutrition, I would guess it's a lot higher



TheBigShort said:


> Although in fairness to Chavez, he was the democratically elected leader


Thanks to the lowest turnout in Venezuelan history!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Venezuela_(1999–present)





TheBigShort said:


> and did try to do a lot for the poor.


He started off well, but then soon descended into the natural progression to a dictator himself:

"In mid August 1999, the Constitutional Assembly moved to restructure the nations judiciary, giving itself the power to fire judges, seeking to expedite the investigations of corruption outstanding against what the New York Times estimated were nearly half of the nation's 4700 judges, clerks, and bailiffs"
" Over 190 judges were eventually suspended on charges of corruption. Eventually the Supreme Court was also dissolved and new judges were appointed that were supporters of Chávez"

However the people on the streets soon got wise of his plans:

"Chávez's opposition originated from the response to the "cubanization" of Venezuela when mothers realized that the new textbooks in Venezuela were really Cuban books filled with revolutionary propaganda and with different covers causing them to protest"

"By the summer months of 2001, the opposition groups grew quickly from concerned mothers to labor unions, business interests, church groups, and right and leftwing political parties"

Ha - even the lefties went up against him!!!

"the Confederación de Trabajadores de Venezuela (CTV) – a labour union federation with strong links to the AD party[55] – then called for a general business strike (paro cívico) for 10 December 2001[56] to protest the 49 laws"

Plenty more here:


http://theconversation.com/how-toda...ated-by-hugo-chavezs-revolutionary-plan-61474




TheBigShort said:


> Oh no! We are back in the USSR again! Why?



Because it is the country that most resembles a socialist state. Think Stalin. And we all know how that ended up!


We could go on all day at this lark, but again we don't have to. We have clear examples where those countries going the socialist / communist route have time and again failed leading to the misery of those who are most vulnerable.


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> Dictators. It's fine to label yourself socialist, as a means to achieving power,but if you rule by dictatorship then you are no socialist.



Can you name any leader who has turned his state into a socialist state and stayed in power without becomming a dictator?



TheBigShort said:


> This of course would never happen in our free and open market system. We have democratic values and our capitalist leaders would never engage with brutally dictators in Lybia, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, would they?


Sadly they have but they face the electorate. Look how it fared for Tony Blair









TheBigShort said:


> I've already explained my core belief system to you. I believe we should capitalise on the resources of the earth in an ethically and environmentally sustainable way.
> Would you take issue with that core belief?



Sounds great and leads me to ask you for a *3rd* time, how would you calculate what a farmer should be paid for his produce?

And when you say ethically, how do you define this? 



TheBigShort said:


> I'm not sure. It's the delivery of the service that I think is the issue. Once you are in the system it is generally excellent from my experience.


Really? Even seen all the people in trolleys in A&E who are in the system?


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> I agree. And in your opinion do you think there would be a better or worse selection available in a socialist state where nobody has the incentive to make bread?



Any state, where nobody has the incentive to make bread, is not desirable.



Firefly said:


> "The means of production are owned by the state through state-run enterprises and collectivized farms. Most services such as healthcare, education, housing and food production are subsidized or state-funded"



This is a central command economy. Why do you keep advocating such a system?



Firefly said:


> According to the World Bank (http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.GD.ZS), the US spent 3.3% of its GDP on its military in 2015.



Or about $500billion! Make you vomit wouldn't it? I mean, realistically, any country that spends that on weaponry must be intending on using it, don't you think?



Firefly said:


> Predictably there is no entry for NK, but judging its recent show of strength and the fact that any pictures I've seen show people practically emaciated from malnutrition, I would guess it's a lot higher



Yes, absolutely disgraceful. Between the US and NK both should stop their gross militarism, shouldn't they?



Firefly said:


> Thanks to the lowest turnout in Venezuelan history!
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Venezuela_(1999–present)



That's democracy for you. 



Firefly said:


> He started off well, but then soon descended into the natural progression to a dictator himself:



That's awful.



Firefly said:


> Ha - even the lefties went up against him!!!



Says it all then, doesn't it? If the leftie socialists went against him, then it's hard to imagine that he was running a leftist socialist state



Firefly said:


> Because it is the country that most resembles a socialist state.



It was a centrally command economy led by unelected officials. I don't advocate such a system, do you?


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> Can you name any leader who has turned his state into a socialist state and stayed in power without becomming a dictator?



No, can you? 
Considering I don't advocate a socialist state, in the manner you imagine, then what is the point of this?



Firefly said:


> Sounds great and leads me to ask you for a *3rd* time, how would you calculate what a farmer should be paid for his produce?
> 
> And when you say ethically, how do you define this?



I support in principle the system applied by the EU. I support the concept of having a perpetual abundance of food to feed the population, rather than a free market system where the prospect of inflationary pressures could lead to social unrest and worse.
It's not without its faults, as Purple has highlighted earlier, but those faults are not insurmountable I would think.



Firefly said:


> Really? Even seen all the people in trolleys in A&E who are in the system?



I consider being on a _waiting_ list, or _waiting_ on a trolley for medical attention, as outside the system. 
Only when you are in receipt of medical attention are you _in _the system. That is what I meant. 
Waiting in a doctor's surgery for instance, doesn't classify as in the system.


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> Any state, where nobody has the incentive to make bread, is not desirable.


Tends to happen when states go down the socialist route.



TheBigShort said:


> This is a central command economy. Why do you keep advocating such a system?


Because it goes hand in hand with socialist states, or are you trying to distance yourself from the failed examples provided?



TheBigShort said:


> Or about $500billion! Make you vomit wouldn't it? I mean, realistically, any country that spends that on weaponry must be intending on using it, don't you think?


It's a shedload of money I agree and just shows how rich the US is when 3.3% of its GDP is $500billion. The country most associated with capitalism must be doing something right!!



TheBigShort said:


> Yes, absolutely disgraceful. Between the US and NK both should stop their gross militarism, shouldn't they?


I agree.



TheBigShort said:


> That's democracy for you.


Kinda handy though. And especially when you made the reference earlier in the thread to context!



TheBigShort said:


> That's awful.


Yip, tends to happen!



TheBigShort said:


> Says it all then, doesn't it? If the leftie socialists went against him, then it's hard to imagine that he was running a leftist socialist state


He tried to but like all good socialists he went down the inevitable road to dictatorshi/////p



TheBigShort said:


> It was a centrally command economy led by unelected officials. I don't advocate such a system, do you?



I obviously don't but again it goes hand in hand with socialist utopia


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> No, can you?
> Considering I don't advocate a socialist state, in the manner you imagine, then what is the point of this?


Genuinely, I would love to hear your socialist ideas in more detail, outlining how they could be implemented, how they would better our people and in all the time we've been on this planet where it has been successfully implemented in the past. I'm not saying capitalism or the free market is perfect but it's the best system we have tried.



TheBigShort said:


> No, can you?
> I support in principle the system applied by the EU. I support the concept of having a perpetual abundance of food to feed the population, rather than a free market system where the prospect of inflationary pressures could lead to social unrest and worse.
> It's not without its faults, as Purple has highlighted earlier, but those faults are not insurmountable I would think.



You have referenced the floor price for food produce...like the minimum wage. Is this the price that should be paid to farmers? Should they have the ability to earn more or should they all be paid the same? What's a fair price to pay them for their produce?


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> Tends to happen when states go down the socialist route.



No, it doesn't. Nowhere, in the history of humanity, regardless of what economic system, were people not incentivised to make bread.
That is sheer folly.
For sure, economic systems have collapsed leading to food shortages. I referenced the Arab Spring earlier as an example. The USSR is another example and the US in 1929, 'The Great Depression', is another example of a collapsed economic system. Germany post WW1 is another, France 1789 is another too. All of the economic systems, from fuedalism to capitalism to socialism to communism all collapsed and resulted in food shortages and poverty to lesser or greater degrees for their populations.
The incentive to make bread couldn't have been greater.



Firefly said:


> Because it goes hand in hand with socialist states, or are you trying to distance yourself from the failed examples provided?



I was never associated with those states, why do you keep peddling this nonsense?



Firefly said:


> It's a shedload of money I agree and just shows how rich the US is when 3.3% of its GDP is $500billion. The country most associated with capitalism must be doing something right!!



The US is the finest example of an open progressive society through technological innovation and research and development and free will.
It's just a pity that it is also plagued with individuals and organizations that infest this ingenuity with scare-mongering, war-mongering, win-at-all cost policies.
There is so much to admire about the US and it's people. 
There is also, unfortunately, much to despair.



Firefly said:


> He tried to but like all good socialists he went down the inevitable road to dictatorshi/////p



Like all bad socialists rather. 



Firefly said:


> I obviously don't but again it goes hand in hand with socialist utopia



Depends on your definition of a socialist utopia. It doesn't fit mine.


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> Genuinely, I would love to hear your socialist ideas in more detail, outlining how they could be implemented, how they would better our people and in all the time we've been on this planet where it has been successfully implemented in the past. I'm not saying capitalism or the free market is perfect but it's the best system we have tried.



It's not rocket science really. I support the concept of a democratic socialist republic, the sovereignty of the state residing in the will of the people. 
I consider two objectives. What we need as a people, and what we want as a people. 
I support free market enterprise for all that is wanted, subject to fair procedure, standards and quality set out through good governance.
I support government intervention for all that is needed, set out in public policy, as determined by the people through the ballot box.
Things that are needed - food, housing, education, health, etc
Things that are wanted - everything else over and above what is needed.

The discussion here is to determine, or define, how we deliver products and services to the population in the most efficient and cost effective way.
I have my views, I am open to persuasion.


----------



## Deiseblue

H


Firefly said:


> Firstly I would like to see this backed up. And secondly, am I reading this correct - are you saying that because the gap between earnings in the private and public sectors has narrowed you think it should be widened again? @BigShort, as you have liked Deise's post, can you confirm you would be happy to promote this policy of inequality?
> 
> I also note you use the term "pay restoration". That's funny, as when wages were reduced they were roundly referred to as "cuts" but now that there is a move to increase them they are called pay restorations. Of course the flipside of this could equally be argued, that when pay was reduced that was pay restoration back to pre Celtic Tiger madness and the moves to increase pay now are pay rises..



In terms of understanding the methodology behind the Government initiated independent report by the Public Services Pay Commission I can only refer you to their website which contains the report in full.

The report concludes that as at 2014 the pay differential between the sectors was relatively on a par , in the 3 years subsequently pay increases in the private sector have outpaced those in the public sector so yes I believe that further pay restoration is indeed appropriate in the EU's fastest growing economy .

Both the Government as employers & the Unions as employee representatives refer to the continuing process of salary negotiations under the gradual winding down of FEMPI as " pay restoration " & as such that's the term I use.


----------



## jjm

indeed appropriate in the EU's fastest growing economy .

Both the Government as employers & the Unions as employee representatives refer to the continuing process of salary negotiations under the gradual winding down of FEMPI as " pay restoration " & as such that's the term I use.[/QUOTE]

We need to understand as a nation one of the reasons high earners will always pay more is down to the fact we are over paying ourselves both public and private sectors.This is putting pressure on lower wage earners to afford/ access goods and services  I don't see a  better way than using the tax system to address the affects of over paying ourselves.We need to have a breakdown on the wage level of these new jobs in the so called fasted growing economy . I expect high tax payers will get hit if these new jobs are lower wage earners. I would say there has being pay restoration/Increases in the private sector in Companies  that can afford to do so .I would also say high wage earners are doing better than lower wage earners but I have no way of knowing for sure.The strange thing is if we go with Purple and firefly high earners will end up paying more tax.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> It's not rocket science really. I support the concept of a democratic socialist republic, the sovereignty of the state residing in the will of the people.
> I consider two objectives. What we need as a people, and what we want as a people.
> I support free market enterprise for all that is wanted, subject to fair procedure, standards and quality set out through good governance.
> I support government intervention for all that is needed, set out in public policy, as determined by the people through the ballot box.
> Things that are needed - food, housing, education, health, etc
> Things that are wanted - everything else over and above what is needed.
> 
> The discussion here is to determine, or define, how we deliver products and services to the population in the most efficient and cost effective way.
> I have my views, I am open to persuasion.


That's a really excellent post. I don't fully agree but it's very well put.


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> It's not rocket science really. I support the concept of a democratic socialist republic, the sovereignty of the state residing in the will of the people.
> I consider two objectives. What we need as a people, and what we want as a people.
> I support free market enterprise for all that is wanted, subject to fair procedure, standards and quality set out through good governance.
> I support government intervention for all that is needed, set out in public policy, as determined by the people through the ballot box.
> Things that are needed - food, housing, education, health, etc
> Things that are wanted - everything else over and above what is needed.
> 
> The discussion here is to determine, or define, how we deliver products and services to the population in the most efficient and cost effective way.
> I have my views, I am open to persuasion.




I agree, a very well made reply. The "needs" you've mentioned are certainly needs (I think we'd all agree on that), however I believe that the private sector should be involved in these where it makes sense. If the private sector can provide the same service for less cost to the state it should be able to do so. The smaller the public sector, the higher the tax intake for the state which means that the service the state does provide will be much better funded.
In any case, at a high level I do agree with you however. Just like extreme left viewpoints of central planning I also have an issue with libertarian viewpoints. Slightly right of centre is my preferred option.


----------



## jjm

Firefly
Five or six years ago I would agree with you but not any longer What is happening in Ireland we finish up paying Private sector  more than if the state provided the service in most cases we tax payers finish up paying twice when they private sector are involved along with the state.


----------



## Firefly

Firefly said:


> You have referenced the floor price for food produce...like the minimum wage. Is this the price that should be paid to farmers? Should they have the ability to earn more or should they all be paid the same? What's a fair price to pay them for their produce?



Just to follow up on this. What's a fair price to pay farmers for their produce?


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> Just to follow up on this. What's a fair price to pay farmers for their produce?



On the face of it, the price will be determined by supply and demand. But as we are talking about food, which is essential for human life, then I would prefer not to leave the price of food to the free market.
That's all well and good in times of abundance, it results in cheap food for consumers. But if the price goes too low then some farmers won't bother and will leave the industry. This is bad, as during times of food shortages (history is littered with them), the absence of a sufficient pool of farmers will result in food shortages and all the consequences that goes with that.
So I'm happy to pay farmers the market price for their produce, subject to a basic income that will ensure their continued presence on the farm regardless of the price of food. 
This in turn is not perfect, it has knock on consequences for non-EU markets and arguably it is a contributory factor in rising obesity levels. This is inefficiency.
The alternative could be food shortages and hunger. Obesity is a societal health problem. Starvation is inhumane.


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> I agree, a very well made reply.



So, we can put to bed the allegations and insinuations of a soviet socialist style or North Korean style of governance?
Will you accept that you are not up against the Anti-Capitalist?


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> On the face of it, the price will be determined by supply and demand. But as we are talking about food, which is essential for human life, then I would prefer not to leave the price of food to the free market.
> That's all well and good in times of abundance, it results in cheap food for consumers. But if the price goes too low then some farmers won't bother and will leave the industry. This is bad, as during times of food shortages (history is littered with them), the absence of a sufficient pool of farmers will result in food shortages and all the consequences that goes with that.
> So I'm happy to pay farmers the market price for their produce, subject to a basic income that will ensure their continued presence on the farm regardless of the price of food.
> This in turn is not perfect, it has knock on consequences for non-EU markets and arguably it is a contributory factor in rising obesity levels. This is inefficiency.
> The alternative could be food shortages and hunger. Obesity is a societal health problem. Starvation is inhumane.



We're getting somewhere! I'm ok with a minimum price for essentials, but we've all heard of farmers getting paid to keep their land in clover, about the wine  lakes and butter mountains. I doubt that CAP payments cover Pomegranite seeds or Quinoa, so the market price determines what a farmer gets paid like everone and everything else... the fruit & veg shop shops around when buying potatoes to sell. The potato growers have to keep their price down so that their produce is picked by the fruit & veg shop and all the way down. I've read Tim Harfords book called Adapt where he refers to the fact that an average Wallmart in the US has approx. 1m products. How in God's name can we possibly determine the fair price for these products without the market!





TheBigShort said:


> So, we can put to bed the allegations and insinuations of a soviet socialist style or North Korean style of governance?
> Will you accept that you are not up against the Anti-Capitalist?



You've made a sensible post, however if you wade through posts by Complainer and RainyDay you'll see examples of posts that are far more to the left. It's my opinion that anywhere socialism has been tried, the result is dictatorship. I've asked that you provide an example of your ideology and where it has worked.


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> if you wade through posts by Complainer and RainyDay you'll see examples of posts that are far more to the left.



I don't know who they are or what their opinions are. I don't speak for them nor they for me. This is irrelevant.



Firefly said:


> I've asked that you provide an example of your ideology and where it has worked.



No you didn't. You asked me for examples of an ideology that I don't endorse (central command closed economies), but that you labeled me with regardless.
I'm asking you to retract those labels.


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> I don't know who they are or what their opinions are. I don't speak for them nor they for me. This is irrelevant.



Riight 



TheBigShort said:


> No you didn't. You asked me for examples of an ideology that I don't endorse (central command closed economies), but that you labeled me with regardless.
> I'm asking you to retract those labels.



From my post #206
Genuinely, I would love to hear your socialist ideas in more detail, outlining how they could be implemented, how they would better our people and _in all the time we've been on this planet where it has been successfully implemented in the past_.


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> but we've all heard of farmers getting paid to keep their land in clover, about the wine lakes and butter mountains.



This is the inefficiency I referred to earlier. But between food abundance or food shortages, I know which problem is more preferable to deal with.



Firefly said:


> I doubt that CAP payments cover Pomegranite seeds or Quinoa,



I don't know either. 



Firefly said:


> I've read Tim Harfords book called Adapt where he refers to the fact that an average Wallmart in the US has approx. 1m products. How in God's name can we possibly determine the fair price for these products without the market!



Who said anything about getting rid of the market? 
Any issues I raise about the market are to do with the notions that it is 'free' and that it always finds the fair price. This is delusional. There is widespread inefficiency, waste, duplication, rigging, interference, collusion, distortion in the markets that attempt to influence prices to maximize profits to the detriment of the consumer.


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> but we've all heard of farmers getting paid to keep their land in clover, about the wine lakes and butter mountains.



This is the inefficiency I referred to earlier. But between food abundance or food shortages, I know which problem is more preferable to deal with.



Firefly said:


> I doubt that CAP payments cover Pomegranite seeds or Quinoa,



I don't know either. 



Firefly said:


> I've read Tim Harfords book called Adapt where he refers to the fact that an average Wallmart in the US has approx. 1m products. How in God's name can we possibly determine the fair price for these products without the market!



Who said anything about getting rid of the market? 
Any issues I raise about the market are to do with the notions that it is 'free' and that it always finds the fair price. This is delusional. There is widespread inefficiency, waste, duplication, rigging, interference, collusion, distortion in the markets that attempt to influence prices to maximize profits to the detriment of the consumer.


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> Genuinely, I would love to hear your socialist ideas in more detail, outlining how they could be implemented, how they would better our people and _in all the time we've been on this planet where it has been successfully implemented in the past_.



https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_state

The provision of Social welfare, social housing, access to education and healthcare for all etc all originate from socialist ideology. 
They are quite common across the developed world, and in the absence of dictators.


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> Who said anything about getting rid of the market?
> Any issues I raise about the market are to do with the notions that it is 'free' and that it always finds the fair price. This is delusional. There is widespread inefficiency, waste, duplication, rigging, interference, collusion, distortion in the markets that attempt to influence prices to maximize profits to the detriment of the consumer.



In a free market inefficiency, waste & duplication would be weeded out if rigging, interference, collusion & distortion weren't left happen. I believe the freer the market the better off the consumer is. It's interesting to see how China has transformed itself since it opened up and whilst the Trumps and Mays of this world are championing isolationist ideals, China is promoting globalisation.




TheBigShort said:


> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_state
> 
> The provision of Social welfare, social housing, access to education and healthcare for all etc all originate from socialist ideology.
> They are quite common across the developed world, and in the absence of dictators.



I agree central planning is a lot more left of the welfare state and I am glad you are a proponant of the latter as I thought all of the loons that believed in the former had seen the light at this stage!

For what it's worth, I think the government should provide basic services to all and act as a fail-safe to those in times of trouble or who are unfit to work. Sadly I think the welfare state would end up killing work ethic and create an ever-burgeoning administration (think the HSE on stereoids). Fair enough for very rich countries with large oil & gas reserves, but for a small, open economy like ours it would simply doom us to poverty


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> In a free market inefficiency, waste & duplication would be weeded out if rigging, interference, collusion & distortion weren't left happen.



And can you point to examples of such a free market economy?
Is Ireland a free market economy? Is the housing sector a free market economy? The motor Industry? Insurance industry? Energy sector? Communication sector? Food sector? Tourism sector? Transport? Education? Retail sector? Banking sector?

Has all inefficiency and waste been eradicated and weeded out now, or ever, as a consequence of the free market?


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> And can you point to examples of such a free market economy?
> Is Ireland a free market economy? Is the housing sector a free market economy? The motor Industry? Insurance industry? Energy sector? Communication sector? Food sector? Tourism sector? Transport? Education? Retail sector? Banking sector?
> 
> Has all inefficiency and waste been eradicated and weeded out now, or ever, as a consequence of the free market?



Sadly, in it's purest sense I can't. I think from the schoolyard to the boardroom it's human nature to protect what's ours and so collusion is inevitable. However that's not an arguement not to try to free up as many markets as we can. Examples where freer markets have helped the consumer would include air travel, bus travel, telecomms, healthcare, energy and others no doubt.


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> Sadly, in it's purest sense I can't. I think from the schoolyard to the boardroom it's human nature to protect what's ours and so collusion is inevitable.



So, if collusion is inevitable, a consequence of human nature to protect what we have. Why aspire for a free market? 
You can find free market economies in lots of places. Good examples are market days in less developed economies. There, it is first come first served, the highest bidder, no refunds, no consumer protections, no health & safety standards, no licensing, no regulation - totally free.
Of course such freedom is the source of conflict and tension between buyer and seller, given human nature that is inevitable.

So you have cited examples of 'freer' markets, that is, not wholly state controlled but subjected to state regulations all the same.
While the welfare state is primarily directed at the poor. The regulatory state (for want of a better phrase) is primarily directed at providing high standards and quality produce and services.


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> So, if collusion is inevitable, a consequence of human nature to protect what we have. Why aspire for a free market?



Although a truely free market might never be achievable, the freer the market the better as per the examples I have given. I remember the shambles that was the taxi industry here before de-regulation came in. It has been great for consumers since. MyTaxi has shaken up the taxi providers to no end too. Now it's a doddle to get a taxi. If the drivers were to be listened to we'd all still be waiting forever for a cab.



TheBigShort said:


> So you have cited examples of 'freer' markets, that is, not wholly state controlled but subjected to state regulations all the same.
> While the welfare state is primarily directed at the poor. The regulatory state (for want of a better phrase) is primarily directed at providing high standards and quality produce and services.



Using your phrase, I would much prefer the government to restrict itself to regulatory control than provide services that can be provided at a lower cost by the private market. An Post's offering to compete against Parcel Motel comes to mind. They take a slick offering and provide a chunky, restrictive offerring...madness. There are times when private companies won't enter a particular market and I am all for the state stepping here. In fact if the state did not try to spread itself so thinly it would be much better financed to provide these services.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> So, if collusion is inevitable, a consequence of human nature to protect what we have. Why aspire for a free market?
> You can find free market economies in lots of places. Good examples are market days in less developed economies. There, it is first come first served, the highest bidder, no refunds, no consumer protections, no health & safety standards, no licensing, no regulation - totally free.
> Of course such freedom is the source of conflict and tension between buyer and seller, given human nature that is inevitable.


I agree with you on this. The "Free Market" is an artificial construct and only maintained by State intervention. That State created free market is a good thing. The State creates a regulatory environment in which sellers and buyers can operate. The problem for me is where the State is the monopoly and that monopoly abuses its position to the detriment of the citizen. That occurs when the monopoly is grossly overpaying its staff and that cost it passed on to the consumer (the average wage in the ESB, including the value of pensions, is over €100,000 a year), or when the monopoly or market domination institution is grossly inefficient and so provides sub-standard services. The public health system is a good example here and the inadequacy of the regulation of the private healthcare system should also be noted. 




TheBigShort said:


> So you have cited examples of 'freer' markets, that is, not wholly state controlled but subjected to state regulations all the same.


Exactly; the State should regulate but not run. Other than the services provided by the Civil Service and primary and secondary education I cannot think of any service which the State should provide. There are plenty that it should fund and even more that it should regulate but not that it should run. 




TheBigShort said:


> While the welfare state is primarily directed at the poor. The regulatory state (for want of a better phrase) is primarily directed at providing high standards and quality produce and services.


 Agreed. That it where State resourced should be targeted. 

I am sick of the State (i.e. the people) coming out second best just about every time the State interacts with the Private Sector.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> The problem for me is where the State is the monopoly and that monopoly abuses its position to the detriment of the citizen.



Yes, that is true. Ditto where private corporations hold monopoly positions to the detriment of consumers.



Purple said:


> That occurs when the monopoly is grossly overpaying its staff and that cost it passed on to the consumer (the average wage in the ESB, including the value of pensions, is over €100,000 a year),



This is broad sweeping statement. I'm not sure what the wages are or the hours of work. But considering that the electricity network is of vital strategic importance to the economy as a whole and that the maintenance and delivery of that service is of high standard, I would expect the people who work there to be duly rewarded.
I certainly wouldn't like a situation where employees of a vital national strategic asset were being underpaid. Leading to poor services, threats of strikes etc. The impact on FDI for instance would be hugely detrimental to the country.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> Yes, that is true. Ditto where private corporations hold monopoly positions to the detriment of consumers.


 I agree.





TheBigShort said:


> This is broad sweeping statement. I'm not sure what the wages are or the hours of work. But considering that the electricity network is of vital strategic importance to the economy as a whole and that the maintenance and delivery of that service is of high standard, I would expect the people who work there to be duly rewarded.
> I certainly wouldn't like a situation where employees of a vital national strategic asset were being underpaid. Leading to poor services, threats of strikes etc. The impact on FDI for instance would be hugely detrimental to the country.


The ESB's has done a good job in reducing its payroll costs but from a very high base. The average wage is still nearly twice as high as their UK counterpart. Given that payroll costs account for half their operating costs if they were paid only 50% more than their UK counterparts the cost of electricity could be lowered or the dividend to the State could be increased.  I'm surprised that a left-leaning person such as yourself is happy to see a monopoly funding high paid employees by sucking up resources which could be used to tackle homelessness. 
Then again there are 3000 employees in Irish Water which Irish Water said they don't have a job for. They cost the people of Ireland €140,000,000 a year in payroll costs (coincidentally about the same cost as fixing the A&E crisis). They will probably be sent back to the local authorities to such up State funds there. 
Why do Unions insist that we keep people employed who have no real job, thus sucking up tax payers money which could be used to help those who truly need help? 
Why are those on the left happy to see resourced which should go to the poor go instead to middle to high earners who have no real job? 
Why is any of that okay? 

I agree with much of where you would like to see the country going but with respect you are missing the point. As long as we have a big hole in the bucket there is little point putting more and more water into it. We raise more than enough money in taxes but we waste a staggering amount of it through inefficient systems and processes and duplication of services, not through the cliche of lazy Public Servants; You can work you ass off in an inefficient system and you will still be inefficient.


----------



## jjm

Purple the answer is weak government. We never had a strong Government to test how strong or weak Unions really are . Lots of Unions members Would not support there leaders if the government pointed out the long term harm some of there actions caused .governments reward Union Leaders with soft Jobs.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> The average wage is still nearly twice as high as their UK counterpart.



And the assumption is that lower wages are a good thing?
As I've said, I don't know the wages or hours worked, so average comparisons are somewhat redundant. For instance, perhaps in the UK there are on average two people employed to do a job whereas in Ireland there is one? Taking into account the application of the high rate of tax on income at a much earlier point here may have something to do with wage pressure here? 
I suspect that there are numerous variables to consider when determining wages, including, are the UK employees underpaid?



Purple said:


> if they were paid only 50% more than their UK counterparts the cost of electricity could be lowered or the dividend to the State could be increased.



Again, you could apply the concept of cutting wages across the entire public sector. You could also apply it across the entire private sector. That is called a race to the bottom. That is not a good thing.



Purple said:


> I'm surprised that a left-leaning person such as yourself is happy to see a monopoly funding high paid employees by sucking up resources which could be used to tackle homelessness.



There is no evidence, or very little evidence, that additional resources would ever be used to help the homeless. Compare the resources used to keep private banks afloat against the resources used to help the homeless.
One of the factors of homelessness is the inability to pay for a home. This could be a result of a job loss, or result from a 50% drop in income as you suggested.



Purple said:


> Why do Unions insist that we keep people employed who have no real job, thus sucking up tax payers money which could be used to help those who truly need help?



Again it is a broad sweeping statement. Firstly, unions do not hire and fire, employers and management do. So you should really be asking why are management trying to lay off these worker's? The unions are mandated to protect their members interests. If they do that, they are doing a good job. It's management's role to protect the interests of the shareholders, in this instance the State.



Purple said:


> Why are those on the left happy to see resourced which should go to the poor go instead to middle to high earners who have no real job?



Making 3,000 people redundant, is to effectively make them poor. They will be reliant on social protections, job seekers, rent supplement, etc.
I don't know all the in's and outs of the situation at Irish Water, but I suspect that a long-term winding down of the commercial side of Irish Water will be implemented. This is preferable than dumping on people, some of who made plans with mortgages etc on the fair assumption that they had a steady career ahead of them.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> And the assumption is that lower wages are a good thing?
> 
> As I've said, I don't know the wages or hours worked, so average comparisons are somewhat redundant. For instance, perhaps in the UK there are on average two people employed to do a job whereas in Ireland there is one? Taking into account the application of the high rate of tax on income at a much earlier point here may have something to do with wage pressure here?



Are you advocating a reduction in marginal tax rates on average to high earners in order to reduce wage pressures? If so; good idea!






TheBigShort said:


> Again, you could apply the concept of cutting wages across the entire public sector. You could also apply it across the entire private sector. That is called a race to the bottom. That is not a good thing.


 I hate the term "race to the bottom". It is a lazy phrase used by the cossetted and coddled in order to justify the truly poor of this world getting their day in the sun. When we took jobs from people in America nobody complained but now that those jobs are going to Southeast Asia suddenly it is a race to the bottom. What we should be saying is that everyone deserved the same opportunities we have. The same applies in the semi-State and Public Sectors. 

Anyway, I am not advocating pay cuts across the State sector. We should strive for an efficient Public Sector. It is far easier and more productive to engineer out costs than to squeeze margins. Let's look at productivity; fewer people providing the same services by only carrying out value added activities.





TheBigShort said:


> There is no evidence, or very little evidence, that additional resources would ever be used to help the homeless.


 There is no evidence to suggest it wouldn’t. I am surprised by your defeatist attitude.



TheBigShort said:


> Compare the resources used to keep private banks afloat against the resources used to help the homeless.


So what?



TheBigShort said:


> One of the factors of homelessness is the inability to pay for a home. This could be a result of a job loss, or result from a 50% drop in income as you suggested.


 Are you suggesting that giving everyone a pay rise would reduce the homelessness problem? (Here’s a hint; “look up supply and demand”)





TheBigShort said:


> Again it is a broad sweeping statement. Firstly, unions do not hire and fire, employers and management do. So you should really be asking why are management trying to lay off these worker's? The unions are mandated to protect their members interests. If they do that, they are doing a good job. It's management's role to protect the interests of the shareholders, in this instance the State.


 Unions prevent management from firing people and prevent mobility of labour which causes inefficiency and duplication of processes and well as inefficient employment structures which cost vast amounts of money to administer. Are you suggesting that weakening Unions is a good thing from the prospect of the National interest? If so I strongly agree. Weaker Unions = less homelessness and fewer people dying on trolleys.






TheBigShort said:


> Making 3,000 people redundant, is to effectively make them poor. They will be reliant on social protections, job seekers, rent supplement, etc.
> 
> I don't know all the in's and outs of the situation at Irish Water, but I suspect that a long-term winding down of the commercial side of Irish Water will be implemented. This is preferable than dumping on people, some of who made plans with mortgages etc on the fair assumption that they had a steady career ahead of them.



Do you think the State should just employ everyone, even if they have no gainful job for them to do? Or do you think that the State should spend its resources providing essential services in the most efficient way possible? You can’t have it both ways.


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> Making 3,000 people redundant, is to effectively make them poor. They will be reliant on social protections, job seekers, rent supplement, etc.



Sounds like you are suggesting they are unemployable!



TheBigShort said:


> I don't know all the in's and outs of the situation at Irish Water, but I suspect that a long-term winding down of the commercial side of Irish Water will be implemented. This is preferable than dumping on people, some of who made plans with mortgages etc on the fair assumption that they had a steady career ahead of them.



That's the way of the world in the private sector - companies close down / relocate / expand all the time and people move on - why should it be different at Irish Water? Again, if the staff had marketable skills they could quite easily have a steady career ahead of them!


----------



## Deiseblue

Irish water workers either directly employed or seconded under service level agreements from local authorities cannot be made redundant other than on a voluntary basis.
Compulsory redundancies were precluded under the Croke Park Agreement as a quid pro quo to ensure industrial peace.
Natural attrition has reduced staffing levels in Irish Water in recent years  ( apparently the average age of those recruited from local authorities is over 50 ) & will continue to do as will a long mooted voluntary redundancy programme.


----------



## Purple

Deiseblue said:


> Irish water workers either directly employed or seconded under service level agreements from local authorities cannot be made redundant other than on a voluntary basis.
> Compulsory redundancies were precluded under the Croke Park Agreement as a quid pro quo to ensure industrial peace.
> Natural attrition has reduced staffing levels in Irish Water in recent years  ( apparently the average age of those recruited from local authorities is over 50 ) & will continue to do as will a long mooted voluntary redundancy programme.


Thanks Deise, for highlighting the restrictive work practices and labour inflexibility which ensures we waste billions each year which would be better spent on essential services for the sick, old and vulnerable. The Unions which negotiated that agreement serve the well-off to the detriment of society in general and the most vulnerable in particular. Shame on them and those who support them.


----------



## jjm

Can anyone show me where it was the Unions Who propose this It was the government of the day that came up with this proposal.


----------



## Purple

jjm2016 said:


> Can anyone show me where it was the Unions Who propose this It was the government of the day that came up with this proposal.


Eh?


----------



## Deiseblue

JJM , of course it was the Government who initiated this - they realised that to get the Croke Park Agreement across the line they had to offer certain guarantees .
The same applied to Irish Water - the service level agreements were initiated by the company.
Jeez , you'd swear that Unions were the only party involved in binding Agreements.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> Are you advocating a reduction in marginal tax rates on average to high earners in order to reduce wage pressures? If so; good idea!



Not in isolation. An increase in CT to fill the void in public finances would be a fair trade off.



Purple said:


> I hate the term "race to the bottom".


I like it. It exposes the true nature of the capitalist system we live in. The narrow vision of maximising profits regardless of the social consequences.



Purple said:


> When we took jobs from people in America nobody complained



American worker's did / are complaining. Now we are complaining, others will too. The race to the bottom is a recipe for conflict and tension.



Purple said:


> There is no evidence to suggest it wouldn’t. I am surprised by your defeatist attitude.



There is plenty of evidence. See bailouts for BoI, AIB, Irish Permanent etc. Compare with bailouts for homeless people.



Purple said:


> So what?



It's evidence that available resources will not necessarily be used to help homelessness or vulnerable in society.



Purple said:


> Are you suggesting that giving everyone a pay rise would reduce the homelessness problem? (Here’s a hint; “look up supply and demand”)



No, I'm suggesting that your suggestion of a 50% pay cut for ESB worker's may be somewhat flawed.



Purple said:


> Weaker Unions = less homelessness and fewer people dying on trolleys.



Trade Union membership has been in decline for decades. Homelessness and hospital waiting lists are increasing. There is no correlation.



Purple said:


> Do you think the State should just employ everyone, even if they have no gainful job for them to do?



No. You referenced 3,000 jobs at Irish Water with nothing to do. As far as I know, Irish Water is still a functioning entity with a hugely significant role to play in managing the infrastructure of water in this country.
I suggested that the commercial side of Irish Water may be somewhat redundant. I suggested an orderly winding down as preferable to pushing people out en masse.



Firefly said:


> That's the way of the world in the private sector





Firefly said:


> why should it be different at Irish Water?



For one, it's not in the private sector.



Purple said:


> The Unions which negotiated that agreement serve the well-off to the detriment of society in general and the most vulnerable in particular.



They serve their members to the empowerment of society in general and the most vulnerable in particular. Credit to all those who are members and those who support them.


----------



## Purple

Deiseblue said:


> JJM , of course it was the Government who initiated this - they realised that to get the Croke Park Agreement across the line they had to offer certain guarantees .
> The same applied to Irish Water - the service level agreements were initiated by the company.
> Jeez , you'd swear that Unions were the only party involved in binding Agreements.


Yes, the government know that the Unions will hold a gun to their head if they seek to get rid of people who have no job to do. Saying that the government did it is like blaming an abused spouse for taking actions to avoid abuse. The government is constrained by the fact that they are looking to minimise the hurt inflicted on the poor and vulnerable whereas the Unions don't care about anything other than their members.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> Not in isolation. An increase in CT to fill the void in public finances would be a fair trade off.


 I'd stop wasting money first but after that if we need more I've no problem with an increase in CT.




TheBigShort said:


> I like it. It exposes the true nature of the capitalist system we live in. The narrow vision of maximising profits regardless of the social consequences.


 What, by lifting 4 thousand million people out of absolute poverty over the last 30 years? Why do Western socialists think that poverty should only be looked at in relative terms, and only in the context of the country they live in? Why should people who are a different colour not have the same opportunities we have? 





TheBigShort said:


> American worker's did / are complaining. Now we are complaining, others will too. The race to the bottom is a recipe for conflict and tension.


 see above. American "workers" are complaining because billions of people in Asia and elsewhere are now competing with them. Wage inflation will erode the massive returns on capital now being seen. I do think the issue of how a few thousand people are becoming billionaires needs be be looked at but that's nothing to do with this issue. 





TheBigShort said:


> There is plenty of evidence. See bailouts for BoI, AIB, Irish Permanent etc. Compare with bailouts for homeless people.


 Are you really suggesting that is a good comparison? 





TheBigShort said:


> It's evidence that available resources will not necessarily be used to help homelessness or vulnerable in society.


 They will if we, through our parliament choose to do so. They definitely won't if they are not available due to waste and inefficiency. 





TheBigShort said:


> No, I'm suggesting that your suggestion of a 50% pay cut for ESB worker's may be somewhat flawed.


 I never suggested that course of action. I was simply pointing out that very high pay rates for highly paid employees in State monopolies/semi-States/ State sector (in this case ESB employees) has a knock-on impact on the poor and the vulnerable.





TheBigShort said:


> Trade Union membership has been in decline for decades. Homelessness and hospital waiting lists are increasing. There is no correlation.


 There are fewer people in the private sector in Unions because the Unions have closed down the private businesses they were involved in. 
They are however a key player in every government decision about how the country is run and hold an effective veto over all changes, having to be bribed if any progress is to be made. 





TheBigShort said:


> No. You referenced 3,000 jobs at Irish Water with nothing to do. As far as I know, Irish Water is still a functioning entity with a hugely significant role to play in managing the infrastructure of water in this country.
> I suggested that the commercial side of Irish Water may be somewhat redundant. I suggested an orderly winding down as preferable to pushing people out en masse.


Again, I gave an example of what we see when a light is shone on the structure of a State run service. Before Irish Water the delivery of our water was so inefficient that it required 3000 more people than would be necessary in a well organised structure. 
How many other areas of service delivery could be looked at in the same way? 
Do you think it is a good thing to organise the delivery of State services in such an inefficient way?
I know it's a 20 year project to fix it but do you think it should be done and, crucially, do you really think the Unions will be a productive and positive player in such a process? 





TheBigShort said:


> They serve their members to the empowerment of society in general and the most vulnerable in particular. Credit to all those who are members and those who support them.


Can you explain why you hold that opinion? I really am interested because I can only see them doing harm to society at large. To me they are the same as IBEC and the Construction Industry Federation and all the other vested interest groups.


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> For one, it's not in the private sector.



Why should that matter?


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> What, by lifting 4 thousand million people out of absolute poverty over the last 30 years?



Considering the wealth and technological advancements over that period, that there is even one person in absolute poverty is shameful.
A dismal return, beset by the concept of profit making, regardless of the social consequences.



Purple said:


> Why do Western socialists think that poverty should only be looked at in relative terms, and only in the context of the country they live in?



Who said they do? There should be no-one on this planet at risk of starvation or malnutrition. Unfortunately, charities geared to the elimination of poverty have become big business. High salaries for top executives, tax breaks for wealthy donors, lucrative TV advertising campaigns. It's all part of the capitalist circus that undermines the efforts of aid worker's and those that seek true social progression.



Purple said:


> Why should people who are a different colour not have the same opportunities we have?



Who said they shouldn't?



Purple said:


> Are you really suggesting that is a good comparison?


In terms of your belief that additional government resources would be used to help vulnerable and needy, yes.



Purple said:


> They will if we, through our parliament choose to do so.



Eh, our parliament has chosen, as a matter of public policy - across all political divides. See the mission statement for Dept of Housing, read constitutional on fundamental rights, read UN Declaration of Human rights to which Ireland is a signatory and then ask yourself, why do we not put in the resources for homeless people and families?
On the other hand, before bank bailout, the only public policy was not to interfere in the market!



Purple said:


> I never suggested that course of action.







Purple said:


> very high pay rates for highly paid employees in State monopolies/semi-States/ State sector (in this case ESB employees) has a knock-on impact on the poor and the vulnerable.



With respect that is a lame comment. I have already pointed out some of the numerous variables that may lead to inaccurate and misleading perception of higher wages.
I have also shown clear evidence of where State resources are not used for the purpose of helping poor and needy, and instead the wealthy and greedy.



Purple said:


> There are fewer people in the private sector in Unions because the Unions have closed down the private businesses they were involved in.



Again, totally disingenuous.



Purple said:


> Do you think it is a good thing to organise the delivery of State services in such an inefficient way?



No, but it was public policy, up until recently, to organise it that way. Reform can take time and unlike branded products, people are entitled to some dignity when determining their futures. Something that is in very short supply in private sector.



Purple said:


> I know it's a 20 year project to fix it but do you think it should be done and, crucially, do you really think the Unions will be a productive and positive player in such a process?



Yes, productive and positive, particularly in the area of decent working conditions and pay.



Purple said:


> Can you explain why you hold that opinion?



The trade union movement is by no means perfect, innocent or without its failings. But in terms of securing better working conditions for worker's, as a whole, without we would be all worse off. Five day week, maximum working hours, minimum wage, rest breaks, holiday pay etc, none of which was given gladly by employers.
In terms of vulnerable and poor, the trade union movement in Ireland was born out of the vulnerable and poor. And despite what you may think about the State having additional resources if public sector worker's cut out wastage, the reality is those resources do not always find their way to the vulnerable and poor.
The best care vulnerable and poor people get is generally at home with their loved ones. If those homes have steady incomes, instead of no incomes at all, then it saves the State a massive fortune. Trade unions fighting to retain jobs, overall are serving the State.


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> That's the way of the world in the private sector - companies close down / relocate / expand all the time and people move on



Yes it is, and all too often worker's are left high and dry by their employers as they turn up for work only to find the gates closed, or notified at a moment's notice that they won't be receiving their last pay cheque, redundancy or their pension fund had been wiped out.
Are there criminal sanctions for this behaviour?
Thankfully, the worst of that appears to be over and decent employers will treat their employers with the dignity they deserve. This is more typically found in the public sector in my opinion. So instead of just making 3,000 people redundant because they currently have nothing to do, do what a decent employer in the private sector would do.
1) offer voluntary redundancy over and above statutory offering those nearer retirement a real choice.
2) let contracted staff see out their contracts. They will have to be paid off anyway, and better that they aren't claiming job seekers allowance too.
3) While the worker's may have nothing to do in their current positions, a skill set review will show if there is something else available that they could be doing elsewhere. Public sector agreements have redeployment clauses.
4) Facilitate an orderly winding down of operations and assist with reasonable re-training programs during this duration.

Rather than have working people endure the indignity of being dumped on the dole queue on mass, like out of fashion stock, and the knock on negative effect to ancillary trade, think about an orderly winding down of operations to minimise the impact to the community as a whole.


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> Yes it is, and all too often worker's are left high and dry by their employers as they turn up for work only to find the gates closed, or notified at a moment's notice that they won't be receiving their last pay cheque, redundancy or their pension fund had been wiped out.
> Are there criminal sanctions for this behaviour?



I agree with you there. A lot of the time there is no respect at all shown for workers and if there is anything illegal done the company should face the law like everyone else.



TheBigShort said:


> Thankfully, the worst of that appears to be over and decent employers will treat their employers with the dignity they deserve. This is more typically found in the public sector in my opinion. So instead of just making 3,000 people redundant because they currently have nothing to do, do what a decent employer in the private sector would do.
> 1) offer voluntary redundancy over and above statutory offering those nearer retirement a real choice.
> 2) let contracted staff see out their contracts. They will have to be paid off anyway, and better that they aren't claiming job seekers allowance too.
> 3) While the worker's may have nothing to do in their current positions, a skill set review will show if there is something else available that they could be doing elsewhere. Public sector agreements have redeployment clauses.
> 4) Facilitate an orderly winding down of operations and assist with reasonable re-training programs during this duration.
> 
> Rather than have working people endure the indignity of being dumped on the dole queue on mass, like out of fashion stock, and the knock on negative effect to ancillary trade, think about an orderly winding down of operations to minimise the impact to the community as a whole.



That's all very reasonable for companies with the time and money to do so but when a company is shutting down it is usually doing so because it has no time nor money.


In any case the key responsibility for finding employment lies with the worker themselves. Personal responsibility for work ethic and marketable skills must lie with the individual hoever,  I rarley see socialists make these points....it seems like the employer is responsible for everything! Companies close and leave staff go all the time, just as people leave companies to work elsewhere all the time. It's the nature of the world we live in and at the end of the day, an employment contract is just that. I've often seen workers who have been let go from a factory on tv saying things like "I gave them 25 years". Were they not paid? It could be argued that the company gave them 25 years! When someone who works somewhere for 25 years leaves, you never hear the company giving out that they gave them 25 years! If either side break a contract then they should be held accountable however apart from that nobody owes anyone anything more.


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> but when a company is shutting down it is usually doing so because it has no time nor money.



It doesn't happen overnight though does it? Typically debtors have 30 days to pay outstanding invoice before they are technically in arrears. It will be 3 months of arrears before a creditor initiates formal legal action. Legal action initiated will take a further 30 days (minimum).
That's four months of not paying bills, rent, invoices etc. Four months (minimum) to notify staff of impending receivership or bankruptcy or whatever, four months for employee representatives to enter negotiations to agree change, amend work practices, including pay cuts and redundancy, to implement a survival plan if feasible.



Firefly said:


> Personal responsibility for work ethic and marketable skills must lie with the individual hoever, I rarley see socialists make these points..



??? - Personal responsibility for work ethic and marketable skills must lie with the individual.
There, it's been said, by a leftie.



Firefly said:


> it seems like the employer is responsible for everything!



The employer is responsible for what the employer is responsible for, that's all, nothing else. This includes the payment of wages due and providing minimum notice for staters.



Firefly said:


> Companies close and leave staff go all the time, just as people leave companies to work elsewhere all the time. I



Usually, with the minimum required given, no issue there. I was focusing on instances where no notice is given and wages, redundancy etc are still due.



Firefly said:


> It's the nature of the world we live in and at the end of the day, an employment contract is just that.



There are legally binding requirements in an employment contract, including minimum notice, including payment of wages. I am focusing on instances where no notice is given.




Firefly said:


> I've often seen workers who have been let go from a factory on tv saying things like "I gave them 25 years". Were they not paid?



In most instances yes. What is the point here? You seem to be talking about something different.
The issue of 3,000 staff in Irish Water with nothing to do was raised, and how it is costing €millions in waste. I have suggested a number of proposals for the orderly winding down, including attractive redundancy packages, honouring contracts, re-training and re-deployment.
Good private corporations will often provide such options too, providing plenty of notice of impending restructuring or redundancies.
I accept, for smaller entities, it is not always feasible, but there is a minimum window (at least four months) before any business needs to close.
Large corporations in the private sector have the wherewithal to treat their employees with dignity through the proposals I have suggested.
Large organizations in the public sector should be allowed the same scope, and more if feasible, to do the same.



Firefly said:


> When someone who works somewhere for 25 years leaves, you never hear the company giving out that they gave them 25 years! I



I am aware of plenty of instances where employers try to entice employees to stay by offering better terms and conditions. But all this is mute. If someone wants to leave a job they are entitled to do so. They typically will have to provide minimum notice, failing that, the employer can withhold holiday payments due etc.




Firefly said:


> If either side break a contract then they should be held accountable however apart from that nobody owes anyone anything more.



And, to emphasis the point, it is the breaking of the contract, by failing to provide minimum notice, failing to pay wages due, failing to honour pension agreements is what I was talking about.


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> It doesn't happen overnight though does it? Typically debtors have 30 days to pay outstanding invoice before they are technically in arrears. It will be 3 months of arrears before a creditor initiates formal legal action. Legal action initiated will take a further 30 days (minimum).
> That's four months of not paying bills, rent, invoices etc. Four months (minimum) to notify staff of impending receivership or bankruptcy or whatever, four months for employee representatives to enter negotiations to agree change, amend work practices, including pay cuts and redundancy, to implement a survival plan if feasible.



I agree with you there. I think there is often a lack of integrity shown where a company shuts shop and informs workers by text and it's very poor form. Of course I've often heard of people who inform their boss by text they are not coming back to work also.



TheBigShort said:


> ??? - Personal responsibility for work ethic and marketable skills must lie with the individual.
> There, it's been said, by a leftie.



Thanks. I wish more people would acknowledge this. If they did they wouldn't be so tied to a single employer. Rather than go on strike they could easily just work for someone else. 



TheBigShort said:


> The employer is responsible for what the employer is responsible for, that's all, nothing else. This includes the payment of wages due and providing minimum notice for staters.
> 
> Usually, with the minimum required given, no issue there. I was focusing on instances where no notice is given and wages, redundancy etc are still due.
> 
> There are legally binding requirements in an employment contract, including minimum notice, including payment of wages. I am focusing on instances where no notice is given.
> 
> And, to emphasis the point, it is the breaking of the contract, by failing to provide minimum notice, failing to pay wages due, failing to honour pension agreements is what I was talking about.



I agree with all of this. If there is a law broken the company / individual should be held responsible.





TheBigShort said:


> I accept, for smaller entities, it is not always feasible, but there is a minimum window (at least four months) before any business needs to close.


There may be a window but for many small businesses they might be fighting tooth and nail until the last hour to remain open. Just like most people don't leave a job until they find a new one, a small business will keep its cards close to its chest.



TheBigShort said:


> Large corporations in the private sector have the wherewithal to treat their employees with dignity through the proposals I have suggested.
> Large organizations in the public sector should be allowed the same scope, and more if feasible, to do the same.



Personally, I like your proposals, however unless they are enshrined in law it's a moral argument and a company can accept or reject them.


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> Of course I've often heard of people who inform their boss by text they are not coming back to work also.



Of course, me too. And if the employment contract contains a provision for an employee to provide minimum notice, then at least an employer can withhold wages, holiday pay due.



Firefly said:


> If they did they wouldn't be so tied to a single employer. Rather than go on strike they could easily just work for someone else.



What is wrong with working for the same employer? What is wrong with employing the same employees long term?



Firefly said:


> I agree with all of this. If there is a law broken the company / individual should be held responsible.



Yes, there are laws, but unfortunately adequate redress is often futile in insolvency cases.
But the primary point is, you appear to agree that in cases of redundancy that as much advance notice is preferable to assist with as much as possible with an orderly winding down and re-deployment of the workforce? 
If you agree, do you think that these measures should, preferably, be applied to public sector worker's as well as private sector worker's? 
Or do you think it preferable that contracts are broken at sudden notice, all part of way it is in the private sector?


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> Of course, me too. And if the employment contract contains a provision for an employee to provide minimum notice, then at least an employer can withhold wages, holiday pay due.


That's true and if a company breaks a contract they can be taken to court.




TheBigShort said:


> What is wrong with working for the same employer? What is wrong with employing the same employees long term?


Absolutely nothing wrong with either. In fact in a lot of cases it's a preferable outcome for both the company and the employee. The point I am making is that (as you agree), personal responsibility for work ethic and marketable skills must lie with the individual. Being tied to  / dependent on a single employer is not a healthy strategy in my opinion.   




TheBigShort said:


> Yes, there are laws, but unfortunately adequate redress is often futile in insolvency cases.


I agree with you there but the point is that the company is insolvent so there is simply no money there. That's why there are insurance products for such things. 



TheBigShort said:


> But the primary point is, you appear to agree that in cases of redundancy that as much advance notice is preferable to assist with as much as possible with an orderly winding down and re-deployment of the workforce?


I am not saying that. Each company and each worker should honour their contract to each other. If a company decides to go over and above that by providing extra assistance to its staff then fair play, but it's at the discretion of the company to do so.



TheBigShort said:


> If you agree, do you think that these measures should, preferably, be applied to public sector worker's as well as private sector worker's?
> Or do you think it preferable that contracts are broken at sudden notice, all part of way it is in the private sector?


As above, each participant should honour their contract. In the case of Irish Water, I would expect the company to provide some/all the measures you have outlined, however based on the 3000 surplus staff they have I haven't heard of any moves to reduce staffing levels. This just means that millions of taxpayer's money are being diverted from other areas.


----------



## Deiseblue

Wherever did people get the idea that Irish Water employ 3000 surplus staff ?
At inception Irish Water needed a minimum of 2000 staff to maintain water services , I have never seen a reference to 3000 surplus staff outside of this thread.
Even Prof. John Fitzgerald stated that Irish Water needed 1700 staff , on being queried on Prime Time he said that " he was not sticking to that figure " which he admitted could be higher.
Entering 2015 Irish Water had shed 10% of staff due to natural attrition & the process continues due to the high average age of local authority workers seconded.
To suggest that Irish Water are employing 3000 surplus staff is frankly ludicrous.


----------



## TheBigShort

Duplication


----------



## TheBigShort

Deiseblue said:


> Wherever did people get the idea that Irish Water employ 3000 surplus staff ?



Purple alleged it.I suspected it was dodgy, but took it at face value nonetheless.



Deiseblue said:


> I have never seen a reference to 3000 surplus staff outside of this thread.



Purple, you are up. Some references please



Purple said:


> Then again there are 3000 employees in Irish Water which Irish Water said they don't have a job for.


----------



## Leo

Deiseblue said:


> Wherever did people get the idea that Irish Water employ 3000 surplus staff ?
> At inception Irish Water needed a minimum of 2000 staff to maintain water services , I have never seen a reference to 3000 surplus staff outside of this thread.
> Even Prof. John Fitzgerald stated that Irish Water needed 1700 staff , on being queried on Prime Time he said that " he was not sticking to that figure " which he admitted could be higher.
> Entering 2015 Irish Water had shed 10% of staff due to natural attrition & the process continues due to the high average age of local authority workers seconded.
> To suggest that Irish Water are employing 3000 surplus staff is frankly ludicrous.



It was widely reported across all media at the time and since. IW execs publicly stated early in 2014 they needed less than 2000 staff, but were forced to take on more than 4000 from the LAs and employ them on service level agreements up to 2025. Then in November 2014 they were put under pressure by the government to reduce costs by €80 by 2020 and given the green light to offer voluntary redundancy to some of its then 4,500 strong workforce.


----------



## Deiseblue

Leo , I certainly never remember any media reports stating that Irish Water employed 3000 surplus staff .
If the amount of staff fell by 10% due to natural attrition entering 2015 it follows that a further similar amount of staff have been lost in subsequent years due to the high age profile of seconded staff.
Irish Water in a statement to Irish Industrial News stated in 2014 that a figure of 1700 for the number of water staff required was never put forward by the company , it further stated  that  current water staff levels " are required to maintain continuity of service in the initial phase .Irish Water will not be funded to pay for surplus staff . "
The company hoped  to shed further staff in coming years by way of a redundancy scheme but it must be noted that the Union have voted for industrial action if the reduction is arbitrarily introduced , indeed the Union feel staffing levels need to be maintained at current levels.
Natural attrition & perhaps an agreed voluntary redundancy package if it can be proved that staffing levels are too high  - the only way to go as anything else has been rightfully precluded by the Government .


----------



## Leo

Deiseblue said:


> Leo , I certainly never remember any media reports stating that Irish Water employed 3000 surplus staff .



I don't think they ever quantified how many were not doing anything productive, but IW management were very vocal in the early days that they did not want to be forced to take on these staff. In the end they took on 4000 staff from the LAs to add to the 700 they already had on board.


----------



## Deiseblue

Leo , I would refer you to my previous post where Irish Water stated that as at 2014 that the staffing levels at that stage were required in the initial phase to maintain continuity of service .


----------



## Purple

Leo said:


> I don't think they ever quantified how many were not doing anything productive, but IW management were very vocal in the early days that they did not want to be forced to take on these staff. In the end they took on 4000 staff from the LAs to add to the 700 they already had on board.


That's where I got the 3000 from; They had 700 and were forced to take on an extra 4000. 700 + 4000 = 4700.
They said they need 1700. Therefore 4700 - 1700 = 3000. I am reasonably confident that my maths is correct. 
The 1700 figure may not be accurate so the end figure may be 2700, 2500 or, if they were efficient, more than 3000.

My initial point was made as an example of how inefficient organisations can become. The people working in those inefficient organisations can be hard working and carry our their job efficiently. The question is would those jobs be necessary if the structure of the company or organisation was efficient?
I am not suggesting that the excess employees in Irish Water should just be turfed out in the Street. I am saying that a combination of bad management, Unions who are stronger than that management, and nobody looking for efficiency or value for money at an organisational level is the ideal environment for waste. While those conditions exist money will always be wasted and services will always be lacking. Again; the Irish Water example is just that; an example. It is what happened when the the organisation tasked with the delivery of a public service or utility is planned from scratch and doesn't evolve organically.


----------



## Deiseblue

TheBigShort said:


> Purple alleged it.I suspected it was dodgy, but took it at face value nonetheless.
> 
> 
> 
> Purple, you are up. Some references please



TheBigShort - from the horse's mouth .

Irish Water unequivocally stated in 2014 that a figure of 1700 for the number of water staff required was never put forward by the company  rather they felt that at the initial phase current levels of staff were required to ensure continuity of service.

The figure of 1700 was floated by Prof. John Fitzgerald of the ESRI , he could not substantiate nor outline a basis for his figure , when queried on this figure on Prime Time he stated he " was not sticking to that figure "


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> Considering the wealth and technological advancements over that period, that there is even one person in absolute poverty is shameful.
> 
> A dismal return, beset by the concept of profit making, regardless of the social consequences.


That's alazy answer and not up to your usual standards.
The wealth and technological advancements over the previous 30 years was just as significant but during that time poor countries were socialist so they remained poor or got poorer. It was only after they embraced capitalism that they became wealthy and freer. 
You seem to labour under the misconception that socialists are somehow more ethical or honest, more interested in their fellow man than capitalists. Nothing could be further from the truth. 





TheBigShort said:


> Who said they do? There should be no-one on this planet at risk of starvation or malnutrition. Unfortunately, charities geared to the elimination of poverty have become big business. High salaries for top executives, tax breaks for wealthy donors, lucrative TV advertising campaigns. It's all part of the capitalist circus that undermines the efforts of aid worker's and those that seek true social progression.


 There's a great TED Talk about the charity industry. You should listen to it.
The issues which cause poverty are corruption, Trade and Conflict.
We can fix the Trade issue by removing the barriers we place on the poorest in the world and let them sell their goods to us fairly. We can also stop dumping our subsidised produce on them and allow them to earn a decent wwage (fair days pay for a fair days work, remember that one?), but no, to white Western rich socialists that's called a "Race to the Bottom". I do hope the irony is not lost on you. 

We can also do something about the conflict and corruption by not invading them, not undermining their governments, not allowing our companies to behave in ways which would not be allowed in the West. Great strides have been made here (thanks to Tony Blair and Bill Clinton) but Chinese companies have filled the void.  




TheBigShort said:


> Eh, our parliament has chosen, as a matter of public policy - across all political divides. See the mission statement for Dept of Housing, read constitutional on fundamental rights, read UN Declaration of Human rights to which Ireland is a signatory and then ask yourself, why do we not put in the resources for homeless people and families?


Because so much of it is wasted there's too little left.



TheBigShort said:


> On the other hand, before bank bailout, the only public policy was not to interfere in the market!


 No, the policy was to regulate the market. As I and others have frequently pointed out the free market is an artificial construct which relies on governments to exist. We as a State (i.e. the State employees paid to do so) utterly failed in their duty. 



TheBigShort said:


> With respect that is a lame comment. I have already pointed out some of the numerous variables that may lead to inaccurate and misleading perception of higher wages.


I disagreed with you assertions in that matter. 



TheBigShort said:


> I have also shown clear evidence of where State resources are not used for the purpose of helping poor and needy, and instead the wealthy and greedy.


 Do you think there is a correlation between wealth and greed? I find that greed knows no colour, creed, race or income bracket. Are we back to the arrogant and elitist assertion that socialists are somehow better and more ethical and moral than the rest of us?  





TheBigShort said:


> Again, totally disingenuous.


 How so?





TheBigShort said:


> No, but it was public policy, up until recently, to organise it that way. Reform can take time and unlike branded products, people are entitled to some dignity when determining their futures.


 I agree. 


TheBigShort said:


> Something that is in very short supply in private sector.


 What makes you come to that opinion?





TheBigShort said:


> Yes, productive and positive, particularly in the area of decent working conditions and pay.


 How do decent working conditions and pay increase the productivity of an organisation which is structurally inefficient? You have just summed up the problem; Public Services run primarily for the benefit of the employees of those Public Services. 





TheBigShort said:


> The trade union movement is by no means perfect, innocent or without its failings. But in terms of securing better working conditions for worker's, as a whole, without we would be all worse off. Five day week, maximum working hours, minimum wage, rest breaks, holiday pay etc, none of which was given gladly by employers.


 I agree, they did great work. Just like the Suffragettes. Unlike the Suffragettes they didn't change with the times still think it's 1920.



TheBigShort said:


> In terms of vulnerable and poor, the trade union movement in Ireland was born out of the vulnerable and poor. And despite what you may think about the State having additional resources if public sector worker's cut out wastage, the reality is those resources do not always find their way to the vulnerable and poor.


 The reality is that the Trade Unions are like the pigs in Animal Farm. They now only serve their own selfish interests and are willing to walk over anyone they need to in order to serve those interests.


TheBigShort said:


> The best care vulnerable and poor people get is generally at home with their loved ones. If those homes have steady incomes, instead of no incomes at all, then it saves the State a massive fortune. Trade unions fighting to retain jobs, overall are serving the State.


 Another classic false dichotomy. Trade Unions fighting to save jobs in the Public Sector which add no value to that sector are costing jobs elsewhere and damaging the economy and society.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> It was only after they embraced capitalism that they became wealthy and freer.



??? There are no poor countries that function under capitalism?
No abject poverty in China? India? 



Purple said:


> The issues which cause poverty are corruption, Trade and Conflict.



I agree.



Purple said:


> We can fix the Trade issue by removing the barriers we place on the poorest in the world and let them sell their goods to us fairly.



I don't disagree. But it is ridiculous to suggest that capitalism is the main reason for bringing people out of abject poverty (I agree it helps) but has no role in putting people into abject poverty.



Purple said:


> and allow them to earn a decent wwage (fair days pay for a fair days work, remember that one?),



What does that mean? Whatever happened to the market value of a person's labour? What happened to upskilling to earn more income, or to no wage increases without productivity increases?
You are talking like a...a...socialist!



Purple said:


> We can also do something about the conflict and corruption by not invading them, not undermining their governments,



True. Including the corruption in charities, and the political systems that facilitate tax breaks for wealthy donors.



Purple said:


> Great strides have been made here (thanks to Tony Blair and Bill Clinton) but Chinese companies have filled the void.



Great strides in facilitating wealthy corporations to act as they please in the name of spreading democracy. The policies adopted and implemented by Blair, Clinton, Bush are the policies that are causing the ever increasing wealth gap. To the point, that working citizens in their own countries are finding it hard to keep their heads above water. Their policies are the policies of perpetual debt.






Purple said:


> We as a State (i.e. the State employees paid to do so) utterly failed in their duty.



How? If the policy is to allow unfettered profits, allow borrowers and lenders to agree loan amounts without interference from regulatory authority, then the State employees did their job.
On the other hand, if the policy is to limit mortgage amount at 3.5 times income, and banks lend higher than that, then the State employees have failed if there is no reprimand.
But as long as the policy is not to interfere, then the employees are required to facilitate that policy.



Purple said:


> Do you think there is a correlation between wealth and greed? I find that greed knows no colour, creed, race or income bracket. Are we back to the arrogant and elitist assertion that socialists are somehow better and more ethical and moral than the rest of us?



Don't be silly. I'm talking about societies that implement policies that facilitate unfettered wealth. No limit to income earned, no limit to profit making.
I have no problem with _wanting_ all that wealth, but I recognize that too much wealth in the hands of too few is not a good thing.



Purple said:


> How do decent working conditions and pay increase the productivity of an organisation which is structurally inefficient?



Which organization are you talking about? There are question marks over your assertion that Irish Water is overstaffed by 3,000. You might want to clear that up before you continue with your claims of structural inefficiency.



Purple said:


> Unlike the Suffragettes they didn't change with the times still think it's 1920.



And that's why the largest bulk of employment legislation can be found from the 1990's onward. Including I think, proposed legislation to ban zero-hour contracts for 2017.



Purple said:


> They now only serve their own selfish interests and are willing to walk over anyone they need to in order to serve those interests.



I would profoundly disagree.



Purple said:


> Trade Unions fighting to save jobs in the Public Sector which add no value to that sector are costing jobs elsewhere and damaging the economy and society.



Can you identify the jobs which are not adding value?


----------



## T McGibney

TheBigShort said:


> Whatever happened to the market value of a person's labour?
> 
> ...
> 
> Don't be silly. I'm talking about societies that implement policies that facilitate unfettered wealth. No limit to income earned, no limit to profit making.



I normally avoid these threads like the plague but this contradiction is too big to resist.


----------



## TheBigShort

T McGibney said:


> I normally avoid these threads like the plague but this contradiction is too big to resist.



In what way?


----------



## T McGibney

On one line you seem to be supporting the concept of the market value of a person's labour, while on another you're complaining about societies that allow people command that value.


----------



## TheBigShort

T McGibney said:


> On one line you seem to be supporting the concept of the market value of a person's labour, while on another you're complaining about societies that allow people command that value.



But you have edited the comment! The concept of market value of a person's labour is reference to Purple's previous views. Now he is arguing for a fair days pay for a fair days work, which doesn't necessarily equate with market value of labour.



Purple said:


> The market sets the rate. Not me or you. At least that’s how it happens in the real world.





Purple said:


> Anyway here’s how the market set’s the rate; you need 10 people to do job X and offer a pay rate of Y. You only get 6 people willing to do the job. You keep increasing Y until you get 10 suitably qualified and skilled people to do job X.
> 
> If you offer pay rate Y for your 10 job X’s and you get 500 applicants then you are offering above the market rate.


----------



## T McGibney

I didn't edit anything. I highlighted two mutually contradictory statements of yours within a few lines of each other. You asked me to explain, which I did.  That's all.


----------



## TheBigShort

T McGibney said:


> I didn't edit anything. I highlighted two mutually contradictory statements of yours within a few lines of each other. You asked me to explain, which I did.  That's all.



The first line in my comment was a question, not a statement.

Here is the full, unedited comment



TheBigShort said:


> What does that mean? Whatever happened to the market value of a person's labour? What happened to upskilling to earn more income, or to no wage increases without productivity increases?
> You are talking like a...a...socialist!



You clearly didn't pick up the jist of the comment. Probably best you follow your own advice and avoid input into the thread.


----------



## T McGibney

TheBigShort said:


> The first line in my comment was a question, not a statement.



Of course it was.  And I quoted it as such. And its still 100% clear that you were supporting the concept, only to attack it within the same post.


----------



## T McGibney

TheBigShort said:


> Probably best you follow your own advice and avoid input into the thread.



I'll make my own decisions on that, thanks.


----------



## TheBigShort

T McGibney said:


> Of course it was.  And I quoted it as such. And its still 100% clear that you were supporting the concept, only to attack it within the same post.




How would a question I pose to another poster determine my support, either for or against, that concept?


----------



## TheBigShort

T McGibney said:


> I'll make my own decisions on that, thanks.



And so you should! Well done!


----------



## Leo

TheBigShort said:


> Probably best you follow your own advice and avoid input into the thread.



 Report a post if you have an issue, but probably best you leave moderation to the Mods...


----------



## TheBigShort

Leo said:


> Report a post if you have an issue, but probably best you leave moderation to the Mods...


No issue at all, I enjoy engaging in these threads. Others, however, avoid them like the plague. Perhaps the issue lies with them.


----------



## jjm

It is  time for some of the posters to re read the first post .GREAT ARTICLE BY Fiona Redden in the Irish times on Tuesday week We pay high child benefit in this country 135 Euro per month lower income families lose nothing to Income tax thanks to child benefit.Anyone who lives in the real world knows Working lower income families are hardest hit because of our high Childcare cost .Possibly the highest in the OECD .135 euro a month in child benefit will not go far on child care cost in Ireland.I suspect other States in the OECD have lowered the cost of Childcare on low income working Families and this has not being taken into account By Fiona because it is not an Issue for her like low income Families she is completely out of touch with reality.The report is clearly substandard.The Irish Times is turning into a rag with reports like that.


----------



## TheBigShort

jjm2016 said:


> It is time for some of the posters to re read the first post



Fair point, I had actually begun to forget about that.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> Fair point, I had actually begun to forget about that.


You are not alone!
Thank god we aren't having this discussion in the pub with a few drinks in us. It's circular enough as it is!


----------



## Purple

jjm2016 said:


> It is  time for some of the posters to re read the first post .GREAT ARTICLE BY Fiona Redden in the Irish times on Tuesday week We pay high child benefit in this country 135 Euro per month lower income families lose nothing to Income tax thanks to child benefit.Anyone who lives in the real world knows Working lower income families are hardest hit because of our high Childcare cost .Possibly the highest in the OECD .135 euro a month in child benefit will not go far on child care cost in Ireland.I suspect other States in the OECD have lowered the cost of Childcare on low income working Families and this has not being taken into account By Fiona because it is not an Issue for her like low income Families she is completely out of touch with reality.The report is clearly substandard.The Irish Times is turning into a rag with reports like that.


How do other States in the OECD keep childcare costs low? The harsh reality is that the higher the minimum wage the worse off middle income earners feel. I'm not saying we should have an underclass like in some parts of America and Europe, I am just pointing out the consequences of having a more equal society.  
The other thing to remember is that it is all about fixed costs; if you earn €45,000 a year but have no mortgage you have a reasonably high disposable income. A neighbour paying €1200 a month on a mortgage has to earn €75,000 a year to end up with the same disposable income. If either person wants to get €500 together for a new TV they have to earn over €1060 so increasing net income is very hard when you are in the higher tax band.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> ??? There are no poor countries that function under capitalism?
> 
> No abject poverty in China? India?


 Very little in China, lots in India. India is rife with corruption, China has far less corruption.





TheBigShort said:


> I don't disagree. But it is ridiculous to suggest that capitalism is the main reason for bringing people out of abject poverty (I agree it helps) but has no role in putting people into abject poverty.



Nothing is solved when Socialists are lying about the root cause of poverty and capitalists are lying about the solution. The root cause is corruption and exploitation; they are inherently political. The solution is free trade and capitalism but only within a framework of a system of laws. Those laws have to be based on equality and individual rights and the political system has to operate within those laws. Free Trade and capitalism create wealth. Fairness ensures that those who create the wealth retain the free market value of their labour and that the country is run for the benefit of all its citizens; those who contribute get something back and the State facilitates those who strive to better their lot. 




TheBigShort said:


> What does that mean? Whatever happened to the market value of a person's labour? What happened to upskilling to earn more income, or to no wage increases without productivity increases?
> 
> You are talking like a...a...socialist!


Those things stand but they stand within a global market. I believe in equality but equality for all, not just people from rich countries. We could not continue to keep billions of people down so that we could feel rich. Free trade (which is fair trade, not putting tariffs on poor countries trying to see us their goods while forcing them to accept our heavily subsidised good) is a good think.





TheBigShort said:


> True. Including the corruption in charities, and the political systems that facilitate tax breaks for wealthy donors.


 Do you think people who donate to charity should pay tax on that donation?





TheBigShort said:


> Great strides in facilitating wealthy corporations to act as they please in the name of spreading democracy.


 That’s just not true.



TheBigShort said:


> The policies adopted and implemented by Blair, Clinton, Bush are the policies that are causing the ever increasing wealth gap. To the point, that working citizens in their own countries are finding it hard to keep their heads above water. Their policies are the policies of perpetual debt.


 That’s also factually incorrect. Read up on what Bush did for the fight against AIDS in Africa and his drive to cancel debt. I disagree with so much of what he did but nobody has done more in that area.





TheBigShort said:


> How? If the policy is to allow unfettered profits, allow borrowers and lenders to agree loan amounts without interference from regulatory authority, then the State employees did their job.
> 
> On the other hand, if the policy is to limit mortgage amount at 3.5 times income, and banks lend higher than that, then the State employees have failed if there is no reprimand.
> 
> But as long as the policy is not to interfere, then the employees are required to facilitate that policy.


 The laws and regulations were there and they failed to ensure they were being followed.





TheBigShort said:


> Don't be silly. I'm talking about societies that implement policies that facilitate unfettered wealth. No limit to income earned, no limit to profit making.


 Do you think we should limit income and limit profits? If so how and at what level?




TheBigShort said:


> I have no problem with _wanting_ all that wealth, but I recognize that too much wealth in the hands of too few is not a good thing.


 I agree. I have no idea how to fix it though.





TheBigShort said:


> Which organization are you talking about? There are question marks over your assertion that Irish Water is overstaffed by 3,000. You might want to clear that up before you continue with your claims of structural inefficiency.


 Yes, it could be slightly less or slightly more.





TheBigShort said:


> And that's why the largest bulk of employment legislation can be found from the 1990's onward. Including I think, proposed legislation to ban zero-hour contracts for 2017.


 That legislation came from the EU, not Trade Unions.





TheBigShort said:


> Can you identify the jobs which are not adding value?



We all know that there are dozens, if not hundreds, of different nursing grades across the country where a staff nurse in Galway has a different contract to a Staff nurse in Sligo etc. That results in a grossly complex payroll and HR system. If it was streamlines (standard contracts for each grade nationally) that payroll and HR cost would be reduced dramatically. If the existing system needs 500 people to run it and a streamlined system would need 100 then there are 400 people there who are not adding value. That doesn’t mean they are not working hard, it means that the system they work within is inherently inefficient.

Now don’t get hung up on the numbers; it’s a hypothetical example. I’m sure you are smart enough to understand it.


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> ??? There are no poor countries that function under capitalism?
> No abject poverty in China? India?



India has a caste system so they don't have much hope. Unless you have been living on a different planet you would be aware of the explosion of the chinese middle class since it opened up to globalisation and trade.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> Very little in China, lots in India. India is rife with corruption, China has far less corruption.



So the issue is neither capitalism or socialism but rather corruption and inefficiencies.




Purple said:


> The solution is free trade and capitalism but only within a framework of a system of laws. Those laws have to be based on equality and individual rights and the political system has to operate within those laws. Free Trade and capitalism create wealth. Fairness ensures that those who create the wealth retain the free market value of their labour and that the country is run for the benefit of all its citizens; those who contribute get something back and the State facilitates those who strive to better their lot.



I agree. The differences arise out of how best to implement those concepts. 



Purple said:


> Those things stand but they stand within a global market. I believe in equality but equality for all, not just people from rich countries. We could not continue to keep billions of people down so that we could feel rich. Free trade (which is fair trade, not putting tariffs on poor countries trying to see us their goods while forcing them to accept our heavily subsidised good) is a good think.



I agree. The QE program instigated by the developed world is, to my mind, artificially raising asset prices. The developed world has not accepted that our houses, businesses and other assets are worth dramatically less as a result of globalization.
This injustice, the distortion of capital markets I believe is in some part responsible for the destabilizing of south America markets and Mid East. (Coupled with US military interference)



Purple said:


> Do you think people who donate to charity should pay tax on that donation?



No, I think tax breaks afforded to amounts donated to charity should be scrapped. It is turning the charity sector into a commercial sector. 



Purple said:


> That’s also factually incorrect. Read up on what Bush did for the fight against AIDS in Africa and his drive to cancel debt. I disagree with so much of what he did but nobody has done more in that area.



We can argue around the house about these two, but for the record I don't subscribe to the notion that either are inherently evil. Nor do I subscribe to the notion that their interventions in the Mid East were to end tyranny and bestow democracy on the people of Iraq.
Blair has a great record in Ireland, he invested hugely in education in the UK. But he, and Bush went to war on a pack of lies. They should be held accountable for that.



Purple said:


> The laws and regulations were there and they failed to ensure they were being followed.



If so, you are correct. But failure and inefficiency is not limited to the public sector. The Jonathon sugarman revelations are testament to that.



Purple said:


> Do you think we should limit income and limit profits? If so how and at what level?



I think personal income should be limited, yes. In the same way that I think that no one should fall below a level of poverty, equally I think there should be a limit on personal income.
Obviously, such a sentiment will be controversial and the level up for debate. But a ball park figure would be in the region of €2m a year.



Purple said:


> I agree. I have no idea how to fix it though.



Impose a 100% tax rate on personal incomes of €2m or more. Might not solve it, but would go someway to doing so



Purple said:


> That legislation came from the EU, not Trade Unions.



Ah, c'mon. The legislation came from EU via petition from MEPs affiliated with left-wing parties linked to trade unions. Not exclusively, but you cannot say that trade unions don't playing a significant part here.



Purple said:


> That results in a grossly complex payroll and HR system. If it was streamlines (standard contracts for each grade nationally) that payroll and HR cost would be reduced dramatically. If the existing system needs 500 people to run it and a streamlined system would need 100 then there are 400 people there who are not adding value.



Not sure I can go with this. Is a nurse qualified for physiotherapy care, midwifery and mental illness care all equally qualified? Or can they command different pay rates?


----------



## jjm

Purple said:


> How do other States in the OECD keep childcare costs low? The harsh reality is that the higher the minimum wage the worse off middle income earners feel. I'm not saying we should have an underclass like in some parts of America and Europe, I am just pointing out the consequences of having a more equal society.
> The other thing to remember is that it is all about fixed costs; if you earn €45,000 a year but have no mortgage you have a reasonably high disposable income. A neighbour paying €1200 a month on a mortgage has to earn €75,000 a year to end up with the same disposable income. If either person wants to get €500 together for a new TV they have to earn over €1060 so increasing net income is very hard when you are in the higher tax band.


Well you will have to go along with TheBigShort so if you want change


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> I agree. The QE program instigated by the developed world is, to my mind, artificially raising asset prices. The developed world has not accepted that our houses, businesses and other assets are worth dramatically less as a result of globalization.
> This injustice, the distortion of capital markets I believe is in some part responsible for the destabilizing of south America markets and Mid East. (Coupled with US military interference)



As for south America markets and Venezuela in particular, I would add the socialism that Hugo Chavez brought it. With all that oil they should be richer than Norway!

http://theconversation.com/how-toda...ated-by-hugo-chavezs-revolutionary-plan-61474
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...ot-he-empowered-the-poor-and-gutted-venezuela


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> The developed world has not accepted that our houses, businesses and other assets are worth dramatically less as a result of globalization.
> This injustice, the distortion of capital markets I believe is in some part responsible for the destabilizing of south America markets and Mid East. (Coupled with US military interference)


 Agreed, among other things.





TheBigShort said:


> No, I think tax breaks afforded to amounts donated to charity should be scrapped. It is turning the charity sector into a commercial sector.


 At the moment in the USA you don't pay tax on income given to charity. In Ireland the charity gets the tax back so it amounts to the same thing. What other tax breaks are you referring to?





TheBigShort said:


> We can argue around the house about these two, but for the record I don't subscribe to the notion that either are inherently evil. Nor do I subscribe to the notion that their interventions in the Mid East were to end tyranny and bestow democracy on the people of Iraq.
> Blair has a great record in Ireland, he invested hugely in education in the UK. But he, and Bush went to war on a pack of lies. They should be held accountable for that.


I'm in broad agreement but that notwithstanding the work done by Bush on AIDS was a game changer though. Millions of people are alive today because of that work.




TheBigShort said:


> If so, you are correct. But failure and inefficiency is not limited to the public sector. The Jonathon sugarman revelations are testament to that.


 I never said it was.





TheBigShort said:


> I think personal income should be limited, yes. In the same way that I think that no one should fall below a level of poverty, equally I think there should be a limit on personal income.
> Obviously, such a sentiment will be controversial and the level up for debate. But a ball park figure would be in the region of €2m a year.
> 
> 
> 
> Impose a 100% tax rate on personal incomes of €2m or more. Might not solve it, but would go someway to doing so


 So someone starts a company and never grows it past the level at which they earn €2 million a year. That's a lot of jobs not created and a lot of taxes not paid.




TheBigShort said:


> Ah, c'mon. The legislation came from EU via petition from MEPs affiliated with left-wing parties linked to trade unions. Not exclusively, but you cannot say that trade unions don't playing a significant part here.


 There are plenty of left-wing parties who are not in the pockets of vested interest groups such as Trade Unions (most people with a trade are not in trade unions and  most people in trade unions do not have a trade). They were necessary in their day but their day had passed. It passed when they stopped representing the poor and instead served middle-income earners to the determent of the poor. 





TheBigShort said:


> Not sure I can go with this. Is a nurse qualified for physiotherapy care, midwifery and mental illness care all equally qualified? Or can they command different pay rates?


 Nurses with exactly the same qualifications, doing exactly the same job are on different contracts in different counties. It's not that the old health boards had different contracts and they haven't been harmonised, in some cases they are specific to individual hospitals.


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> India has a caste system so they don't have much hope. Unless you have been living on a different planet you would be aware of the explosion of the chinese middle class since it opened up to globalisation and trade.



You are missing the point. The capitalist system as it stands does not and will not bring everybody out of abject poverty. Of course it creates wealth, that is a given. But considering the levels of wealth, the advancements in technology and medicine, there is no reason why anyone should be living in abject poverty.
Arguably it is not capitalism per se, that is the problem, but rather the systemic greed and corruption inherent in the system. But if you accept that point, then you should accept that socialist systems didn't fail because of socialism per se, but rather the systemic greed and corruption inherent in those systems - in the end, human failure and inefficiency.


----------



## Purple

jjm2016 said:


> Well you will have to go along with TheBigShort so if you want change


I don't understand your post.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> You are missing the point. The capitalist system as it stands does not and will not bring everybody out of abject poverty. Of course it creates wealth, that is a given. But considering the levels of wealth, the advancements in technology and medicine, there is no reason why anyone should be living in abject poverty.
> Arguably it is not capitalism per se, that is the problem, but rather the systemic greed and corruption inherent in the system. But if you accept that point, then you should accept that socialist systems didn't fail because of socialism per se, but rather the systemic greed and corruption inherent in those systems - in the end, human failure and inefficiency.


Greed is inherent in people, not a system. I want to live in a world where everybody has a fair chance at the pursuit of happiness. That means that there cannot be subsidies or tariffs on trade and access to markets can only be based on standards (health and safety, product quality, environmental standards etc.). The Common Agricultural Policy kills more people every year than ISIS and yet getting rid of it is referred to as a "race to the bottom". In reality getting rid of it is a ladder from the bottom for those currently outside of it.


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> You are missing the point. The capitalist system as it stands does not and will not bring everybody out of abject poverty. Of course it creates wealth, that is a given. But considering the levels of wealth, the advancements in technology and medicine, there is no reason why anyone should be living in abject poverty.
> Arguably it is not capitalism per se, that is the problem, but rather the systemic greed and corruption inherent in the system. But if you accept that point, then you should accept that socialist systems didn't fail because of socialism per se, but rather the systemic greed and corruption inherent in those systems - in the end, human failure and inefficiency.





Purple said:


> Greed is inherent in people, not a system.



This is it for me. Throughout our time on this planet we have shown time and again that people have been left to starve whilst others have an abundance of wealth. Trying to take from those at the very top is expensive and ultimately futile. The best we can hope for is that barriers are kept down and income is based on effort. Capitalism for all it's failings provides this much more so than any of its counterparts on the far left which just end up with everyone being poor! I again refer you to the millions of people in china who have joined the middle class since China "opened up".


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> At the moment in the USA you don't pay tax on income given to charity. In Ireland the charity gets the tax back so it amounts to the same thing. What other tax breaks are you referring to?



That's not how I understand our tax laws for charitable donations.

http://www.revenue.ie/en/personal/charities.html

My reading is that donations from €250 to €1m can be offset against tax liability.



Purple said:


> So someone starts a company and never grows it past the level at which they earn €2 million a year. That's a lot of jobs not created and a lot of taxes not paid.



No not at all. And to be fair, the nuts and bolts of such a proposal would need in-depth scrutiny. But in essence it refers to the personal income of an individual as distinct personal wealth. There would be nothing stopping anyone from acquiring personal wealth greater than €2m, stocks, property, investments etc. What it would boil down to is effectively a €2m a year lifestyle. The private jet, island, castle markets would take a hit, but probably that's all.
So if you set up a business tomorrow and it suddenly takes off worth billions, you will only be able to pay yourself €2m.
It's hard to get figures on this but in 2012 there were some 300+ people in Ireland that declared an income in excess of €2m.
So in real terms a tiny, tiny portion of people would be affected by such a proposal.



Purple said:


> There are plenty of left-wing parties who are not in the pockets of vested interest groups such as Trade Unions (most people with a trade are not in trade unions and most people in trade unions do not have a trade). They were necessary in their day but their day had passed. It passed when they stopped representing the poor and instead served middle-income earners to the determent of the poor.



I profoundly disagree with you on this point.
[broken link removed]

A list of the numerous social issues that unions involve themselves in is easily accessible.


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> No not at all. And to be fair, the nuts and bolts of such a proposal would need in-depth scrutiny. But in essence it refers to the personal income of an individual as distinct personal wealth. There would be nothing stopping anyone from acquiring personal wealth greater than €2m, stocks, property, investments etc. What it would boil down to is effectively a €2m a year lifestyle. The private jet, island, castle markets would take a hit, but probably that's all.
> So if you set up a business tomorrow and it suddenly takes off worth billions, you will only be able to pay yourself €2m.
> It's hard to get figures on this but in 2012 there were some 300+ people in Ireland that declared an income in excess of €2m.
> So in real terms a tiny, tiny portion of people would be affected by such a proposal.



And given the resources they would have to find crafty tax accountants would you think it would be worthwhile at all? What next, target those earning 1m a year then those on 500k a year...before long the hospital consultants would leave the country along with top executives and the whole thing would crumble...


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> Greed is inherent in people, not a system



Yes, and when I say "inherent in the system", you can take it I mean the system as operated by human beings. 




Firefly said:


> Capitalism for all it's failings provides this much more so than any of its counterparts on the far left which just end up with everyone being poor! I again refer you to the millions of people in china who have joined the middle class since China "opened up".



With respect, I sense you veering towards the capitalist system v socialist systems again. I thought we had dealt with that. China, USSR, NK are/were central command controlled economies. They labeled themselves as Socialist economies. They were as much Socialist as the US and EU are free market capitalist economies. They are not. 
My views on what a socialist society would look like have been made. I support the exploitation of the resources of the earth for capital gain in an ethical,  equitable and environmentally sustainable way. This means for instance, that I support the concept of private ownership and private property to the point that everyone has a reasonable standard of shelter. Where people are without shelter I look to the government to intervene. This may mean a re-allocation of resources from those that have toward those without it. It is my view, that those that have property can all contribute to those who don't, in a manner that is equitable.


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> And given the resources they would have to find crafty tax accountants would you think it would be worthwhile at all? What next, target those earning 1m a year then those on 500k a year...before long the hospital consultants would leave the country along with top executives and the whole thing would crumble...



Well, just sticking with Ireland for a moment, the first thing you should note is that we are only talking about a few hundred people. Secondly, it only applies to disposable income, not the value of a person's wealth.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> This may mean a re-allocation of resources from those that have toward those without it. It is my view, that those that have property can all contribute to those who don't, in a manner that is equitable.


 What do you think is equitable?
How do you ensure people who can create wealth continue to do so as you take more and more of their fruits of their labour from them? 
In other words why bother working when what you earn will be taken from you?
Why bother working when if you choose not to you will be given wealth created by someone else?

We already have the most progressive income tax system in the EU and among the most progressive in the developed world. How must further do we need to go in order to be "equitable"?


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> What do you think is equitable?



A society that ensures, insofar as practical, that no one goes without adequate food and shelter, access to healthcare and education.
What do you think is equitable?

[QUOTE="Purple, post: 1518681, member:114]
How do you ensure people who can create wealth continue to do so as you take more and more of their fruits of their labour from them?
In other words why bother working when what you earn will be taken from you?
Why bother working when if you choose not to you will be given wealth created by someone else?[/QUOTE]

Somewhat of a rant I suspect, I really don't know what you are talking about here.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> A society that ensures, insofar as practical, that no one goes without adequate food and shelter, access to healthcare and education.
> What do you think is equitable?


 We have that now. Where it falls down is in the incompetence and inefficiencies within the delivery structures. What do you think is equitable? 



TheBigShort said:


> Somewhat of a rant I suspect, I really don't know what you are talking about here.


 Really?
You see no link between income tax rates and wealth creation? If so you are part of a very small group. The rest of the world sees it and everyone from the OECD to the IMF talk about balancing income equality and economic growth. 
The problem with socialism is that it is treating a symptom, in this case income inequality, instead of looking at root causes. So, what, in your view, is the root cause of income inequality in this country. Please remember that globally income inequality is been reduced dramatically over the last 30 years thanks to more open trade and less protectionism (that race to the bottom that the Brethren in SIPTU are so concerned about). It looks to me like socialists are only interested in redistributing income from people who have more than them and not to people who have less than them (particularly if their skin is a different colour).


----------



## Firefly

Purple said:


> It looks to me like socialists are only interested in redistributing income from people who have more than them and not to people who have less than them.



Brilliant!


----------



## Purple

It reminds me of a story which explains Communism and Socialism in practice;

The local Soviet Commissar was bringing a Party bigwig on a tour of the communal farm.

He called over a peasant and asked him, “Comrade, do you understand Communism?”

“Yes Comrade Commissar.” He replied.

“So, if you has two houses would you give one to your neighbour?”

“Yes Comrade Commissar.” He replied.

“And if you had two horses would you give one to your neighbour?”

“Yes, or course, Comrade Commissar.” He replied.

“And if you had two coats would you give one to your neighbour?”

“No, Comrade Commissar.” He replied.

“No, No! Why not”

“...well I have two coats” He replied.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> We have that now. Where it falls down is in the incompetence and inefficiencies within the delivery structures



Yes, so what is your point? I suspect that there is one, somewhere buried in the last number of posts?



Purple said:


> Really?
> You see no link between income tax rates and wealth creation?



I do. So the rest of your comment is mute. Perhaps explain the point you are trying to make?


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> Yes, so what is your point? I suspect that there is one, somewhere buried in the last number of posts?


 Now now, play nice. 
I have been asking you the same question; what do you think is equitable? 




TheBigShort said:


> I do. So the rest of your comment is mute. Perhaps explain the point you are trying to make?


 It's only mute if you don't think we need to balance wealth creation with wealth redistribution.
The fundamental question is are you in favour of equality of opportunity or equality of outcome?


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> I have been asking you the same question; what do you think is equitable?



I think I answered this already, oh yes...



TheBigShort said:


> A society that ensures, insofar as practical, that no one goes without adequate food and shelter, access to healthcare and education.



What do you think is equitable? I don't think you have answered that yet.



Purple said:


> It's only mute if you don't think we need to balance wealth creation with wealth redistribution.



Yes, so therefore it's mute.



Purple said:


> The fundamental question is are you in favour of equality of opportunity or equality of outcome?



Equality of opportunity, and you?


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

Dammitt _BigShort_ you've gone and broken my Pinkometer


TheBigShort said:


> A society that ensures, *insofar* *as* *practical*, that no one goes without adequate food and shelter, access to healthcare and education.


I would say everyone is in violent agreement with this statement given the qualifier which I have put in bold.  The reason we need the qualifier is a combination of scarce resources and human nature.

The Soviets thought that total compliance with those lofty objectives was practical.  Alas this was proven to be hopelessly naive.

So one could argue that Ireland does achieve this objective, albeit some fall through the safety nets. But that is a matter of opinion as to what is practical given Ireland's current state of economic, social and political development.

Maybe we could get a better feel for your position if you could tell us which country, say in Europe, most  approximates this objective at the present time.  If it is your view that nowhere meets the objective then you should remove the phrase in bold from your statement.

BTW. "mute" unable to speak "moot" open to debate


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> Equality of opportunity, and you?



Yet for everyone who is lucky enough to have an income of over 2m you would tax them so that they would have an equal outcome....



TheBigShort said:


> Impose a 100% tax rate on personal incomes of €2m or more.


----------



## TheBigShort

Duke of Marmalade said:


> I would say everyone is in violent agreement with this statement given the qualifier which I have put in bold.



I would have thought so too, but the subsequent hysteria and persistent references to Soviet Russia et al would suggest different.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> So one could argue that Ireland does achieve this objective, albeit some or fall through the safety nets. But that is a matter of opinion as to what is practical given Ireland's current state of economic, social and political development.



True, I would go further to state that we live in one of (or in a group of) the wealthiest, most developed and safest countries in the world. 
I agree about the safety net , or those that fall through it. It is hard to envisage a society that is all things to all people.
Take homelessness for instance, an age old problem that is hard, for multiple reasons, to wholly eradicate. Nevertheless, when the homelessness _rate _starts to increase, coupled with a new demographic (working people, with families), then something is going wrong that wasn't occurring previously.
It is simply not sufficient to dismiss what is happening as a consequence of the market, or some 'invisible hand', or as the failure of public sector worker's to deliver the service.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> BTW. "mute" unable to speak "moot" open to debate



Duh!


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> Yet for everyone who is lucky enough to have an income of over 2m you would tax them so that they would have an equal outcome....





TheBigShort said:


> the nuts and bolts of such a proposal would need in-depth scrutiny. But in essence it refers to the personal income of an individual as distinct personal wealth. There would be nothing stopping anyone from acquiring personal wealth greater than €2m, stocks, property, investments etc. What it would boil down to is effectively a €2m a year lifestyle.



The point is not to collect more tax ( accepting the implication of previous comment of a 100% tax). 
The point is to establish a social norm. Who would pay themselves €2.5m if €0.5 would be taken up in tax? The net tax take would be zero as no one would pay themselves greater than €2m.
But in the absence of incomes greater than €2m then, the money that would have been used for those greater incomes will need to find a home elsewhere. Some ideas could be, increasing wages for employees lower down the chain, increasing spending in the economy, reducing reliance on welfare. Or, invest in more employees, increasing spending in the economy, reducing reliance on welfare. Or invest in research and development, increasing spending in the economy, reducing reliance on welfare.

The €2m maximum income is a ball park figure. In 2012, there were some 300 individuals who earned greater than this amount. I estimate that with 80,000 people on All Ireland day, only one person would be unduly affected. To the point that they had to survive on €2m a year.
To re-iterate the point, a max income is not to penalise, but to create a social norm, just like a social norm has been created with a minimum wage.


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> The point is not to collect more tax ( accepting the implication of previous comment of a 100% tax).
> The point is to establish a social norm. Who would pay themselves €2.5m if €0.5 would be taken up in tax? The net tax take would be zero as no one would pay themselves greater than €2m.



Exactly....equality of outcome!!


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> Exactly....equality of outcome!!



For all of 300 people!

Are you opposed to a minimum wage?


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> For all of 300 people!



It doesn't matter. As you said it was a ballpark figure. Nothing stopping someone from picking 1m or even 100k for that matter. The point is that when asked, you said you were for equality of opportunity over equality of outcome, yet you would equalise the income for a particular group of people. 
That's equality of outcome...


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> I think I answered this already, oh yes...


Do you think that we already provide that? 





TheBigShort said:


> What do you think is equitable? I don't think you have answered that yet.


 What we provide is equitable. What it costs is not.





TheBigShort said:


> I think I answered this already, oh yes...


Do you think that we already provide that? 





TheBigShort said:


> Yes, so therefore it's mute.


 OK, so how do you propose we do that when you want a maximum income? 





TheBigShort said:


> I think I answered this already, oh yes...


Do you think that we already provide that? 





TheBigShort said:


> Equality of opportunity, and you?


 Ditto. That's why I would rather see money spent equipping people to get out of poverty rather than money being spent keeping people in a state of perpetual dependence.


----------



## Firefly

@BigShort, I too would like your feedback on this:



Duke of Marmalade said:


> Maybe we could get a better feel for your position if you could tell us which country, say in Europe, most  approximates this objective at the present time.  If it is your view that nowhere meets the objective then you should remove the phrase in bold from your statement.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> But in the absence of incomes greater than €2m then, the money that would have been used for those greater incomes will need to find a home elsewhere. Some ideas could be, increasing wages for employees lower down the chain, increasing spending in the economy, reducing reliance on welfare. Or, invest in more employees, increasing spending in the economy, reducing reliance on welfare. Or invest in research and development, increasing spending in the economy, reducing reliance on welfare.


 See that's where you socialists just don't understand wealth creation. If the person who earns €2 million but could earn €5 million if they expanded their business, worked harder etc. has their income capped they just won't engage in the economic activities which would generate the additional €3 million. The business won't expand, the additional people will not be employed. The additional tax revenues from employers PRSI and the income tax from those employees won't exist and the economy will not grow in that area. For someone to gain an income of €3 million they have to generate economic activity far exceeding that. The tax take from that economic activity will be far greater than the €3 million you want to take. The net result will be that everyone gets poorer together, but then, that is socialism.


----------



## Firefly

Purple said:


> See that's where you socialists just don't understand wealth creation. If the person who earns €2 million but could earn €5 million if they expanded their business, worked harder etc. has their income capped _they just won't engage in the economic activities which would generate the additional €3 million._ The business won't expand, the additional people will not be employed. The additional tax revenues from employers PRSI and the income tax from those employees won't exist and the economy will not grow in that area. For someone to gain an income of €3 million they have to generate economic activity far exceeding that. The tax take from that economic activity will be far greater than the €3 million you want to take. The net result will be that everyone gets poorer together, but then, that is socialism.



They could always move their businesses somewhere else too...


----------



## Firefly

Purple said:


> For someone to gain an income of €3 million they have to generate economic activity far exceeding that. The tax take from that economic activity will be far greater than the €3 million you want to take. The net result will be
> that everyone gets poorer together, but then, that is socialism.



I think Bono nailed it...
_
"Ireland has a very different attitude to success than a lot of places, certainly than over here in the United States. In the United States, you look at the guy that lives in the mansion on the hill, and you think, you know, one day, if I work really hard, I could live in that mansion. In Ireland, people look up at the guy in the mansion on the hill and go, one day, I'm going to get that b*****d. It's a different mind-set."_


----------



## Purple

Firefly said:


> They could always move their businesses somewhere else too...


Or they could leave their business here but move somewhere else with less penal income tax rates. Plenty do so now. They just have to move to Northern Ireland to pay less tax but there are plenty of other places too.


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> It doesn't matter. As you said it was a ballpark figure. Nothing stopping someone from picking 1m or even 100k for that matter. The point is that when asked, you said you were for equality of opportunity over equality of outcome, yet you would equalise the income for a particular group of people.
> That's equality of outcome...



By any infinite stretch of the imagination, applying a 100% tax to 0.015% of the working population does not amount to equality of outcome. No more than a 40% tax on incomes of €100,000 is too. Or 20% on incomes of €20,000.
But to soothe your capitalist impulses, and considering that the nuts and bolts of such a proposal would need in-depth scrutiny, let's reduce it to 99.9% tax.


----------



## TheBigShort

TheBigShort said:


> Are you opposed to a minimum wage?





Firefly said:


> I too would like your feedback on this:



I would like your feedback too. How about we do this in some sort of order?


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> By any infinite stretch of the imagination, applying a 100% tax to 0.015% of the working population does not amount to equality of outcome. No more than a 40% tax on incomes of €100,000 is too. Or 20% on incomes of €20,000.
> But to soothe your capitalist impulses, and considering that the nuts and bolts of such a proposal would need in-depth scrutiny, let's reduce it to 99.9% tax.



Someone earning 3m would take home 1,000 more than someone earning 2m. That's not a material difference in any way shape or form and in my book that's still equality of outcome...


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> Someone earning 3m would take home 1,000 more than someone earning 2m. That's not a material difference in any way shape or form and in my book that's still equality of outcome...



Is minimum wage equality of outcome? Do you oppose a minimum wage?


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> Is minimum wage equality of outcome?


I don't believe so as there is still opportunity for someone to earn more. Someone who works 40 hours at the minimum wage can earn 40 times more than someone who only works 1 hour at the minimum wage.

Taxing someone 100% of their income above an arbitrary threshold makes it impossible for them to earn more and is equality of outcome.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> Is minimum wage equality of outcome? Do you oppose a minimum wage?


The dole is €5.50 an hour so that. along with other income transfers through the welfare system, sets a floor below which people will not work. There are multiple examples on this site showing that people with families need to earn in or around the average industrial wage in order to have the same income they will get on welfare. Do you think that is equitable? Do you think the socialist solution of paying people more than the market value of their labour is a viable solution to that issue?


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> Taxing someone 100% of their income above an arbitrary threshold makes it impossible for them to earn more and is equality



For 300 people in Ireland!
 If you want that level of income can be increased to €3m or even €4m, thus reducing the number of people affected.
But either or, the purpose is not to put an undue burden on anyone's income, but rather set a value upon which we, as a society, determine to be more than sufficient in income as a social norm.
As Krugman wrote when talking about this subject "we should try to create the society each of us would want if we didn't know in advance who we would be".


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> For 300 people in Ireland!
> If you want that level of income can be increased to €3m or even €4m, thus reducing the number of people affected.



That's my point. You could just as easily decrease it to 1m or 500k or 100k and increase the number of people affected. It is equality of outcome!!


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> I do think the issue of how a few thousand people are becoming billionaires needs be be looked



Perhaps you could expand on the above comment. I may have misconstrued but I took it to mean that there should possibly be an income limit.



Purple said:


> If the person who earns €2 million but could earn €5 million if they expanded their business, worked harder etc. has their income capped they just won't engage in the economic activities which would generate the additional €3 million.



And that's where you free-marketeers don't understand economics.
Nobody will be restricted from engaging in economic activity. And there is scant evidence to suggest that a person, earning €2m a year, will cease to engage in the economic activity that earns him or her€2m a year because of lack of earning potential. If such a person ceases to engage, there is plenty of evidence to suggest someone else will fill the void if a market opportunity exists.


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> That's my point. You could just as easily decrease it to 1m or 500k or 100k and increase the number of people affected. It is equality of outcome!!



But to reduce it to €100k would put an undue burden on a significant portion of the population. It wouldn't work. The proposal is not a proposal to grab more tax. The proposal is to establish a social norm.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> Perhaps you could expand on the above comment. I may have misconstrued but I took it to mean that there should possibly be an income limit.


 I don't know what the solution is but I don't think income limits are a viable solution. 





TheBigShort said:


> And that's where you free-marketeers don't understand economics.
> Nobody will be restricted from engaging in economic activity. And there is scant evidence to suggest that a person, earning €2m a year, will cease to engage in the economic activity that earns him or her€2m a year because of lack of earning potential. If such a person ceases to engage, there is plenty of evidence to suggest someone else will fill the void if a market opportunity exists.


 Why would someone take on an extra workload and stress of expanding their business for no net gain?
If you think that the economic activity will just happen, i.e. someone else will do it, then you are very much mistaken.


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> But to reduce it to €100k would put an undue burden on a significant portion of the population. It wouldn't work.



What about 500k? What about 1m? Who is to know? Who will decide? The People Before Profit have picked an income of €100k per year for special treatment and in the very next sentence say "Move towards a maximum income." 

[broken link removed]

In any case, it's arbitrary and it doesn't matter....it's still equality of outome!




TheBigShort said:


> The proposal is not a proposal to grab more tax.



It is. You are proposing to take 100% of someone's income above a certain level.



TheBigShort said:


> The proposal is to establish a social norm.


That all depends on how the taxes would be spent. As you say, we are one of the richest countries in the world yet still have a homeless crisis and people waiting on trolleys in A&E.


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> And that's where you free-marketeers don't understand economics.
> Nobody will be restricted from engaging in economic activity. And there is scant evidence to suggest that a person, earning €2m a year, will cease to engage in the economic activity that earns him or her€2m a year because of lack of earning potential. If such a person ceases to engage, there is plenty of evidence to suggest someone else will fill the void if a market opportunity exists.



They would move and possibly take their jobs with them. A potentially nice little bump to the dole queue.


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> Equality of opportunity, and you?



Can you please update the above post as you would impose a marginal tax of 100% on some people thereby resulting in _equality of outcome_?


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

Super taxes on stratospheric incomes (as opposed to high taxes on over €100k per SF) will do little for redistribution.  I also tend to agree with BigShort that it would not have a significant direct impact on output.  I believe ABBA were subject to 98% tax - didn't stop them pumping out the hits.

But let's not knock the impact of such a measure on social cohesion which can be important for overall economic output.

I think few of us (except possibly Liverpool supporters) begrudge Wayne Rooney his "obscene" weekly pay.  But when corporate boards vote multi million pound packages to their executives even Theresa May cries foul. The idea that these guys will not get outa bed for less than, say, €10m is plain nonsense.

And it is not only Trade Union members that feel the resentment and a basic unfairness in such a state of affairs.  Even more disaffected are the middle and upper middle classes who will be inclined to ask resentfully "does she really deserve 20 times what I earn?".  (I have used a factor of 20 here as the ratio of BigShort's fat cat earning 2m to SF's fat cat earning 100k.)


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> I don't know what the solution is but I don't think income limits are a viable solution.



The solution to what? Can you outline what  the issue is with regard billionaires.



Purple said:


> Why would someone take on an extra workload and stress of expanding their business for no net gain?
> If you think that the economic activity will just happen, i.e. someone else will do it, then you are very much mistaken.



It all depends on the trade or business. But if I ever get to a €2m salary, I would like to think I'd be in the position to delegate any additional stress.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> The solution to what? Can you outline what  the issue is with regard billionaires.


 I thought you would also have concerns about the concentration of wealth among a relatively small number of people and how that can lead to them having undue influence at a political level. That's my concern; power must reside with the people. 





TheBigShort said:


> It all depends on the trade or business. But if I ever get to a €2m salary, I would like to think I'd be in the position to delegate any additional stress.


 You may like to think so but that's not what happens. The more you earn the more stress and work you have. 

Anyway, why would anyone seek to grow their business if there was no possibility of any gain for them?


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> Can you please update the above post as you would impose a marginal tax of 100% on some people thereby resulting in _equality of outcome_?



 nice try. But your definition of equality of outcome obviously differs to mine. In no way, shape or form, would I class a €2m income limit, that, all things remaining equal, will remain out of reach for the vast working population for the remainder of their lifetimes as equality of outcome.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> thought you would also have concerns about the concentration of wealth among a relatively small number of people and how that can lead to them having undue influence at a political level. That's my concern; power must reside with the people.



That's it? That is your concern? And you think undue influence at political level only begins at €1bn+?



Purple said:


> You may like to think so but that's not what happens. The more you earn the more stress and work you have.



Please! 
So the most stressed, hardest working people are the millionaires?? 
That is simply laughable.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> That's it? That is your concern?


Yep. 





TheBigShort said:


> Please!
> So the most stressed, hardest working people are the millionaires??


 No, that's not what I said.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> The more you earn the more stress and work you have.





Purple said:


> No, that's not what I said.



I think it stands to reason that that is exactly what you said.



Purple said:


> Yep



Why makes you think that billionaires exert undue political influence? Do you think politicians are immune from undue influence from less wealthy people?


----------



## TheBigShort

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Super taxes on stratospheric incomes (as opposed to high taxes on over €100k per SF) will do little for redistribution.



Is there much evidence of this? I would suggest that it would, in time, have a massively positive impact.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> I think it stands to reason that that is exactly what you said.


No, I said the more you expanded your business the more stressful it becomes. You then misrepresented what I said and concluded that I said they endured the most stress.
Watching a family member die of cancer is more stressful. Being a soldier in combat is more stressful. Being a Garda trying to get help for a drug addicted kid with our hopelessly dysfunctional mental health service is probably more stressful.

What I said was that expanding and growing a business is more stressful than just leaving it as it is. That's all.



TheBigShort said:


> Why makes you think that billionaires exert undue political influence?


 Reading and watching the news over the last 20 years. Do you think they don't?



TheBigShort said:


> Do you think politicians are immune from undue influence from less wealthy people?


No. I don't like Unions or any other vested interest groups that seek to usurp the sole right of the people, through their parliament, to decide how the country should be run.
Given that you have no problem with Unions exerting their influence on the government (note it's "the government" not "government") I take it you have no problem with other vested interest groups doing the same thing.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> No, I said the more you expanded your business the more stressful it becomes.



Not necessarily. Expanding a business can be quite invigorating.



Purple said:


> Reading and watching the news over the last 20 years. Do you think they don't?



For sure, but implied in my question was the issue that you recognized with billionaires as distinct with any other income group. My bad for not making that clear.
And to recall, you initially raised the issue of billionaires in the context of wage inflation, not political corruption.



Purple said:


> No.



You have completely diverted the subject from talking about wage inflation, and how you consider that there are issues with billionaires that need to be looked at, to political corruption.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> usurp the sole right of the people, through their parliament, to decide how the country should be run.



Eh, how do you usurp the right of the people _through parliament??_
I have no issue with anybody or any grouping lobbying politicians for their interests or issues to be addressed, as long as that lobbying is transparent to the public.
If you are following the public pay talks you can see the demands by ICTU and you can see the demands of DPER representing the State. You can also drill down into individual unions to see any particular demand specific to that union.
I have no issue with billionaires lobbying for their own interests, as long as those interests are transparent to the public.
The government will decide it's interests on behalf of the State and the voters can decide their interests at the ballot box.


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> nice try. But your definition of equality of outcome obviously differs to mine. In no way, shape or form, would I class a €2m income limit, that, all things remaining equal, will remain out of reach for the vast working population for the remainder of their lifetimes as equality of outcome.



We're not talking about equality, we're talking about whether you support _equality of outcome_. You would tax (small) cohort of people to such an extent that they would have the same income. Using your figures, it would currently affect 300 people. Nothing stopping that 2m magic number from being reduced to bring more people in. This is equality of outcome and it's a pity you and the other socialist posters on here  cannot admit it.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> Not necessarily. Expanding a business can be quite invigorating.


 Sure, but it's also very stressful. People don't do it for the fun of it. They do it to make more money. Are you suggesting that business owners will expand and take risks and employ more people and generate more tax revenue for the State if there is no financial gain for them?



TheBigShort said:


> For sure, but implied in my question was the issue that you recognized with billionaires as distinct with any other income group. My bad for not making that clear.
> And to recall, you initially raised the issue of billionaires in the context of wage inflation, not political corruption.


Money talks. Do you think that a person who is on the average wage has the same influence as someone worth billions?



TheBigShort said:


> You have completely diverted the subject from talking about wage inflation, and how you consider that there are issues with billionaires that need to be looked at, to political corruption.


 No, you have taken one comment and run with it. It is you who has completely diverted the subject. I am simply answering your questions on this issue.


----------



## Purple

Firefly said:


> We're not talking about equality, we're talking about whether you support _equality of outcome_. You would tax (small) cohort of people to such an extent that they would have the same income. Using your figures, it would currently affect 300 people. Nothing stopping that 2m magic number from being reduced to bring more people in. This is equality of outcome and it's a pity you and the other socialist posters on here  cannot admit it.


In fairness to TheBigShort he answers questions and offers opinions which is more than ca be said for some posters who only cross-examine and question other posters comments. He's also fighting on multiple fronts at the moment


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> Eh, how do you usurp the right of the people _through parliament??_


 Social Partnership was a good example. 



TheBigShort said:


> I have no issue with anybody or any grouping lobbying politicians for their interests or issues to be addressed, as long as that lobbying is transparent to the public.
> If you are following the public pay talks you can see the demands by ICTU and you can see the demands of DPER representing the State. You can also drill down into individual unions to see any particular demand specific to that union.
> I have no issue with billionaires lobbying for their own interests, as long as those interests are transparent to the public.
> The government will decide it's interests on behalf of the State and the voters can decide their interests at the ballot box.


 Do you really believe that lobbying, by Unions and others, is transparent to the public?! 
Billionaires who can fund a Party or Unions which can break one. Do you really think that Party in government will act in the broader national interest with a gun to their head or a pot of gold on the table?


----------



## Firefly

Purple said:


> In fairness to TheBigShort he answers questions and offers opinions which is more than ca be said for some posters who only cross-examine and question other posters comments. He's also fighting on multiple fronts at the moment



That's true and he's not added you to his "ignore list" either


----------



## Purple

Firefly said:


> That's true and he's not added you to his "ignore list" either


Yet


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

TheBigShort said:


> Is there much evidence of this? I would suggest that it would, in time, have a massively positive impact.


It is more subtle than the nominal redistribution of money, albeit that too would be small.   What matters is transfer of economic output i.e. goods and services.  Taxing incomes in excess of €2m would have a negligible effect on those folks consumption.  Redistributing the super tax will not do anything to increase output (assuming economy at full output) so it will not increase the share of output of the rest, it will merely increase prices.

ONTH taking an extra €8k from someone earning €200k would have redistributive effects.  For example they might cut back on their private health insurance thus freeing up health services for others i.e. a redistribution of health resources.


----------



## Purple

Duke of Marmalade said:


> ONTH taking an extra €8k from someone earning €200k would have redistributive effects.  For example they might cut back on their private health insurance thus freeing up health services for others i.e. a redistribution of health resources.


Hi Duke, I don't understand that point. If they cut back on their private health insurance that will put an additional burden on the tax payer as they will then consume publicly provided and funded health services rather than privately funded services. 
They are currently funding the cost of providing public healthcare through their taxes but choosing not to consume it. If they get rid of their private cover they are no longer paying for it twice.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

Purple said:


> Hi Duke, I don't understand that point. If they cut back on their private health insurance that will put an additional burden on the tax payer as they will then consume publicly provided and funded health services rather than privately funded services.
> They are currently funding the cost of providing public healthcare through their taxes but choosing not to consume it. If they get rid of their private cover they are no longer paying for it twice.


Take your point.  Bad example as they are effectively paying on the double so if they cut that back it would have a perverse counter redistributive effect. 

The basic point though is that redistribution only means anything if it refers to goods and services.  Money, taxation etc. are only means to that end.  So maybe a better example is housing.  The €200k guy will have reduced spending power in the housing market and the benefactors on lower incomes will have increased spending power thus creating redistributitive effects in housing.


----------



## Firefly

Duke of Marmalade said:


> The basic point though is that redistribution only means anything if it refers to goods and services.  Money, taxation etc. are only means to that end.  So maybe a better example is housing.  The €200k guy will have reduced spending power in the housing market and the benefactors on lower incomes will have increased spending power thus creating redistributitive effects in housing.



Except that the 200k guy and those lower down may now be competing on the same house


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

Actually _Purple_ I haven't given up on health services as an example, despite the distortions of the two tier system.

Let us simplify our assumptions as follows. 

At a point in time there are a fixed amount of health services available and at a fixed price. 

The person with private health insurance certainly gets a better service in terms of waiting times for elective procedures.  They may be paying through the nose or on the double but they clearly think it's worth it. 

Take €8k off them and many will change that assessment and reduce their cover or go public altogether.  So less people with preference in the queue and so lower  waiting times for the rest.  In other words a redistribution of the available health services.

Getting back to >€2m p.a. woman, imposing a super tax on her will not impact her spending on health insurance one iota, indeed she probably self insures.


----------



## Purple

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Take €8k off them and many will change that assessment and reduce their cover or go public altogether. So less people with preference in the queue and so lower waiting times for the rest. In other words a redistribution of the available health services.


 If nobody had private health insurance there would be no private hospitals and so less healthcare capacity available in the State. Therefore more people will be in the public hospital queue; the State would have to spend more money on healthcare. 
Private health insurance is, in effect, a subsidy on the public healthcare system.


----------



## Firefly

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Getting back to >€2m p.a. woman, imposing a super tax on her will not impact her spending on health insurance one iota, indeed she probably self insures.



Interesting point. I'm curious as to what people think the break-even point would be for say a 40 year-old in good health. How much money could be put into a bank account to meet the need for "going private" without paying the VHI/LAYA/Others. I'll start a thread....


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

Purple said:


> If nobody had private health insurance there would be no private hospitals and so less healthcare capacity available in the State. Therefore more people will be in the public hospital queue; the State would have to spend more money on healthcare.
> Private health insurance is, in effect, a subsidy on the public healthcare system.


I think I'll drop the health insurance motif, too complicated  As you point out the two tier system acts as a sort of progressive charge for healthcare, people in private insurance pay over the odds.  So if a highly progressive income tax is imposed, it will be partially cancelled by the extent to which affected folk drop out of private health insurance.

Under my assumptions the healthcare resources are still there and society's capacity to pay for them in aggregate is still there so the status quo could be maintained from a macro economic point of view but it would need an increase in general taxation to pay for it.


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> We're not talking about equality, we're talking about whether you support _equality of outcome_. You would tax (small) cohort of people to such an extent that they would have the same income. Using your figures, it would currently affect 300 people. Nothing stopping that 2m magic number from being reduced to bring more people in. This is equality of outcome and it's a pity you and the other socialist posters on here  cannot admit it.



Legislation would be required for such a proposal. In my example 0.015% of the workforce would be directly affected. Arguably, not a penal amount. If greater numbers of worker's begin to get caught by such a proposal, then the €2m is raised to keep the number of worker's at 0.015%.
As stated the nuts and bolts needs to be scrutinized.
Furthermore, I would propose that any income limit would not be restricted to the year in question, but perhaps over a 7yr business cycle. For instance, if I earned €1m in 2010, €1.5m in 2011, €3m in 2012, then the unearned portion of incomes could be used to offset against the income limit. If I continuously earn €2m+ thereafter, I will eventually get caught.
But furthermore if I do get caught with the income limit, the 100% contribution will also be used in times in the future where perhaps I am only earning average income. For instance, if I ever paid income at 100% in the past and I now find myself earning an income of less than €2m. The 100% contribution made in previous years, can be used to offset against my tax liability due on my lower income. E.g. I have contributed €1m in 100% over last 7yrs. My business however goes bust and I have taken a €75,000 a year consultancy post. Typically I will pay 40% tax, but considering the €1m 100% I can now write off any tax liability for the next 7yrs.


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> Legislation would be required for such a proposal. In my example 0.015% of the workforce would be directly affected. Arguably, not a penal amount. If greater numbers of worker's begin to get caught by such a proposal, then the €2m is raised to keep the number of worker's at 0.015%.
> As stated the nuts and bolts needs to be scrutinized.
> Furthermore, I would propose that any income limit would not be restricted to the year in question, but perhaps over a 7yr business cycle. For instance, if I earned €1m in 2010, €1.5m in 2011, €3m in 2012, then the unearned portion of incomes could be used to offset against the income limit. If I continuously earn €2m+ thereafter, I will eventually get caught.
> But furthermore if I do get caught with the income limit, the 100% contribution will also be used in times in the future where perhaps I am only earning average income. For instance, if I ever paid income at 100% in the past and I now find myself earning an income of less than €2m. The 100% contribution made in previous years, can be used to offset against my tax liability due on my lower income. E.g. I have contributed €1m in 100% over last 7yrs. My business however goes bust and I have taken a €75,000 a year consultancy post. Typically I will pay 40% tax, but considering the €1m 100% I can now write off any tax liability for the next 7yrs.



It's a pity you didn't think of this a few pages back and it seems overly complicated to me. To be honest, it seems like you're squirming out of accepting your proposal is an equality of outcome measure, which it is.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> Are you suggesting that business owners will expand and take risks and employ more people and generate more tax revenue for the State if there is no financial gain for them?



In general no, but in general the financial gains you speak still fall way short of the €2m income limit. That is why there are only 300 odd people earning those sums.
To earn that much money is actually quite rare amongst the population. So overall, the income limit will not act as a deterrent.



Purple said:


> Do you think that a person who is on the average wage has the same influence as someone worth billions?



No, but collectively, average income earners can exert influence.



Purple said:


> Social Partnership was a good example.



All done through the mechanisms of the State.



Purple said:


> Do you really believe that lobbying, by Unions and others, is transparent to the public?!



Broadly yes.



Purple said:


> Billionaires who can fund a Party or Unions which can break one.



There are transparent rules to funding political parties.



Firefly said:


> That's true and he's not added you to his "ignore list" either



There is an "ignore list"??


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> It's a pity you didn't think of this a few pages back



To be fair, I was asked a question about income limits, this was my answer.




TheBigShort said:


> _*the nuts and bolts of such a proposal would need in-depth scrutiny.*_ But in essence it refers to the personal income of an individual as distinct personal wealth. There would be nothing stopping anyone from acquiring personal wealth greater than €2m, stocks, property, investments etc. What it would boil down to is effectively a €2m a year lifestyle



The proposal would need a thread of its own. There is nothing overtly complicated about. I think a similar 7yr business tax cycle exists for corporations, where losses in one year can be offset against profits a following year. Although I could be wrong on that.

I have stated that the purpose is not to gather more taxes, but rather to develop a social norm as to what is more than adequate for any individual to live on in this society. It equates to roughly 100 times the minimum wage.
Most of us, including me, would like to win the Euro millions jackpot. Most of us, I would suggest, accept that the jackpot can reach to levels of income beyond any rationality.


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> I have stated that the purpose is not to gather more taxes, but rather to develop a social norm as to what is more than adequate for any individual to live on in this society. It equates to roughly 100 times the minimum wage.
> Most of us, including me, would like to win the Euro millions jackpot. Most of us, I would suggest, accept that the jackpot can reach to levels of income beyond any rationality.



More fluff but I'm not surprised. You have proposed an equality of outcome measure, correct me if I am wrong.


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> More fluff but I'm not surprised. You have proposed an equality of outcome measure, correct me if I am wrong.



You are corrected.

I sense you getting hung up on this like when thought I supported the Soviet Union, or when you thought I was xenophobic, or when you thought I was somehow discriminatory against young people. 
I have already stated that your definition of equality of outcome obviously differs from mine. So perhaps you would like to define it?


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> You are corrected.


I don't see how.



TheBigShort said:


> I have already stated that your definition of equality of outcome obviously differs from mine. So perhaps you would like to define it?



Incorrect again. You stated our definitions of equality are different, not _equality of outcome_. When you force even 2 people to have the same income you are applying an equality of outcome measure.


----------



## Firefly

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Maybe we could get a better feel for your position if you could tell us which country, say in Europe, most  approximates this objective at the present time.  If it is your view that nowhere meets the objective then you should remove the phrase in bold from your statement.



@BigShort. Have you had time to think?


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> @BigShort. Have you had time to think?


I responded to the comment way back on page 16.


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> I responded to the comment way back on page 16.


Sorry, don't see it. Post # ?


----------



## TheBigShort

Apologies, I meant our definition of equality of outcome.
The #post number doesn't display for me.


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> Apologies, I meant our definition of equality of outcome.



Do you accept, for the few hundred people earning more than 2m a year, that your proposal to implement a 100% tax in incomes over 2m would result in them having the same income? (It's kinda basic maths).



TheBigShort said:


> The #post number doesn't display for me.



It should be just to the left of the _Like MultiquoteQuote Reply_ options. Failing that could you repost the entry?


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> Do you accept, for the few hundred people earning more than 2m a year, that your proposal to implement a 100% tax in incomes over 2m would result in them having the same income? (It's kinda basic maths).



Yes. And you have identified an equality of outcome for those people. Similarly, an employers trying to keep their wage costs low are faced with an equality of outcome when they reach the level of minimum wage. Similarly, if I am caught speeding in my car and receive €80 fine and 3 points, the same as everybody else, that is equality of outcome. Similarly if I get 90% in my test and you get 91% we both receive a grade A, that is equality of outcome.
There are dozens of examples on a daily basis that equates to equality of outcome - but I was talking in the context of a society organized around equality of outcome. In this instance it refers to wages, and in no way shape or form could I agree that an income limit, applicable to 0.015% of the workforce equates to a society organised around the concept of equality of outcome.




Firefly said:


> It should be just to the left of the _Like MultiquoteQuote Reply_ options. Failing that could you repost the entry?



Ireland was mentioned as an example of a country in the post I responded to. My response was this;



TheBigShort said:


> True, I would go further to state that we live in one of (or in a group of) the wealthiest, most developed and safest countries in the world.
> I agree about the safety net , or those that fall through it. It is hard to envisage a society that is all things to all people.
> Take homelessness for instance, an age old problem that is hard, for multiple reasons, to wholly eradicate. Nevertheless, when the homelessness _rate _starts to increase, coupled with a new demographic (working people, with families), then something is going wrong that wasn't occurring previously.
> It is simply not sufficient to dismiss what is happening as a consequence of the market, or some 'invisible hand', or as the failure of public sector worker's to deliver the service.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> Similarly if I get 90% in my test and you get 91% we both receive a grade A, that is equality of outcome.


 If the class was told that all results were going to be added together and they were all going to get the average score; that would be equality of outcome.
What you are proposing is something like the class being told that nobody was going to get over 90% and any score above that was going to be cut to 90% and those points would be given to those who got the lowest grade. That should be considered fair because only a small number of people get over 90%.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

Ah now _Purple_ those are kinda cheap shots  I must admit I missed the origins of the "equality of outcomes" motif and felt a lot of its later life was rather dancing on pins.

It is indeed interesting though, if I read _BigShort_ correctly, that s/he reads current Irish society as fairly nearly achieving his/her objectives *in* *so* *far* *as* *is* *practical*.  Maybe we are nearing the end of this 19 page thread, though it would be nice to hit the even score


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> If the class was told that all results were going to be added together and they were all going to get the average score; that would be equality of outcome.
> What you are proposing is something like the class being told that nobody was going to get over 90% and any score above that was going to be cut to 90% and those points would be given to those who got the lowest grade. That should be considered fair because only a small number of people get over 90%.



So, to be clear, what I'm proposing is *not equality of outcome?*


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> So, to be clear, what I'm proposing is *not equality of outcome?*


Not universal no, but it's a step in that direction and, in my opinion, unfair.
(I never said it was BTW).

Do you think the classroom scenario I outlined above would be fair? 
I don't. I do think that more of the teaching resources should be directed towards the people at the bottom of the class but I don't think there should be a maximum grade set, with anyone achieving higher than that grade having their results cut.


----------



## Purple

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Ah now _Purple_ those are kinda cheap shots  I must admit I missed the origins of the "equality of outcomes" motif and felt a lot of its later life was rather dancing on pins.
> 
> It is indeed interesting though, if I read _BigShort_ correctly, that s/he reads current Irish society as fairly nearly achieving his/her objectives *in* *so* *far* *as* *is* *practical*.  Maybe we are nearing the end of this 19 page thread, though it would be nice to hit the even score


No, this is like a TV soap; we can just keep having the same broad conversations over and over again and sure what harm, it's only a discussion on the inter-web.


----------



## TheBigShort

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Maybe we are nearing the end of this 19 page thread, though it would be nice to hit the even score



I'm kinda still warming up to be honest! 
It takes a while, but it generally works in this pattern - a thread is opened that identifies an apparent anomaly in our tax and welfare system that purports to disproportionately disadvantage higher earners over lower earners and welfare recipients.
I generally take the side against the proposal and a debate of ensues until such time as that at least the spirit of one contributor has been broken! 
All good fun though!


----------



## jjm

It is good fun but I have yet to see your point of view not winning out where it counts(With the Government of the day) TheBigShort wins here and where it counts,


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

My dear _Purple_ it is well recognised that our tax system is to some extent redistributitive.  I don't think any case can possibly be made that marking of exams should to any extent be redistributive, nor do I think it is reasonable to imply that it would be a logical consequence of BigShort's argument.

Actually the 7 year refinement introduced latterly by B/S addresses many of the obvious flaws such as the absence of incentive above the threshold.

As an aside I note that far from weariness or closure setting in on this thread we are here for the long haul.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> Not universal no, but it's a step in that direction and, in my opinion, unfair.
> (I never said it was BTW).



Thank you. And when the issue of equality of outcome arose, I took it as organising society as a whole in such a fashion. I would be opposed to that. But at micro levels, e.g., if I break a speed limit and you do too, and your income is twice mine, but we both pay the same fine (equality of outcome), is that fair?



Purple said:


> Do you think the classroom scenario I outlined above would be fair?



No, but while it doesn't occur like that, at a micro level it still happens. If I get 100%, you get 91% we both get A1 grade (equality of outcome). Is that fair?


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> Thank you. And when the issue of equality of outcome arose, I took it as organising society as a whole in such a fashion. I would be opposed to that. But at micro levels, e.g., if I break a speed limit and you do too, and your income is twice mine, but we both pay the same fine (equality of outcome), is that fair?
> 
> 
> 
> No, but while it doesn't occur like that, at a micro level it still happens. If I get 100%, you get 91% we both get A1 grade (equality of outcome). Is that fair?


That's different, that's grouping scores. I'm talking about a scenario where 90% gives an A1 and all scores above that are redistributed to those who scored less. That's what your suggestion is analogous with. 

Anyway, those earning over €2 million a year will be able to leave the country or do an Apple on it and just not bring that income back into the country, i.e. keep it as a asset and not draw it as income.


----------



## TheBigShort

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Actually the 7 year refinement introduced latterly by B/S addresses many of the obvious flaws such as the absence of incentive above the threshold.



This would be part of the nuts and bolts of the proposal to be scrutinized in-depth. 
The purpose is not to disincentive or penalize talent and wealth. But to recognize, as we do, that there is something wrong in the world when starving children are advertised on tv for drumming up token contributions whilst simultaneously, some property 'tycoon' in Iceland, who buys a private jet designed with the same pin strips as his suit can effectively bankrupt his country!
That is all I am saying. It's great to be rich, I want to be rich, but surely there is a limit?


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> Anyway, those earning over €2 million a year will be able to leave the country or do an Apple on it and just not bring that income back into the country, i.e. keep it as a asset and not draw it as income.



First, I did mention earlier that it would not affect the wealth generated in assets. E.g. if I earn €1.5m and spent €50,000 on Bitcoin at €100 a coin, today I would be looking at €1m bitcoin value. No problem there, still in the €2m income limit. 

If I liquidate that value, coupled with my €1.5m income, I breach the €2m threshold and am liable for 100% tax. 
Alternatively, if bitcoin was a once off, and I earn only €1.5m the following year, I can begin the process of retrieving the 100% tax liability.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> This would be part of the nuts and bolts of the proposal to be scrutinized in-depth.
> The purpose is not to disincentive or penalize talent and wealth. But to recognize, as we do, that there is something wrong in the world when starving children are advertised on tv for drumming up token contributions whilst simultaneously, some property 'tycoon' in Iceland, who buys a private jet designed with the same pin strips as his suit can effectively bankrupt his country!
> That is all I am saying. It's great to be rich, I want to be rich, but surely there is a limit?


I agree on the intent but I disagree with the cause and effect bit in that the reason there are starving kids isn't because there are billionaires but because average people want their incomes protected from open trade so we distort markets to our advantage at a scale that billionaires could never dream of and because we want cheap petrol and cheap clothes and cheap toys. 
Try looking for ethical toy brands to go with your ethical investment funds. Try looking for clothes brands which guarantee that their supply chain does not exploit children or pollute the environment. We buy Fair Trade coffee and think we are so right-on but then we dump our massively subsidised produce on poor countries while putting massive barriers in the way of their produce, thus forcing down their wages and their environmental standards.  

It is too easy to blame someone else, in this case "the rich" for the inequities in this world but we all have a part in it and to someone scratching out a living in some war torn part of the Horn of Africa the wealth of the vast majority of us in inequitable and immoral. 
So, I'm all for doing something (though I don't know what that something is) about the increasing concentration of wealth among the super rich in the world, and I don't think any of them are Irish, but that is only a small part of a larger problem if we are really interested in a just world, not just equity in our myopic bubble, floating in a sea of suffering.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> First, I did mention earlier that it would not affect the wealth generated in assets. E.g. if I earn €1.5m and spent €50,000 on Bitcoin at €100 a coin, today I would be looking at €1m bitcoin value. No problem there, still in the €2m income limit.
> 
> If I liquidate that value, coupled with my €1.5m income, I breach the €2m threshold and am liable for 100% tax.
> Alternatively, if bitcoin was a once off, and I earn only €1.5m the following year, I can begin the process of retrieving the 100% tax liability.


Ok, but then wealth just stays in assets. You are in a difficult situation here as you are speaking in broad terms and being analysed on the minutia. I see the problem with people who earn hundreds of millions a year due to their control of vast asset portfolios and businesses as being the problem. They are effectively trans-national, just like the biggest companies. That is what we need to look at and it requires a global solution.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> I'm kinda still warming up to be honest!
> It takes a while, but it generally works in this pattern - a thread is opened that identifies an apparent anomaly in our tax and welfare system that purports to disproportionately disadvantage higher earners over lower earners and welfare recipients.
> I generally take the side against the proposal and a debate of ensues until such time as that at least the spirit of one contributor has been broken!
> All good fun though!


Lol


----------



## Purple

Duke of Marmalade said:


> My dear _Purple_ it is well recognised that our tax system is to some extent redistributitive.  I don't think any case can possibly be made that marking of exams should to any extent be redistributive, nor do I think it is reasonable to imply that it would be a logical consequence of BigShort's argument.


 Why? He wants to take all income earned above a certain amount and redistribute to those who have less. My argument is that such an absolutist scheme would mean people just stop creating wealth beyond the point at which it will generate the maximum income. By the same tolken students who knew that all marks above 90% would be taken from them would only work hard enough to achieve a 90% score. 



Duke of Marmalade said:


> Actually the 7 year refinement introduced latterly by B/S addresses many of the obvious flaws such as the absence of incentive above the threshold.


 No, it just creates a whole industry for tax evasion, sorry, avoidance, lawyers and accountants. 



Duke of Marmalade said:


> As an aside I note that far from weariness or closure setting in on this thread we are here for the long haul.


 Absolutely.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> Ok, but then wealth just stays in assets. You are in a difficult situation here as you are speaking in broad terms and being analysed on the minutia. I see the problem with people who earn hundreds of millions a year due to their control of vast asset portfolios and businesses as being the problem. They are effectively trans-national, just like the biggest companies. That is what we need to look at and it requires a global solution.



This is a fair point. But it fails to grab the concept of a maximum personal disposable income of €2m.
You are correct in identifying people who earn vast sums of money and controlling asset wealth simultaneously. But if liquid income was limited to say, €2m a year, then the picture would change.
I may live in a house that is worth €3m, but if I can't afford to turn the lights on, what is the point? Logically speaking, I liquidate my €3m, subject to 7yr income cycle, I don't get caught with 100% tax over that time. I live accordingly and that wealth is liquid in the economy.
Similarly, I may own assets of €1bn. But if I am limited to a €2m a year lifestyle (there are only 300 people in Ireland who breach this limit), then so what? 
What good is falling on a fortune like say, 1% Facebook shareholding, if you can't spend it! 
But such wealth is not to be dismissed, gauranteed is a minimum lifestyle of €2m a year, indexed linked, for the rest of your life. Knowing also, that the wealth you have generated is slowly, but surely, being transferred to others, further enabling the productive and innovative process to the next generation.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> He wants to take all income earned above a certain amount and redistribute to those who have less.



No, that is not the point. I want a maximum income, set at a level that is almost universally desirable and simultaneously attainable (evidenced by our existing 300 €2m+ earners) to all.
However, I do want to eradicate, what I perceive to be unwanted and wholly unnecessary levels of wealth, in the control of a tiny proportion of people and, more importantly, held in that control, by virtue of the lavish lifestyles that such wealth control bestows them. Wealth that is ultimately generated by the input of thousands of fellow citizens, directly and indirectly, many of whom, through their honest efforts still struggle to keep their heads, and their families heads, above water.

€2m a year, 300 odd people, instead of wanting more, it is time to relinquish control over wealth.



Purple said:


> My argument is that such an absolutist scheme would mean people just stop creating wealth beyond the point at which it will generate the maximum income



Your argument does not stand up.



Purple said:


> it just creates a whole industry for tax evasion, sorry, avoidance, lawyers and accountants.



No, it doesn't. The market is only 300 people.


----------



## losttheplot

Is excessive income not redistributed when money is spent. Even if it's left in a bank, the bank can lend it out. If it's invested in business it creates employment.
Unless its all kept under the mattress, it's probably doing something beneficial for society.


----------



## TheBigShort

losttheplot said:


> Is excessive income not redistributed when money is spent. Even if it's left in a bank, the bank can lend it out. If it's invested in business it creates employment.
> Unless its all kept under the mattress, it's probably doing something beneficial for society.



That's a fair point. But again I would reiterate


----------



## Firefly

losttheplot said:


> Is excessive income not redistributed when money is spent. Even if it's left in a bank, the bank can lend it out. If it's invested in business it creates employment.
> Unless its all kept under the mattress, it's probably doing something beneficial for society.



Welcome to the thread and good post. Just hope you don't end up becoming your user name!


----------



## losttheplot

I think there was a suggestion a while back about limiting the length of threads to 2 pages. As this thread is now on 20 pages, I propose that the excess 18 pages be redistributed among the other threads.

One are where I think there should be a limit is some public pensions - especially the TDs who end up with the TDs and ministers pensions. These should be capped or means tested. If you've grown use to Charvet shirts and fine wines, then you should provide for it yourself.


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> In this instance it refers to wages, and in no way shape or form could I agree that an income limit, applicable to 0.015% of the workforce equates to a society organised around the concept of equality of outcome.



I disagree. Granted 2m is a nice chunk of change but for a lot of growing businesses with a lot of employess that could be achievable. When deciding where to locate and invest, knowing there is a ceiling would act as a deterrent. 



TheBigShort said:


> Ireland was mentioned as an example of a country in the post I responded to. My response was this;



You were asked "which country, say in Europe, most approximates this objective at the present time." Is your answer Ireland?


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> No, that is not the point. I want a maximum income, set at a level that is almost universally desirable and simultaneously attainable (evidenced by our existing 300 €2m+ earners) to all.
> However, _I do want to eradicate, what I perceive to be unwanted and wholly unnecessary levels of *wealth*_, in the control of a tiny proportion of people and, more importantly, held in that control, by virtue of the lavish lifestyles that such wealth control bestows them.



Until now you have said you would tax _income _over 2m a year at 100%. Are you also suggesting a wealth tax too?


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> Until now you have said you would tax _income _over 2m a year at 100%. Are you also suggesting a wealth tax too?



Just to reiterate



TheBigShort said:


> the nuts and bolts of such a proposal would need in-depth scrutiny. But in essence it refers to the personal income of an individual as distinct personal wealth. There would be nothing stopping anyone from acquiring personal wealth greater than €2m, stocks, property, investments etc. What it would boil down to is effectively a €2m a year lifestyle.



The consequence of this, over a period of time, if such a proposal were adopted as a social norm, would be the eventual eradication of socially unjust controls of excessive wealth.
It is fine to have €1bn in a bank account, but what odds? Your lifestyle is restricted to €2m a year. As mentioned above, €1bn sitting in a bank account will be used to lend and invest into the economy at large - no change there. All that will happen is that money will recycle its way back into the economy and out of the control of one individual.
The bank will act as an effective conduit between those who create the wealth and those who benefit. Without a income limit, there is nothing to stop an individual placing €20m on black in a casino. The result being a massive transfer of wealth between two entities - the casino and the individual.
And yes, if the casino wins (invariably), the money can lie in a vault doing precious little. Alternatively the punter wins and buys a private island, a private jet, a castle, and a fleet of bespoke automobiles. All very nice, but mostly unproductive. Hoarding of wealth is another term for it.
A bank lending that money has greater scope to impact on all levels of society at anyone time.
Ultimately the point will be, why bother acquiring such vast sums of wealth? It's not as if €2m a year is insufficient?


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort, why not just have high inheritance taxes? Most people with vast incomes get it from inter-generational wealth.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> TheBigShort, why not just have high inheritance taxes? Most people with vast incomes get it from inter-generational wealth.



That would certainly be a consideration. But one problem is once the inheritance is acquired, an individual could be saddled with a tax liability that they can't afford to pay. In turn forcing the sale of assets, some with considerable sentimental value (family home etc). This builds resentment and in turn resistance.
I'm not seeking either, I'm seeking to establish, as a social norm, that the acquisition of extreme levels of personal wealth becomes a thing of past, a fruitless endeavor.


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> The consequence of this, over a period of time, if such a proposal were adopted as a social norm, would be the eventual eradication of socially unjust controls of excessive wealth.
> It is fine to have €1bn in a bank account, but what odds? Your lifestyle is restricted to €2m a year.



That's my point. If you can only take out 2m a year you are not going to take out any more as it will just be taken in full. The end result is that it would sit there. Any billionaire worth his/her salt would get a return of more than 2% so they would just continue to get richer. How would this eradicate their wealth? If there was a tax tomorrow of 100% on any income over 25k a year and you were in control of how much you took as salary, would you pay yourself more than 25k?




TheBigShort said:


> As mentioned above, €1bn sitting in a bank account will be used to lend and invest into the economy at large - no change there. All that will happen is that money will recycle its way back into the economy and out of the control of one individual.
> The bank will act as an effective conduit between those who create the wealth and those who benefit.
> 
> A bank lending that money has greater scope to impact on all levels of society at anyone time.



Would these be the same banks who chase unfettered profits and give lavish bonuses to their executives?
The devil would be in the detail there.



TheBigShort said:


> Without a income limit, there is nothing to stop an individual placing €20m on black in a casino. The result being a massive transfer of wealth between two entities - the casino and the individual.
> And yes, if the casino wins (invariably), the money can lie in a vault doing precious little. Alternatively the punter wins and buys a private island, a private jet, a castle, and a fleet of bespoke automobiles. All very nice, but mostly unproductive.



You could say that about someone who buys expensive things like paying 10k for a bicycle or 1k for the latest iPhone when they could buy something cheaper. All that money being spent on something unproductive? Shouldn't they just buy cheaper bikes and phones and shouldn't their income be instead re-distributed? Where do you draw the line?



TheBigShort said:


> Ultimately the point will be, why bother acquiring such vast sums of wealth? It's not as if €2m a year is insufficient?



If you were told that you were going to be paid for Mon-Wed and anything you do on Thur & Fri you wouldn't be paid for would you come in on Thur & Fri? If Mark Zuckerberg knew his income would be limited to 2m a year would he have grown Facebook to a size that employs 17k workers?


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> That would certainly be a consideration. But one problem is once the inheritance is acquired, an individual could be saddled with a tax liability that they can't afford to pay. In turn forcing the sale of assets, some with considerable sentimental value (family home etc). This builds resentment and in turn resistance.


 So you can live in a €20,000,000 house and have another billion in assets as long as you don't have an income over €2 million? If someone has assets but cannot generate an income from them why would they bother putting those assets to productive use?



TheBigShort said:


> I'm seeking to establish, as a social norm, that the acquisition of extreme levels of personal wealth becomes a thing of past, a fruitless endeavor.


 Why? Is €2 million a year an extreme level of personal wealth? You are talking about consultant doctors, solicitors, barristers, etc. At the moment there is a considerable amount of tax evasion by those people (consultants don't insist on being paid in cash for nothing). We'll just see far more of it with your proposal. 

If you want a fair society you'll also have to tackle welfare fraud and the black economy. There are far more than 300 people involved there, probably more like 300,000 people. It is a bit much to say that someone can't earn above X amount while there are others who can not bother to work at all, no legally anyway,  and live their entire lives off others.


----------



## Purple

Firefly said:


> If you were told that you were going to be paid for Mon-Wed and anything you do on Thur & Fri you wouldn't be paid for would you come in on Thur & Fri?


 That's what happens to me now. It's called income tax! I still come in though but Thursday and Friday are the two days a week I work in indentured servitude to the State.


----------



## Firefly

Purple said:


> That's what happens to me now. It's called income tax! I still come in though but Thursday and Friday are the two days a week I work in indentured servitude to the State.



Explains why you're so grumpy on Fridays!


----------



## Firefly

Purple said:


> That's what happens to me now. It's called income tax! I still come in though but Thursday and Friday are the two days a week I work in indentured servitude to the State.



On a serious note though, imagine if you didn't have to come in to work on Thur and Fri yet received the same after tax income, would you bother?


----------



## Purple

Firefly said:


> On a serious note though, imagine if you didn't have to come in to work on Thur and Fri yet received the same after tax income, would you bother?


No, of course not. Who would?


----------



## Firefly

Purple said:


> No, of course not. Who would?



And that's the problem with socialism


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> The end result is that it would sit there. Any billionaire worth his/her salt would get a return of more than 2% so they would just continue to get richer. How would this eradicate their wealth?



True, but it is effectively notional wealth. It actually has no intrinsic value, or very little, as it is effectively redundant in the possession of someone who already earns €2m a year.



Firefly said:


> If there was a tax tomorrow of 100% on any income over 25k a year and you were in control of how much you took as salary, would you pay yourself more than 25k?



Over a 7yr business cycle, absolutely, I would want to guarantee my income as much s possible in the event of a job loss.
But I still wouldn't propose such a notion as that would be organising society around equality of outcome (have you moved on from that?) given the vast number of working people it would affect.



Firefly said:


> Would these be the same banks who chase unfettered profits and give lavish bonuses to their executives?
> The devil would be in the detail there.



Accept lavish bonuses and salaries greater than €2m wouldn't be a thing of the past. Speaking of bankers, BoI recently appointed a new CEO on €950,000 pa, assuming a bonus of €950k on top and even this banker would not be affected by a€2m income cap.



Firefly said:


> You could say that about someone who buys expensive things like paying 10k for a bicycle or 1k for the latest iPhone when they could buy something cheaper. All that money being spent on something unproductive?



True, there is waste at all levels, and it will be a tall order to eradicate it all. But perhaps a starting point would be to identity excessive waste.



Firefly said:


> If Mark Zuckerberg knew his income would be limited to 2m a year would he have grown Facebook to a size that employs 17k workers?



Mark Zukerberg is a US citizen. Like minimum wage, a max wage would vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. The €2m cap I propose is a ball park figure. In the US there is an income limit for NFL players, albeit it is massive at something like $167m a year.
Zukerberg intends to give 99% of his wealth away. Perhaps he has his own notion of what is a sufficient amount of wealth to possess? Obviously, it differs to me, but the principle appears to be similar, ditto Gates, and various other multi millionaires.



Purple said:


> So you can live in a €20,000,000 house and have another billion in assets as long as you don't have an income over €2 million? I



But realistically, would a house ever be worth €20,000,000 if it was known that nobody had access to greater than €2m a year? An income limit would put a downward pressure on over inflated asset prices.



Purple said:


> If someone has assets but cannot generate an income from them why would they bother putting those assets to productive use?



If you don't put them to productive use, your competitor will. If the product is viable and marketable, someone, if not you, will take the opportunity. Isn't that the 'invisible hand'?



Purple said:


> Why? Is €2 million a year an extreme level of personal wealth? You are talking about consultant doctors, solicitors, barristers, etc. At the moment there is a considerable amount of tax evasion by those people (consultants don't insist on being paid in cash for nothing). We'll just see far more of it with your proposal.



No, €2m is not an extreme level of wealth. It is a ball park figure. Raise it to €3m if you want. The point is, that it is certainly sufficient, attainable, but broadly out of reach for 99.985% of the population. 



Purple said:


> It is a bit much to say that someone can't earn above X amount



It only matters if it affects you directly. It makes no odds to me as I don't come anyway near it, nor likely to. It only affects some 300 people in Ireland. Raise the cap to €3m and you may only be talking about 50-100 people.



Purple said:


> That's what happens to me now. It's called income tax! I still come in though but Thursday and Friday are the two days a week I work in indentured servitude to the State.



So Fireflys notion that you wouldn't come in was wrong.



Firefly said:


> On a serious note though, imagine if you didn't have to come in to work on Thur and Fri yet received the same after tax income, would you bother?



Bother with what exactly?


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> On a serious note though, imagine if you didn't have to come in to work on Thur and Fri yet received the same after tax income, would you bother?



So if I earn €300 mon-wed, and if I come in Thur-Fri, and still end up with €300 why wouldn't I bother? Is that it?


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

If you have earned €50k by Wednesday why bother coming in Thursday/Friday no matter what the tax rate?

And the point is that when you get to those income levels you are running out of days of the week to spend it.  So I guess most of the guys in this bracket who do continue to work are doing so for different reasons than accumulating more spending power.

And the further point is I don't thing B/S 7 year 100% scheme would of itself put them off.


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> True, there is waste at all levels, and it will be a tall order to eradicate it all. _But perhaps a starting point_ would be to identity excessive waste.



This is exactly why I am against your proposal. As you have stated yourself, capping income at 2m a year would only affect a tiny proportion of people who can still live a good life on 2m a year. As they would leave anything greater than 2m in their companies it would yield nothing in taxes. It would be oh so tempting then to reduce the 2m cap downwards. Where would the line be drawn? 1m? 500k?. The People Before Logic have targeted 100k for special treatment.....

Don't get me wrong. I think the concentration of wealth in the world today is wrong when we have so many people in need. However I don't think an income limit is the answer. Sadly I don't have a concrete answer myself and on this point I respect that you have provided a proposal. I just don't see it working as if it was possible, I would think it would have been tried _somewhere _at this stage.



TheBigShort said:


> Mark Zukerberg is a US citizen. Like minimum wage, a max wage would vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.



This is exactly why your proposal would fail. Unless it was introduced at a global level it opens the door for the super-rich to relocate. Even if that vast majority of countries complied with your proposal those that remain outside the agreement would benefit handsomly.


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> As they would leave anything greater than 2m in their companies it would yield nothing in taxes.



If left in companies it would increase the capital base of that company. If left in a company it would be managed by managers of the company who are paid to utilize the capital base of the company to produce more goods, to innovate, to research, to market etc. If left in the company, the wealth is more likely to be used effectively and productively in the economy creating jobs, than under a mattress as cash, or as bar of gold in a vault, or hanging on a wall as an over-inflated work of art.



Firefly said:


> It would be oh so tempting then to reduce the 2m cap downwards. Where would the line be drawn? 1m? 500k?. The People Before Logic have targeted 100k for special treatment.....



I've already said the proposal would be protected by legislation. There is nothing to stop any political party proposing we abandon the euro and instead trade in cabbage leaves - it wont get the political support. The €100K limit with PBP refers to a higher rate of income tax, typically 50%. That is not what this is about. This is setting a max income at a bar so high, that only around 300 are going to be directly affected. The other 99.985% of the working population will not be directly affected.



Firefly said:


> I would think it would have been tried somewhere at this stage.



Given the level of opposition on this site for even proposing any form of increase on tax on higher earners, then it is easy to see why it does not fly too often. But as I have mentioned, the nuts and bolts would need to be scutinised in-depth. For instance, I proposed a 100% tax, or reducing it to 99.9%. That didn't wash with you, fair enough. But what about a 90% tax? In the US in the 1950's an era of great prosperity, a 90% tax was in place on incomes levels, adjusted for inflation of $3,400,000 a year or about €3m .




Firefly said:


> Unless it was introduced at a global level it opens the door for the super-rich to relocate. Even if that vast majority of countries complied with your proposal those that remain outside the agreement would benefit handsomly.



I don't necessarily agree. Ideally yes, or at least EU level. But if we are talking effectively about a tiny group of individuals, then I don't see how it makes any odds. Remember we are talking about personal income. Zukerberg, Gates, etc, etc don't live here so no odds. The only concern would be the people that currently reside here and it would be worth noting what it is they do to earn their incomes. Here is a sample list of professions that could possibly earning €2m +



Purple said:


> You are talking about consultant doctors, solicitors, barristers,



Each of which are actually reliant on the Irish market, on their Irish clientele in order to earn their living. It is simply not reasonable to assume a barrister earning €5m a year will head off the America and automatically start making that income for themselves once again. Even if they did, another capable barrister will fill the void. Furthermore, don't these people have families? Social contacts? Mortgages, school children....a high quality of life? Are you suggesting that they will all pack up and leave? So be it, the barrister who is earning €1m a year can pick up some of the slack and increase his/her income level to €2m - opportunities abound!


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> If left in companies it would increase the capital base of that company. If left in a company it would be managed by managers of the company who are paid to utilize the capital base of the company to produce more goods, to innovate, to research, to market etc.



Ha! Sounds like trickle down economics!! Very surprising for a socialst! Again, the devil would be in the detail.



TheBigShort said:


> I've already said the proposal would be protected by legislation. There is nothing to stop any political party proposing we abandon the euro and instead trade in cabbage leaves - it wont get the political support.



It would be a lot easier to reduce the 2m limit to 1m than to introduce a cabbage currency!




TheBigShort said:


> This is setting a max income at a bar so high, that only around 300 are going to be directly affected. The other 99.985% of the working population will not be directly affected.



So why really bother then? As you say, they can easliy live comfortably in 2m. They'll leave anything above 2m in their companies. The tax take won't change so is it just to a measure to bring them closer to everyone else for the sake of it?



TheBigShort said:


> Given the level of opposition on this site for even proposing any form of increase on tax on higher earners, then it is easy to see why it does not fly too often.



This is a relatively small site. I'm not sure even Venezuela in it's socilaist hey-day in Chavez's times even imposed a maximum income limit. Has this been implemented anywhere????



TheBigShort said:


> I don't necessarily agree. Ideally yes, or at least EU level. But if we are talking effectively about a tiny group of individuals, then I don't see how it makes any odds.



Again, why bother then?!




TheBigShort said:


> Each of which are actually reliant on the Irish market, on their Irish clientele in order to earn their living. It is simply not reasonable to assume a barrister earning €5m a year will head off the America and automatically start making that income for themselves once again.



I'm not saying they would. Someone pulling in 2-3 million would probably just stay here and only take out 2m. Someone pulling in 20m could easily spend 181 days per year somewhere like Monaco or Portugal for tax purposes.


----------



## Firefly

@BigShort. Once again (3rd time I believe), if you could be so kind:

You were asked "which country, say in Europe, most approximates this objective at the present time." 

From you're post you mentioned Ireland. Is this correct?

Firefly.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> So if I earn €300 mon-wed, and if I come in Thur-Fri, and still end up with €300 why wouldn't I bother? Is that it?


Yes, that's the question.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> But realistically, would a house ever be worth €20,000,000 if it was known that nobody had access to greater than €2m a year? An income limit would put a downward pressure on over inflated asset prices.


 Non-resident Irish citizens or foreign Nationals would buy them up. Your proposal would just mean we'd have the same sort of people with the same sort of income but they wouldn't be Irish.



TheBigShort said:


> If you don't put them to productive use, your competitor will. If the product is viable and marketable, someone, if not you, will take the opportunity. Isn't that the 'invisible hand'?


 No, it's not. The competitors would be in the same position.



TheBigShort said:


> No, €2m is not an extreme level of wealth. It is a ball park figure. Raise it to €3m if you want. The point is, that it is certainly sufficient, attainable, but broadly out of reach for 99.985% of the population.


 It is a gross diminution of personal freedom for those lucky, smart or hard working enough to have very high incomes. We already take over half their income in tax. Beyond that it's just begrudgery. 



TheBigShort said:


> It only matters if it affects you directly. It makes no odds to me as I don't come anyway near it, nor likely to. It only affects some 300 people in Ireland. Raise the cap to €3m and you may only be talking about 50-100 people.


 If will never effect me but as a citizen I want all of us to have the same rights. Capping someones income is a diminution of their rights.



TheBigShort said:


> So Fireflys notion that you wouldn't come in was wrong.


 No, you are incorrect. If I could end up with the same net income and only work 3 days then that's all I would do. At the moment when I work longer or harder the State takes over half of what I earn.



TheBigShort said:


> If left in a company it would be managed by managers of the company who are paid to utilize the capital base of the company to produce more goods, to innovate, to research, to market etc. If left in the company, the wealth is more likely to be used effectively and productively in the economy creating jobs, than under a mattress as cash, or as bar of gold in a vault, or hanging on a wall as an over-inflated work of art.


 What' just like Apple do with the tens of billions they have parked in banks here and around the world?


----------



## jjm

Lots of people already Work Thur-Fri.and still end up getting the same as if they only worked 3 days and they are earning less than 100000 euro.lots of people would be better off not working at all but they still go out to work the World is a better place because they do so.


----------



## Purple

jjm2016 said:


> Lots of people already Work Thur-Fri.and still end up getting the same as if they only worked 3 days and they are earning less than 100000 euro.lots of people would be better off not working at all but they still go out to work the World is a better place because they do so.


I agree. I'm one of them. I, like all those other people, get up early in the morning.


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> Ha! Sounds like trickle down economics!! Very surprising for a socialst! Again, the devil would be in the detail.



That depends on how you define or what your concept of socialism is. I have already outlined mine.



Firefly said:


> It would be a lot easier to reduce the 2m limit to 1m than to introduce a cabbage currency!



Either or, it would require political support. I would suggest a €1m income cap would have less political support than a €2m cap - I could be wrong of course, but that is my view nonetheless. The further reduction of incomes limits, I believe, would meet with ever increasing opposition.



Firefly said:


> So why really bother then?


 To develop a social norm as to what is an acceptable level of acquired wealth. The purpose being to eradicate self-indulgent outlandish levels of income awarded by people in control of vast sums of wealth to themselves (see on You Tube, the Wells Fargo banking committee inquiry with John Stumpf and Senator Elizabeth Warren as a typical example). It will keep in check speculative asset bubbles that are hugely detrimental to the functioning of fair market open economies.



Firefly said:


> This is a relatively small site. I'm not sure even Venezuela in it's socilaist hey-day in Chavez's times even imposed a maximum income limit. Has this been implemented anywhere????



From Wiki

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximum_wage#Maximum_liquid_wealth

There is an interesting paragraph on the History. Particular sectors of industries have implemented it. As I said a NFL footballer is maxed at $167m a year (not a great example, but nevertheless, the principle of imposing a cap is in place, and in the US of all places!!!)



Firefly said:


> You were asked "which country, say in Europe, most approximates this objective at the present time."
> 
> From you're post you mentioned Ireland. Is this correct?



I didn't propose Ireland as an answer, it was proposed to me. I suggested Ireland is one of (or a group of) the wealthiest and safest countries in the world.
I don't know the answer to the question, I don't have all the information to make such a comparable judgement. But in Ireland we do go some lengths to eradicate poverty, nevertheless, there are some serious failings.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> Yes, that's the question.



That doesn't make any sense. I am proposing a income limit on earning of €2m or more with a 100% tax. You are proposing, in your example, a 100% tax on income greater than €300 a week.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> Non-resident Irish citizens or foreign Nationals would buy them up. Your proposal would just mean we'd have the same sort of people with the same sort of income but they wouldn't be Irish.



How much would they pay for them? Knowing that, for instance, there would be, with an income limit, an effective ceiling on asset appreciation.



Purple said:


> No, it's not. The competitors would be in the same position.



You are assuming all your competitors are already earning €2m a year. This is simply not true. If you decide not to put your assets to productive use, where those assets have a viable use to generate income, a competitor, not earning €2m a year, will fill that void - at least according to the 'invisible hand' theory.



Purple said:


> It is a gross diminution of personal freedom for those lucky, smart or hard working enough to have very high incomes.



Anymore than an employer being forced to pay a minimum of €9.25ph?



Purple said:


> If will never effect me but as a citizen I want all of us to have the same rights. Capping someones income is a diminution of their rights.



Blocking someone's right to pay less than €9.25ph. Is that a gross diminution of their rights?



Purple said:


> No, you are incorrect. If I could end up with the same net income and only work 3 days then that's all I would do. At the moment when I work longer or harder the State takes _over half_ of what I earn.



So you are talking about something else then, the current tax rates as imposed today. I'm not talking about that, I'm talking about something else.



Purple said:


> What' just like Apple do with the tens of billions they have parked in banks here and around the world?



Fair point, you have identified an anomaly. But nowhere did I say it was a panacea to eradicate gross accumulation of wealth. But Apple, Amazon, Facebook etc, are in the scheme of things, a small group of exceptionally profitable organisations that operate that way. It is a problem today, as it would be with income limits imposed. But at least we would, as a society, begin to move in a better direction.


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> That depends on how you define or what your concept of socialism is. I have already outlined mine.



That's a red herring. You are saying that the someone leaving money in their company's bank account would filter down to the general population. It has nothing to do with the brand of socialism. I only referred to socialism as socialists are generally against the idea of trickle down economics. Do you agree with trickle down economics then?



TheBigShort said:


> Either or, it would require political support. I would suggest a €1m income cap would have less political support than a €2m cap - I could be wrong of course, but that is my view nonetheless. The further reduction of incomes limits, I believe, would meet with ever increasing opposition.



According to the Neri Institute only 12% of people earn more than 100k. It is not inconceivable then that that 100k could be the limit as it would not affect 88% of the population.

[broken link removed]






TheBigShort said:


> To develop a social norm as to what is an acceptable level of acquired wealth. The purpose being to eradicate self-indulgent outlandish levels of income awarded by people in control of vast sums of wealth to themselves (see on You Tube, the Wells Fargo banking committee inquiry with John Stumpf and Senator Elizabeth Warren as a typical example).


But the alternative is that the money is just kept in company bank accounts. As you have mentioned it is not to generate extra taxes so I am thinking Purple is correct - is this bourne out of plain old begrudgery?




TheBigShort said:


> It will keep in check speculative asset bubbles that are hugely detrimental to the functioning of fair market open economies.



Possibly. But it could also stifle real growth and development.



TheBigShort said:


> Particular sectors of industries have implemented it. As I said a NFL footballer is maxed at $167m a year (not a great example, but nevertheless, the principle of imposing a cap is in place, and in the US of all places!!!)



The NFL is privately owned via franchises. They have self-imposed those limits.



TheBigShort said:


> I didn't propose Ireland as an answer, it was proposed to me. I suggested Ireland is one of (or a group of) the wealthiest and safest countries in the world.
> I don't know the answer to the question, I don't have all the information to make such a comparable judgement.



I think that's a cop-out to be fair. Based on what you _do _know, what country would most resemble the policy?


----------



## losttheplot

Wasn't Steve Jobs salary only $1 a year. Company directors would just take 'loans' from their companies instead of salaries. 

I think it would just create more tax exiles.


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> You are saying that the someone leaving money in their company's bank account would filter down to the general population.



In general terms, yes. In a competitive market, each competitor will pursue what it perceives to be it's best interest. A good R&D manager will pursue a bigger budget to innovate. A good Marketing manager will pursue better marketing strategies, a good maintenance man will hope to give the shop a lick of paint, with a bit of overtime thrown in.
All possible, by virtue of extra capital available in a well run company. Conversely, other a good Financial controller will seek to minimize budgets. It's all competitive, and a good General manager will live or die by decisions to invest while the money is there or to row back.



Firefly said:


> I only referred to socialism as socialists are generally against the idea of trickle down economics. Do you agree with trickle down economics then?



In general I do. But I can understand why socialists are against it. That is because what is euphemistically referred to as trickle down is actually quite the opposite. It's trickle up economics.
Hence the centralization of a wholly disproportionate amount of wealth into the hands of very few. If you want to call that trickle down, fair enough, I am opposed to it. I call it, trickle-up economics.



Firefly said:


> According to the Neri Institute only 12% of people earn more than 100k. It is not inconceivable then that that 100k could be the limit as it would not affect 88% of the population.



It is not inconceivable, are you proposing that? I am not.



Firefly said:


> is this bourne out of plain old begrudgery?



Not really, if I was begrudging, I'd set the limit a lot lower. But as stated, €2m was a ball park figure. It can go higher if need be.



Firefly said:


> But it could also stifle real growth and development.



Our current economic system can stifle real growth and development too.
If an income limit is showing to be the cause of stifling real growth. Raise the limit.
For arguments sake, between two sectors of the population, which do think will generate the most significant growth.
The 99.985% of population earning less than €2m a year, or the 0.015% earning more than€2m?



Firefly said:


> The NFL is privately owned via franchises. They have self-imposed those limits.



So what? I'm all for voluntary imposed limits. But in the absence of voluntary limits, legislation would be required.



Firefly said:


> I think that's a cop-out to be fair. Based on what you _do _know, what country would most resemble the policy?



Oh, ok, I will go with Sweden. How about you?


----------



## TheBigShort

losttheplot said:


> Wasn't Steve Jobs salary only $1 a year. Company directors would just take 'loans' from their companies instead of salaries.
> 
> I think it would just create more tax exiles.



Perhaps. But first, you would have to be earning €2m a year, otherwise why would you leave?
Second, there are only 300 or so of these people in Ireland.
Third, many of whom earn their income as professionals, reliant on the Irish market and their Irish clientele.
Fourth, people have built homes, families, social networks etc. Moving lick, stock and barrel is not always the obvious option.
Five, if you do have the capacity and will to become a tax exile, then, regardless of your income level or regardless of any income limit, why wouldn't you do it already?


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> How much would they pay for them? Knowing that, for instance, there would be, with an income limit, an effective ceiling on asset appreciation.


 They would live in a different country but buy a home here and spend half their time living in it.



TheBigShort said:


> You are assuming all your competitors are already earning €2m a year. This is simply not true. If you decide not to put your assets to productive use, where those assets have a viable use to generate income, a competitor, not earning €2m a year, will fill that void - at least according to the 'invisible hand' theory.


 I disagree.



TheBigShort said:


> Anymore than an employer being forced to pay a minimum of €9.25ph?
> 
> Blocking someone's right to pay less than €9.25ph. Is that a gross diminution of their rights?


Do you see no difference between a floor and a ceiling? We don't have the right to employ young children, we don't have the right to discriminate against people etc.. To try to say that a minimum wage is comparable to a maximum income is a ridiculous false equivalency. 





TheBigShort said:


> Fair point, you have identified an anomaly. But nowhere did I say it was a panacea to eradicate gross accumulation of wealth. But Apple, Amazon, Facebook etc, are in the scheme of things, a small group of exceptionally profitable organisations that operate that way. It is a problem today, as it would be with income limits imposed. But at least we would, as a society, begin to move in a better direction.


 My answer to that is to ask you to read my post 377, four from the bottom of page 19.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> if you do have the capacity and will to become a tax exile, then, regardless of your income level or regardless of any income limit, why wouldn't you do it already?


 Because you want to live here and are willing to pay over half your income in taxes but are not willing to pay half it up to €2 million and everything above that level.

Tell me, will the value of pensions, defined benefit and defined contribution, be considered income in your model? If so you can add Judges to your list.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> I disagree



That's interesting, because what it says, if you can earn €3m, mon-fri, as a doctor, barrister etc you won't bother because of the €2m limit. So you will just work mon-wed and earn €2m. And that other doctor's, barristers, etc, earning less than €2m, won't see the opportunity to take up your slack on Thur-fri?



Purple said:


> Do you see no difference between a floor and a ceiling?



Yes, one helps me keep my feet on the ground, the other stops me from get too high and mighty.



Purple said:


> We don't have the right to employ young children,


Courtesy of legislation.



Purple said:


> we don't have the right to discriminate against people etc.


Courtesy of legislation.

I don't think income limit is one of the nine grounds of discrimination. So legislation enforcing an income limit is not discriminatory.



Purple said:


> Because you want to live here and are willing to pay over half your income in taxes but are not willing to pay half it up to €2 million and everything above that level.



So, out of the 300 people who earn over €2m, how many will become tax exiles?


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> That's interesting, because what it says, if you can earn €3m, mon-fri, as a doctor, barrister etc you won't bother because of the €2m limit. So you will just work mon-wed and earn €2m. And that other doctor's, barristers, etc, earning less than €2m, won't see the opportunity to take up your slack on Thur-fri?


 So if the 3 specialists who can perform a specific operation or procedure don't work Thursday or Friday some others will just magically appear to cover those days?
People who earn at the top of their field usually do so for a reason. 



TheBigShort said:


> Yes, one helps me keep my feet on the ground, the other stops me from get too high and mighty.


 So you don't then. 



TheBigShort said:


> Courtesy of legislation.
> 
> I don't think income limit is one of the nine grounds of discrimination. So legislation enforcing an income limit is not discriminatory.


 That's a very interesting perspective; to you if something is not classified legally as discrimination it is not discrimination. I disagree, I think people have inalienable rights and legislation cannot change that. A good example of that is how until recently we discriminated against gay people. To me a arbitrary maximum income would be a form of discrimination. It doesn't matter how many or few people it effects; it is discrimination. The freedom of the individual is what our liberty is built on. To take that for granted would be folly. 



TheBigShort said:


> So, out of the 300 people who earn over €2m, how many will become tax exiles?


 Why does that matter?


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> So if the 3 specialists who can perform a specific operation or procedure don't work Thursday or Friday some others will just magically appear to cover those days?
> People who earn at the top of their field usually do so for a reason.



Don’t be silly, if you have three specialists who can perform a specific operation or procedure then it would be nonsense to schedule them to work all at the same time.



Purple said:


> That's a very interesting perspective; to you if something is not classified legally as discrimination it is not discrimination



I never said that. I agree that outside of the current nine grounds of discrimination there is scope to identify other grounds of discrimination. Socio-economic background is one that is currently gaining momentum, identifying that people from particular localities and despite obtaining certain levels of education, have endured a disproportionate level of discrimination when seeking employment.

Discrimination with regard income would only apply if a different tax rate was applied by the State on your income and more favourable tax rate was applied to my income. Eg if we both earned €50,000 and you paid 50% tax and I only paid 25% tax on €50,000 – that is discriminatory.




Purple said:


> A good example of that is how until recently we discriminated against gay people.



Sexual orientation is one of the nine grounds of discrimination.



Purple said:


> To me a arbitrary maximum income would be a form of discrimination. It doesn't matter how many or few people it effects; it is discrimination



It would only be discriminatory if one person was treated differently to another, but if the rules apply to everyone then it is not discriminatory.



Purple said:


> Why does that matter?




The proposition was made that a maximum income would create more tax exiles. I identified that at €2m a year, those exiles would only come from a pool of 300 earners. I aslo identified a number of other reasons as to why being a tax exile is not such a given outcome.

If there were to be additional tax exiles out of that pool of 300, I would expect it to be a small amount of people, and to be of such insignificance in the whole scheme of things as to render the point moot.


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> I would expect it to be a small amount of people, and to be of such insignificance in the whole scheme of things as to render the point *moot*.


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


>


----------



## losttheplot

Can you imagine implementing this in the UK and the effect on the premier league. I wonder how many of the 300 top earners were artists or sports people.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

It's getting a bit silly in parts.  But I won't let that stop me dipping my toe in on occasion.

Putting people in jail because they earn more than €2m would be *unacceptable* discrimination on grounds of income IMHO.

Levying an additional, say, 3% USC on incomes over €2m would be *acceptable* discrimination IMHO (doesn't mean I would advocate it)

A 7 year 100% tax is certainly discrimination. Is it acceptable? Moot

Taxing A's 50k at a different rate than B's 50k is most certainly not discrimination *on* *grounds* *of* *income*, acceptable or otherwise.  Though it is obviously unacceptable discrimination on some other grounds, possibly entirely random.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

losttheplot said:


> Can you imagine implementing this in the UK and the effect on the premier league. I wonder how many of the 300 top earners were artists or sports people.


Actually with the 7 year rule, possibly ideally suited to short careers like prof footballers.


----------



## losttheplot

Forgot about the 7 year bit. Although it seems prof footballers do creative things with image rights. I think I read Paul Pogbas were being taken care of in Clonakilty.


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> Oh, ok, I will go with Sweden. How about you?



That's interesting. Sweden (as you know) doesn't have a cap on earnings after which tax is applied at 100% (or anything near it). In fact, income tax is applied at a rate of 31% on amounts greater than 2,500 euro per year! Ireland has a far more progressive income tax system where those at even moderate incomes pay a lot less tax than in Sweden.


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> That's interesting. Sweden (as you know) doesn't have a cap on earnings after which tax is applied at 100% (or anything near it). In fact, income tax is applied at a rate of 31% on amounts greater than 2,500 euro per year! Ireland has a far more progressive income tax system where those at even moderate incomes pay a lot less tax than in Sweden.



So are you suggesting Ireland as your country?


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

losttheplot said:


> Forgot about the 7 year bit. Although it seems prof footballers do creative things with *image* *rights*. I think I read Paul Pogbas were being taken care of in Clonakilty.


I was kinda thinking Wayne Rooney. His image can't be worth much, god luv 'm


----------



## TheBigShort

losttheplot said:


> Can you imagine implementing this in the UK and the effect on the premier league. I wonder how many of the 300 top earners were artists or sports people.



But now you are talking about the UK? Why would you limit it to the top 300 earners??
The figure 300, in Ireland, relates to the top 0.015% of income earners. In the UK, applying the same % and considering the size of the economy relative to Ireland, then you are probably talking about 3,000 to 6,000 people! Many of whom may be premier league players.


----------



## losttheplot

I was wondering how many of the 300 in Ireland would be artists and sports people. I wouldn't fancy trying to take money from Conor McGregor.


----------



## Purple

Firefly said:


> That's interesting. Sweden (as you know) doesn't have a cap on earnings after which tax is applied at 100% (or anything near it). In fact, income tax is applied at a rate of 31% on amounts greater than 2,500 euro per year! Ireland has a far more progressive income tax system where those at even moderate incomes pay a lot less tax than in Sweden.


I'm all in favour of the Swedish model; their income tax burden is much more fairly distributed.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> Don’t be silly, if you have three specialists who can perform a specific operation or procedure then it would be nonsense to schedule them to work all at the same time.


 Don't be sully; they are self employed and could be working in different hospitals. According to themselves they all work every hour god sends so they would all be working flat out.



TheBigShort said:


> Eg if we both earned €50,000 and you paid 50% tax and I only paid 25% tax on €50,000 – that is discriminatory.


 If you are retired and I am not you would pay less tax. Is that discrimination?



TheBigShort said:


> Sexual orientation is one of the nine grounds of discrimination.


 Yes, and until recently we still discriminated against gay people, despite what the law said.



TheBigShort said:


> It would only be discriminatory if one person was treated differently to another, but if the rules apply to everyone then it is not discriminatory.


 Okay, so if someone chooses to earn lots of money we discriminate against them but that's okay, because there are only a few of them. What about people who choose to be a particular religion, is it okay to discriminate against them if there are only 300 or so of them in the country? Should Jews pay a higher tax? What about Scientologists, sure everyone thinks they are nuts; should they pay a higher tax as well? What other group specific social engineering would you favour?


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> they are self employed and could be working in different hospitals.



Or they might not be. You will have to confirm this either before it goes any further.



Purple said:


> According to themselves they all work every hour god sends so they would all be working flat out.



Except thurs and fri of course.



Purple said:


> If you are retired and I am not you would pay less tax. Is that discrimination?




If you are retired, where is your income coming from? Is a wage income? In which case doesn’t sound like you are retired to me. Perhaps it is from a pension plan? Yes? In which case the tax liability on your retirement income is treated differently to the tax liability on your PAYE income, as the tax on your rental income, as is the tax on your CGT income, DIRT, dividends etc, etc.

You are only discriminated against if you are treated less favourably to anybody else who is in receipt of the same type of income.




Purple said:


> Yes, and until recently we still discriminated against gay people, despite what the law said.




I understand the point, but the law, until the same-sex referendum only recognised marriage as being between a man and a woman. Inherently there was discrimination, but legally there wasn’t. That’s why we voted to change the referendum. If the people had voted against same-sex marriage, then legally it would not be discrimination against gay people for the State not to recognise same-sex marriage.
For instance, the law only recognizes marriage between two people. What if three people want to marry each other? Isnt that discrimination? Inherently yes, legally, no.
So we can all bandy about claiming what is and what is not discriminatory, but until it legally recognized as a right, then its not discrimination. That's what allows a State to apply different rates of tax on different types of income and at different levels of income.
If you want to call that discrimination, fine. Some people call it progressive taxation. Others call it high earners have to pay for everything! Others call fair, others call it unfair. Call it what you want, it has no legal basis for a discriminatory case.


----------



## TheBigShort

TheBigShort said:


> A society that ensures, insofar as practical, that no one goes without adequate food and shelter, access to healthcare and education.





Duke of Marmalade said:


> Maybe we could get a better feel for your position if you could tell us which country, say in Europe, most approximates this objective at the present time. If it is your view that nowhere meets the objective then you should remove the phrase in bold from your statement.





Firefly said:


> That's interesting. Sweden (as you know) doesn't have a cap on earnings after which tax is applied at 100% (or anything near it). In fact, income tax is applied at a rate of 31% on amounts greater than 2,500 euro per year! Ireland has a far more progressive income tax system where those at even moderate incomes pay a lot less tax than in Sweden.





Purple said:


> I'm all in favour of the Swedish model; their income tax burden is much more fairly distributed



So for the third time of asking, perhaps Firefly could give his answer to the Duke's question above?


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> So for the third time of asking, perhaps Firefly could give his answer to the Duke's question above?


Can I take it that you agree that Sweden is closest to the ideal? Would you say we are closer?


----------



## TheBigShort

TheBigShort said:


> Oh, ok, I will go with Sweden.


----------



## Purple

Oh yea, now I remember.


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> So for the third time of asking, perhaps Firefly could give his answer to the Duke's question above?



I will, jammers at the moment. Probably after lunch. 

Btw are you writing for the Guardian? 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jun/08/dream-hoarders-1-percent-upper-middle-class


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> I will, jammers at the moment. Probably after lunch.
> 
> Btw are you writing for the Guardian?
> 
> https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jun/08/dream-hoarders-1-percent-upper-middle-class



No, but if I had these two paragraphs, it could have saved a lot of effort...for everyone! 


_Rampant inequality is not the fault of a class of people doing exactly what anyone would do in their position, but a political and economic system that incentivizes and enables them to do so. (Don’t hate the player, hate the game.)It follows that the solution is not individual and moralistic, but collective and political. _

_All over the world, social democratic movements are gaining popularity and power on the strength of ideas meant to reduce inequality and stimulate the economy: increased inheritance tax, maximum wage, taxes on the wealthy, and increased spending on the programs people need to not just survive, but thrive. _


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> So for the third time of asking, perhaps Firefly could give his answer to the Duke's question above?



So I come home and my small fella is holding a snapped coaxial cable in his hand all delighted with himself! No BB for me this weekend but will reply Mon !


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> No, but if I had these two paragraphs, it could have saved a lot of effort...for everyone!
> 
> 
> _Rampant inequality is not the fault of a class of people doing exactly what anyone would do in their position, but a political and economic system that incentivizes and enables them to do so. (Don’t hate the player, hate the game.)It follows that the solution is not individual and moralistic, but collective and political. _
> 
> _All over the world, social democratic movements are gaining popularity and power on the strength of ideas meant to reduce inequality and stimulate the economy: increased inheritance tax, maximum wage, taxes on the wealthy, and increased spending on the programs people need to not just survive, but thrive. _


The author looks too young to remember the 70's (as am I) but she should at least have done some reading. There is a massive wealth imbalance but her view, and yours, are far too narrow. We live in a world, not just a country, and the protectionist policies of rich Western socialists are a death sentence for the truly poor on this planet.
Every power group becomes self-serving, be they Unions or business groups or some secret society of Free Masons or Lizard people. The only thing that protects the people from those groups is democracy and all power must reside with the people through their parliament. That is the only place a sustainable solution can come from.


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> So for the third time of asking, perhaps Firefly could give his answer to the Duke's question above?



OK, firstly the question was put to you in a bit to understand your beliefs regarding a maximum wage and socialist views. You have just replied with Sweden but can you expand on why?

Given that Ireland has the most progressive taxation in the OECD I think we are closest to a socialist country from an income tax perspective. Our less well paid pay very little in income tax and those on higher incomes pay an awful lot more. Sure we have our problems and I was disgusted that we could increase public sector pay from the same purse that could easily eradicate homelessness. At a time when we have families living in hotels how we could take money away from them to just pay some people more money is an absolute disgrace.


----------



## Purple

Firefly said:


> At a time when we have families living in hotels how we could take money away from them to just pay some people more money is an absolute disgrace.


 The "haves" taking from the "Have not's". Those with the power, in this case middle class union represented public sector employees, are willing and able to take from the poor and powerless.


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> Given that Ireland has the most progressive taxation in the OECD I think we are closest to a socialist country from an income tax perspective.



Ok, you have persuaded me, Ireland it is so.



Firefly said:


> I was disgusted that we could increase public sector pay from the same purse that could easily eradicate homelessness. At a time when we have families living in hotels how we could take money away from them to just pay some people more money is an absolute disgrace.



This is so silly. It predicates that all our social ills are a consequence of public sector pay.
How did we get to a situation where families were living in hotels in the first place? Seeing as the public sector pay agreement has yet to be approved and implemented, then it can be shown that this proposed public sector pay increase has nothing to do with families living in hotels. Furthermore, it predicates, quite naively, that any savings in public sector pay will go to resolving the homeless crisis. Instead, it would probably used in the form of tax cuts for higher earners.
Should higher earners receive tax cuts while there are families living in hotels?


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> The "haves" taking from the "Have not's". Those with the power, in this case middle class union represented public sector employees, are willing and able to take from the poor and powerless.



Instead we should cut taxes for high income earners, yes?


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> This is so silly. It predicates that all our social ills are a consequence of public sector pay.



I'm not saying that. I'm saying that at a time when we have a homeless crisis we should be spending what little money we have on fixing this before granting wage increases. There is a finite amount of money available and to me allowing a family live in a hostel at the same time we are awarding pay rises is just not acceptable.


----------



## jjm

Lots of people are over paid in this Country Public/Private sector.It is one of the reasons we have high tax rates on higher earners,


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> I'm saying that at a time when we have a homeless crisis we should be spending what little money we have on fixing this before granting wage increases



And how do you propose we fix the homeless crisis? I would be interested in reading your proposals for this.



Firefly said:


> There is a finite amount of money available and to me allowing a family live in a hostel at the same time we are awarding pay rises is just not acceptable.



And tax cuts for higher earners, do you think it would be disgusting to afford higher earners a tax cut, while homeless families are living in hostels and hotels?


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> Instead we should cut taxes for high income earners, yes?


No, instead we should spend the money on homelessness to alleviate the immediate problem. Then on housing generally. Then on infrastructure generally. Then on tax cuts for working people. At the same time we should look at reduce costs in the provision of State services through inefficiencies and process improvement (and not though pay cuts). This should result in job cuts in non value-added areas and the freeing up of resources to spend on increasing employment in value-added areas. There is more than enough money spent to provide all State services at the moment. The State just wastes so much of it we end up with homeless people, high taxes on the hard working, a creaking health system and an average education system. 

The solution to a leaking bucket isn't to pore more water in, it's to fix the leak.


----------



## Purple

jjm2016 said:


> Lots of people are over paid in this Country Public/Private sector.It is one of the reasons we have high tax rates on higher earners,


By OECD and EU standards mid ranking State employees are overpaid. Is that part of the group you are talking about?


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> And how do you propose we fix the homeless crisis? I would be interested in reading your proposals for this.



There are 7,860 homeless people according to the Peter McVerry Trust (https://www.pmvtrust.ie/news-media/facts-and-figures/)
Some are adult, some (very sadly) are children. If each and every one of them was provided with a high-end home costing 2,000 per month that would cost 188m a year. Over 4 years this would come in at 754m. Instead, the government in its wisdom is going to spend 1.1bn over the next 4 years on increasing PS pay.



TheBigShort said:


> And tax cuts for higher earners, do you think it would be disgusting to afford higher earners a tax cut, while homeless families are living in hostels and hotels?



I do. 

I think we have a real crisis that will be remembered for a long time and we are doing nothing about it.


----------



## Firefly

jjm2016 said:


> Lots of people are over paid in this Country Public/Private sector.It is one of the reasons we have high tax rates on higher earners,



I don't follow. Are you saying we have high tax rates because we have high incomes? I would understand if we had high taxes (the amount) but high rates?


----------



## Firefly

Purple said:


> No, instead we should spend the money on homelessness to alleviate the immediate problem. Then on housing generally. Then on infrastructure generally. Then on tax cuts for working people.



Exactly.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> No, instead we should spend the money on homelessness to alleviate the immediate problem. Then on housing generally. Then on infrastructure generally.



And when the homeless and housing crisis are fixed, what about all the other social issues? Like mental health, waiting lists, organised crime, childcare, classroom sizes, long-term unemployment etc, etc.
Should all these be fixed prior to public sector workers ever getting a pay rise?


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> And when the homeless and housing crisis are fixed, what about all the other social issues? Like mental health, waiting lists, organised crime, childcare, classroom sizes, long-term unemployment etc, etc.
> Should all these be fixed prior to public sector workers ever getting a pay rise?


There is enough money being spent on Public Services. Part of the return on increased structural efficiency should be given in pay rises; fewer, better paid State employees, with the same or lower work load, delivering better public services.


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> And when the homeless and housing crisis are fixed, what about all the other social issues? Like mental health, waiting lists, organised crime, childcare, classroom sizes, long-term unemployment etc, etc.
> Should all these be fixed prior to public sector workers ever getting a pay rise?



It's a fair question, but I suppose the opposite could also be asked - given that the gap between the public and private sectors in Ireland is so large, with the gap being practically non-existent in the UK, wouldn't it be better if we focused on fixing the issues in mental health, waiting lists, organised crime, childcare, classroom sizes, long-term unemployment etc, etc before raising wages?


----------



## TheBigShort

Perhaps, but you need to propose how you intend to fix them first. For instance, one such proposal for homeless families living in hostels is to understand what put them there in the first place. Perhaps they couldn't, or can't afford to pay rent or their mortgage even if employed. 
So a pay increase may go some way to alleviate the homeless problem in such an instance.
Nevertheless, your proposals to fix our social ills would be welcome.


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> There are 7,860 homeless people according to the Peter McVerry Trust (https://www.pmvtrust.ie/news-media/facts-and-figures/)
> Some are adult, some (very sadly) are children. If each and every one of them was provided with a high-end home costing 2,000 per month that would cost 188m a year. Over 4 years this would come in at 754m. Instead, the government in its wisdom is going to spend 1.1bn over the next 4 years on increasing PS pay.



Sorry, just seeing this now.
This is somewhat simplistic with respect. The homeless crisis will not be resolved without understanding what has made them homeless in the first place. Homelessness is an age-old problem, with a variety of reasons of why people become homeless in the first place. The current crisis is worse insofar that a relatively new demographic has emerged in the statistics, that is families, sometimes working families are now adding to list. People who, in most other times, through their earned incomes would afford a mortgage or pay rent.
Using your own source, the 102,711 mortgages in arrears is a frightening statistic. The 2,335 repossessed homes is also shocking. So in the middle of a housing crisis, repossessions are at all time high!
I cant see any evidence that any freeze on wages would result in the homeless crisis being resolved. In fact, this crisis has emerged after a period of pay cuts and freezes.

The Dept of Housing lists 1,256 families that are homeless.
http://www.housing.gov.ie/sites/default/files/publications/files/homeless_report_-_march_2017_1.pdf


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> Sorry, just seeing this now.
> This is somewhat simplistic with respect. The homeless crisis will not be resolved without understanding what has made them homeless in the first place. Homelessness is an age-old problem, with a variety of reasons of why people become homeless in the first place. The current crisis is worse insofar that a relatively new demographic has emerged in the statistics, that is families, sometimes working families are now adding to list. People who, in most other times, through their earned incomes would afford a mortgage or pay rent.
> Using your own source, the 102,711 mortgages in arrears is a frightening statistic. The 2,335 repossessed homes is also shocking. So in the middle of a housing crisis, repossessions are at all time high!
> I cant see any evidence that any freeze on wages would result in the homeless crisis being resolved. In fact, this crisis has emerged after a period of pay cuts and freezes.


The solution is more public housing (provided by the State or privately built and rented by the State). More money chasing the same number of houses will result in higher rents but the same number of homeless people.
In simple terms; take 10 people, eight of whom have €10 and 2 of whom have €5, who all  want 8 apples the 8 people with €10 will get the apples. If every one of them get an extra €10 then the same people will get the apples, they will just end up paying more for them. It's basic supply and demand.


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> Sorry, just seeing this now.
> This is somewhat simplistic with respect. The homeless crisis will not be resolved without understanding what has made them homeless in the first place. Homelessness is an age-old problem, with a variety of reasons of why people become homeless in the first place. The current crisis is worse insofar that a relatively new demographic has emerged in the statistics, that is families, sometimes working families are now adding to list. People who, in most other times, through their earned incomes would afford a mortgage or pay rent.
> Using your own source, the 102,711 mortgages in arrears is a frightening statistic. The 2,335 repossessed homes is also shocking. So in the middle of a housing crisis, repossessions are at all time high!
> I cant see any evidence that any freeze on wages would result in the homeless crisis being resolved. In fact, this crisis has emerged after a period of pay cuts and freezes.



I agree with all the first bit and it would take a very detailed and sobering study to ascertain the root causes of homelessness. The point I am making is that instead of pay rises the same money could easily provide every man, woman and child who are currently homeless with accommodation.


----------



## Purple

Firefly said:


> The point I am making is that instead of pay rises the same money could easily provide every man, woman and child who are currently homeless with accommodation.


 Only if there was accommodation for them to rent. In reality it would just push up rent prices.


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> Perhaps, but you need to propose how you intend to fix them first. For instance, one such proposal for homeless families living in hostels is to understand what put them there in the first place.


This would take a long time to figure out I would imagine and would probably result in another report gathering dust on a shelf somewhere. In the meantime we have homeless families living in hostels. I am not saying it's important to understand the root causes of homelessness but as a starting point we could easily house those who are homeless until we figure out why they are homeless.




TheBigShort said:


> Nevertheless, your proposals to fix our social ills would be welcome.


I'd be the first to admit this wouldn't be my forte but I think we have more than enough money to fix the issues we have. An example is the "shortage" of nurses we always hear about, yet we have more nurses than France and Canada per head of population.


----------



## Firefly

Purple said:


> Only if there was accommodation for them to rent. In reality it would just push up rent prices.



True, but even allowing 2k per month for every homeless person (many are kids and would obviously live with their parents) that would still be 350 million cheaper over 4 years than giving those pay rises.


----------



## Purple

Firefly said:


> True, but even allowing 2k per month for every homeless person (many are kids and would obviously live with their parents) that would still be 350 million cheaper over 4 years than giving those pay rises.


I'd rather see the money being spent building houses, preferably sourced from a factory on the mainland, somewhere like Holland or Germany, and assembled on site here.


----------



## Firefly

Purple said:


> I'd rather see the money being spent building houses, preferably sourced from a factory on the mainland, somewhere like Holland or Germany, and assembled on site here.



That could work too, even with a long-term rental agreement or something to keep the Cap-Ex down.


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> True, but even allowing 2k per month for every homeless person (many are kids and would obviously live with their parents) that would still be 350 million cheaper over 4 years than giving those pay rises.



But is the assumption here is that no houses are being built? The program for government has factored in 25,000 a home a year until 2020. 

Whether that is achieved will remain to be seen, whether it alleviates the homeless crisis will remain to be seen. That will be down to planning. But nevertheless, it is factored into the program for government already. This will create jobs, stimulate economic activity etc.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> But is the assumption here is that no houses are being built? The program for government has factored in 25,000 a home a year until 2020.
> 
> Whether that is achieved will remain to be seen, whether it alleviates the homeless crisis will remain to be seen. That will be down to planning. But nevertheless, it is factored into the program for government already. This will create jobs, stimulate economic activity etc.


The cost of private rental accommodation, as well as the lack of homes to buy, is pushing up all housing costs. That is the reason for the new homelessness we are seeing.


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> But is the assumption here is that no houses are being built? The program for government has factored in 25,000 a home a year until 2020.
> 
> Whether that is achieved will remain to be seen, whether it alleviates the homeless crisis will remain to be seen. That will be down to planning. But nevertheless, it is factored into the program for government already. This will create jobs, stimulate economic activity etc.



That's a fair point, but as with anything promised by the government it will probably not be all delivered and most of it towards the end of 2020. 

The government seems to be trying to do everything but nothing. Maybe we need a list of the top things the government should focus on fixing and move through the list adding new ones each time something is done!


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> The cost of private rental accommodation, as well as the lack of homes to buy, is pushing up all housing costs. That is the reason for the new homelessness we are seeing.



Yes, and the government has promised to deliver 25,000 homes a year. I don't know if that will be adequate, but as you know, such a promise will take time to come on-stream. The point is, a plan to deal with the housing crisis has already been factored into the public spend. The proposed public sector pay deal does not effect this.


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> That's a fair point, but as with anything promised by the government it will probably not be all delivered and most of it towards the end of 2020.
> 
> The government seems to be trying to do everything but nothing. Maybe we need a list of the top things the government should focus on fixing and move through the list adding new ones each time something is done!



The government has published its program for government. I'm not advocating it, but it sets out what it believes it can achieved within budgetary constraints.

http://www.merrionstreet.ie/MerrionStreet/en/ImageLibrary/Programme_for_Partnership_Government.pdf


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

Trotskyite Fintan O'Toole makes an interesting point in today's IT.  Society seems to take a much dimmer view of, say, an 18K SW fraud than it does of an 18K tax default.  He goes on to argue that this is evidence of systemic discrimination of the WC culminating in throwing outrageous criminal charges at them for what he agrees was an unacceptable protest.

I hate to say it but I see his point.  Is there an explanation for the double standard?  Tax default is not giving of your pwn money what the State demands whilst SW fraud is clearly stealing from the State.  Morally they seem to be in a different space, but I am not entirely convinced.  Anyone able to help me on this?


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

Moved to LOS.


----------



## TheBigShort

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Tax default is not giving of your pwn money what the State demands whilst SW fraud is clearly stealing from the State.



I think in the main the article speaks for itself. I notice how the media focus has been more on the apparent influence of social media on the jury, the underlying tone is that the protesters were guilty as charged but got away with it.
This only supports O'Tooles analysis.
As far tax owed to the State being what the State demands, so what? If it is owed to the State it is owed, simple. Non-declaration is theft, if not proven to be accidental.

It would appear that some keep back more than they contribute.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> As far tax owed to the State being what the State demands, so what? If it is owed to the State it is owed, simple. Non-declaration is theft, if not proven to be accidental.
> 
> It would appear that some keep back more than they contribute.


I agree with that. Tax evasion is the same as social welfare fraud is the same as breaking into a house. It's all theft. At least the burglar doesn't pretend not to be a thief.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

Purple said:


> I agree with that. Tax evasion is the same as social welfare fraud is the same as breaking into a house. It's all theft. At least the burglar doesn't pretend not to be a thief.


I think that, at least in moral space, stealing from an individual is a lot worse than stealing from the State.


----------



## Purple

Duke of Marmalade said:


> I think that, at least in moral space, stealing from an individual is a lot worse than stealing from the State.



I don't. 

I'd buy the guy(s) who broke into my house a pint before I'd sit down with someone who scams their taxes or welfare or makes a false or inflated insurance claim.

If you are doing nixers or grinds and putting the cash in your pocket you have no moral right to criticise burglars or welfare scammers.


----------



## Firefly

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Is there an explanation for the double standard?



I think in Ireland not paying your taxes are sometimes seen as "getting away with it" and it seems to be in our genes to "beat the system", as it were. Both tax evasion and SW fraud are stealing however, in the former case the government is not getting much it should (but may never have in the first place) where in the latter case the cash is actually being taken from the government's coffers. I don't condone either by the way, but it's a case of "wink-wink" for the former and scorn for the latter....


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> I don't condone either by the way, but it's a case of "wink-wink" for the former and scorn for the latter....



Which is odd, because it is a natural inclination, I would have thought, to minimize your tax bill to the greatest extent as possible. All within the rules of course, but nevertheless tax deductible business costs can tend to be exaggerated somewhat.
Just as it would be a natural inclination to maximize welfare assistance, all within the rules of course.
Why anyone points the finger at anyone else when most people will always try to exploit their financial situation to the max.
Expect maybe for the PAYE worker, who doesn't even get the opportunity to touch their own income before it's whisked away to Revenue and Social Protection - where is the equality of opportunity for PAYE worker's there?


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> Which is odd, because it is a natural inclination, I would have thought, to minimize your tax bill to the greatest extent as possible. All within the rules of course, but _nevertheless tax deductible business costs can tend to be exaggerated somewhat_.



Then they would be unlawful and would amount to tax evasion and subject to massive penalties and interest charges. 



TheBigShort said:


> Just as it would be a natural inclination to maximize welfare assistance, all within the rules of course.



I agree. It's the system that would need to be changed.



TheBigShort said:


> Expect maybe for the PAYE worker, who doesn't even get the opportunity to touch their own income before it's whisked away to Revenue and Social Protection - where is the equality of opportunity for PAYE worker's there?



I agree...PAYE workers are a dream for the government.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

Purple said:


> I don't.
> 
> I'd buy the guy(s) who broke into my house a pint before I'd sit down with someone who scams their taxes or welfare or makes a false or inflated insurance claim.
> 
> If you are doing nixers or grinds and putting the cash in your pocket you have no moral right to criticise burglars or welfare scammers.


Morality is of course subjective.  To me one of the inputs is the hurt caused to others.  Stealing €10K life savings from an elderly person is worse than stealing €10K from Denis O'Brien is worse than under declaring €10K tax.  I note you have a certain affection for the burglar class.  That would not be shared by their customers.


----------



## Purple

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Morality is of course subjective.  To me one of the inputs is the hurt caused to others.  Stealing €10K life savings from an elderly person is worse than stealing €10K from Denis O'Brien is worse than under declaring €10K tax.  I note you have a certain affection for the burglar class.  That would not be shared by their customers.


I've been burgled 4 times, I disturbed them twice. I'm a repeat customer.


----------



## jjm

I agree...PAYE workers are a dream for the government.[/QUOTE]
I see Paschal Donohoe has confirmed plans to merge the  USC  with PRSI.It will be interesting to see if he applies it to everyone who pay USC at present. There will be a few people upset who got away up to now not having to pay the extra levies paid by PAYE PRSI A1 workers untill end of 2012 when the USC came in. It will be interesting to see will he let some lobby groups who are paying at present and did not in the past get away without paying there fair share,


----------



## jjm

[QUOTE="Purple, ]I've been burgled 4 times, I disturbed them twice. I'm a repeat customer
They must be looking for Workers


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> Then they would be unlawful and would amount to tax evasion and subject to massive penalties and interest charges.



Not necessarily. Revenue often make decisions regarding what is a 'reasonable' amount to deduct as an expense. For instance fixed mobile phone business plans are usually allowed regardless of whether or not the full allowance is used for business use or personal use. Such phones are often used for personal use also. But in practical terms it would be near impossible to decipher which call was business related or personal, so Revenue will allow a 'reasonable' amount. Typically a reasonable fixed payment plan amount. This amount will tend to be exaggerated. All perfectly legal and above board, but exaggerated nonetheless.


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> Not necessarily. Revenue often make decisions regarding what is a 'reasonable' amount to deduct as an expense. For instance fixed mobile phone business plans are usually allowed regardless of whether or not the full allowance is used for business use or personal use. Such phones are often used for personal use also. But in practical terms it would be near impossible to decipher which call was business related or personal, so Revenue will allow a 'reasonable' amount. Typically a reasonable fixed payment plan amount. This amount will tend to be exaggerated. All perfectly legal and above board, but exaggerated nonetheless.



If the expenses are exaggerated it's illegal. It's up to Revenue to make the call whether or not to pursue the individual.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> Not necessarily. Revenue often make decisions regarding what is a 'reasonable' amount to deduct as an expense. For instance fixed mobile phone business plans are usually allowed regardless of whether or not the full allowance is used for business use or personal use. Such phones are often used for personal use also. But in practical terms it would be near impossible to decipher which call was business related or personal, so Revenue will allow a 'reasonable' amount. Typically a reasonable fixed payment plan amount. This amount will tend to be exaggerated. All perfectly legal and above board, but exaggerated nonetheless.


The only perks that are not subject to BIK are those enjoyed by Public Servants. For example if my employer give me the unlimited use of a company car worth €30,000 I will be charged BIK unless I do very high verifiable business mileage. On the other hand if my employer give me a parking space in Dublin City Center worth €40,000 I will not be charged any BIK. There are thousands of Public Sector parking spaces provided in Dublin City Center which employees can use 7 days a week. When BIK for parking spaces was mooted it was shot down straight away.

By the way, if the claims cannot be proven then they will not be accepted. The idea that Revenue will just accept an exaggerated claim is nonsense.


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> If the expenses are exaggerated it's illegal. It's up to Revenue to make the call whether or not to pursue the individual.



Not if Revenue accept a 'reasonable' amount for business cost deductions. They are few and far between, admittedly, but fixed price business phones plans are typical of such.
So a sole trader, painter & decorator say, uses a fixed price business plan phones tariff of €60 a month (reasonable), then this amount is a legitimate business expense even if the phones is also used for personal use.
It's perfectly reasonable and practical from every angle.


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> Not if Revenue accept a 'reasonable' amount for business cost deductions. They are few and far between, admittedly, but fixed price business phones plans are typical of such.
> So a sole trader, painter & decorator say, uses a fixed price business plan phones tariff of €60 a month (reasonable), then this amount is a legitimate business expense even if the phones is also used for personal use.
> It's perfectly reasonable and practical from every angle.



You might think so, I might think so but it's up to Revenue to make the call. I'm not for a second saying it doesn't happen by the way, just pointing out that the nature of self-assessment is just that - you can claim for anything you like but if Revenue find against it you could lose your shirt.


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> You might think so, I might think so but it's up to Revenue to make the call. I'm not for a second saying it doesn't happen by the way, just pointing out that the nature of self-assessment is just that - you can claim for anything you like but if Revenue find against it you could lose your shirt.



Why would Revenue fight against it if they have agreed to it?
The point is, from a practical point of view, it is wholly reasonable in 2017 for any self-employed person to incur mobile phone costs as a business expense each month. It would be somewhat impractical for Revenue to forensically analysis every call to determine which calls are personal and which are business use and then get tied up arguing the toss over tiny amounts. Hence the application of a 'reasonable' phone plan, which, if it was me, I would deduct as 'reasonable' amount as Revenue would allow, wouldn't you?


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> The only perks that are not subject to BIK are those enjoyed by Public Servants.



Who is talking about BIK? 



Purple said:


> if my employer give me a parking space in Dublin City Center worth €40,000 I will not be charged any BIK



I'm guessing there is a typo in here or am I missing something?



Purple said:


> There are thousands of Public Sector parking spaces provided in Dublin City Center which employees can use 7 days a week



I doubt it, but so what?



Purple said:


> When BIK for parking spaces was mooted it was shot down straight away.



How did we get here?



Purple said:


> By the way, if the claims cannot be proven then they will not be accepted.



12 monthly phones bills from a licensed mobile operator showing your name and address and the business plan details should suffice.


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> Why would Revenue fight against it if they have agreed to it?
> The point is, from a practical point of view, it is wholly reasonable in 2017 for any self-employed person to incur mobile phone costs as a business expense each month. It would be somewhat impractical for Revenue to forensically analysis every call to determine which calls are personal and which are business use and then get tied up arguing the toss over tiny amounts. Hence the application of a 'reasonable' phone plan, which, if it was me, I would deduct as 'reasonable' amount as Revenue would allow, wouldn't you?



The points you are making are valid, but ultimately it's up to Revenue to decide, not you nor I.


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> The points you are making are valid, but ultimately it's up to Revenue to decide, not you nor I.



That is the point, Revenue DO decide! All legal and above board. Leading to exaggerated business cost claims. I don't blame anyone for taking advantage of it. On an individual basis it probably doesn't amount to much, collectively it would be a tidy sum of lost Revenue.
Similarly if welfare rules say I can claim xyz, albeit I don't need it (think child benefit for wealthiest in the country) why shouldn't I claim it? 
Is it any different that a person brought up in a disadvantaged area maximizes their benefits from the welfare system, than a wealthy person pays and accountant to minimises their tax liability?
Once it's all legal and above board, what is the difference?


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> Who is talking about BIK?
> 
> I'm guessing there is a typo in here or am I missing something?
> 
> I doubt it, but so what?
> 
> How did we get here?


You are talking about people getting benefits from work that they are not taxed on. The way in which such a tax is applied is called "benefit in kind". Revenue put a monitory value on such things and people pay tax on it. Your example was a mobile phone. For most people the benefit in cash terms would be under €20 a month. 
A parking space in Dublin City Center will cost between €100 and €250 a month to rent and over €40,000 to buy. They are provided free of charge to some people working in Dublin. How come there's no BIK there? The State spends around €10,0000,000 a year renting spaces for State employees in Dublin. Add to that the spaces it owns and provides for free which, if rented out at market prices, would provide a tidy revenue for the State. Why do these large non-cash payments not attract taxation? If it is okay to provide such spaces for work should the employee be charged if they leave their car there and go shopping after work?





TheBigShort said:


> 12 monthly phones bills from a licensed mobile operator showing your name and address and the business plan details should suffice.


Yes, it does. Is that the best you can do?
I'd think self employed people being allowed to claim a proportion of their utility bills etc would be a better target.


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> That is the point, Revenue DO decide! All legal and above board.


Revenue aren't the law. I'm not an accountant nor a lawyer, but my belief is that expenses can be deducted if they are "wholly, exclusively and necessarily" related to the businesses. Personal phone calls clearly aren't and claiming for them is technically breaking the law and fraudulent. Whether Revenue decide to pursue it or not is up to Revenue as the system is based on self-assessment. I agree that in most cases it's not practical or cost effective to Revenue do to so, but that's up to Revenue. Who knows in the future with Big Data and AI / Analytics what Revenue may be able to do if they can get people's phone records..



TheBigShort said:


> Similarly if welfare rules say I can claim xyz, albeit I don't need it (think child benefit for wealthiest in the country) why shouldn't I claim it?


Because you are entitled to it legally even if you don't need it. Morally it could be argued differently, but legally there isn't a problem. It's up to the Dept of Finance and the government of the day to change this if they wish.



TheBigShort said:


> Is it any different that a person brought up in a disadvantaged area maximizes their benefits from the welfare system, than a wealthy person pays and accountant to minimises their tax liability?


When you say "_maximizes their benefits from the welfare system_" I presume you mean doing so in a legal way and not claiming for something they shouldn't correct? If so then I don't have an issue with someone claiming for something they are entitled. For some reason though, we seem to have an awful lot of "sick" people claiming benefits - I would have expected the HSE to launch an investigation into this on medical grounds at the least....maybe we have an epidemic on our hands!


----------



## Leo

TheBigShort said:


> 12 monthly phones bills from a licensed mobile operator showing your name and address and the business plan details should suffice.



When my parents ran a small business, they were asked by Revenue for full listings of all calls made along with details of who those calls were to (to prove they were legitimate business calls) before they'd approve what ultimately was very small money.


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> Why would Revenue fight against it if they have agreed to it?


You would have to ask Revenue that? Why don't they chase money that should be flowing into the government's coffers?



TheBigShort said:


> The point is, from a practical point of view, it is wholly reasonable in 2017 for any self-employed person to incur mobile phone costs as a business expense each month. It would be somewhat impractical for Revenue to forensically analysis every call to determine which calls are personal and which are business use and then get tied up arguing the toss over tiny amounts. Hence the application of a 'reasonable' phone plan, which, if it was me, I would deduct as 'reasonable' amount as Revenue would allow, wouldn't you?


Again, that's upto Revenue to decide on a case by case basis if it is worth their while to pursue these expenses.


----------



## Firefly

Leo said:


> When my parents ran a small business, they were asked by Revenue for full listings of all calls made along with details of who those calls were to (to prove they were legitimate business calls) before they'd approve what ultimately was very small money.



I'd believe it and see nothing wrong with this.


----------



## TheBigShort

Leo said:


> When my parents ran a small business, they were asked by Revenue for full listings of all calls made along with details of who those calls were to (to prove they were legitimate business calls) before they'd approve what ultimately was very small money.



And nothing to stop them doing this still. All depends on your business circumstance, for instance, how much did your parents declare as a phones expense? What was their trade? What was the turnover? Perhaps Revenue suspected the phone bill to be somewhat 'unreasonable', hence the audit trail?

All I know is, in 2017, if you have a fixed phone mobile price plan in place, Revenue will accept it as a business expense as long as it's 'reasonable', regardless if it also used for personal use.


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> You would have to ask Revenue that? Why don't they chase money that should be flowing into the government's coffers?



Cost benefit analysis. We are talking about relatively small sums on an individual basis. Collectively it could be a tidy sum, but pursuing to the extent of detailing every single call, for every single user, is futile.
A more rational approach is to allow a 'reasonable' deduction from a fixed price plan. Don't you agree?

The point being, if I pay €60 a month for a business mobile plan and Revenue AGREE that I can deduct €60 as a 'reasonable' amount, I would be stupid not to claim the full €60 as a business expense even if I also use the phones for personal use. Wouldn't it be stupid not to claim the full €60?


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> Cost benefit analysis. We are talking about relatively small sums on an individual basis. Collectively it could be a tidy sum, but pursuing to the extent of detailing every single call, for every single user, is futile.
> A more rational approach is to allow a 'reasonable' deduction from a fixed price plan. Don't you agree?



Again, that's up to Revenue. You've mentioned that these exaggerated expenses are "All legal and above board". Well they're not legal. They may very well be "above board" as far as Revenue are concerned, but that's a call Revenue are making.


----------



## Leo

Firefly said:


> I'd believe it and see nothing wrong with this.



Yeah, the only issue they had with it was the time it Revenue took up for such small money when they saw bigger issues. My parents were likely one of the few who were horrified when their bank suggested they should be opening an Ansbacher account.


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> Again, that's up to Revenue.


Yes it is. Please read the posts fully.

I am talking about situations where REVENUE AGREE TO A 'REASONABLE' AMOUNT....to deduct as a business expense.
Revenue have decided, it is their choice...you would be stupid not to avail of the full amount as a business expense that REVENUE HAVE AGREED TO...wouldn't you?


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> Yes it is. Please read the posts fully.
> 
> I am talking about situations where REVENUE AGREE TO A 'REASONABLE' AMOUNT....to deduct as a business expense.
> Revenue have decided, it is their choice...you would be stupid not to avail of the full amount as a business expense that REVENUE HAVE AGREED TO...wouldn't you?



I have read the posts. You have said making exaggerated expense claims are "All legal and above board". I have argued that they are not legal even if they are above board. Do you still think that making exaggerated claims are legal just because Revenue may not pursue them? I'm am happy though that you agree it is up to Revenue also.

You have also tried to make the case that this is similar to rich people claiming children's allowance, which it is not as claiming children's allowance is perfectly legal.


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> I am talking about situations where REVENUE AGREE TO A 'REASONABLE' AMOUNT....to deduct as a business expense.



Do you have a link for this?


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

Purple said:


> I'd buy the guy(s) who broke into my house a pint...
> 
> I've been burgled 4 times, I disturbed them twice. I'm a repeat customer.


There's a lesson there somewhere


----------



## jjm

Duke of Marmalade said:


> There's a lesson there somewhere



Must not have a world class security system


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> Do you have a link for this?



Here is an article that explains it somewhat.
https://www.google.ie/amp/s/amp.ind...ff-against-tax-or-pay-the-price-29144566.html

Now if I am self-employed and am running a €50 a month phone bill, I can claim this €50 a month as a business expense (or a portion thereof).
My actual business usage, if my calls are forensic analysed may only amount to €30 a month. But in the absence of that forensic study, the Revenue, may decide that a reasonable amount for me to deduct would be €50 a month, considering factors such as my trade and turnover.
So if I sell strawberries from a stall on a Saturday only, and my business phone expense is €100 a month, that may raise some questions.
But if I'm working 6 days a week as a plumber, with a turnover of €70,000pa. The revenue may agree that my monthly €50 phone bill for a business expense is reasonable. Even though, were it to analysed, my business usage is actually less than that.
Certainly, from the plumbers perspective, he would be stupid to claim anything less than his actual business usage, wouldn't he? Instead, he will be more inclined to claim the upper limit of his phone bill for business use - thus a tendency to exaggerate the actual amount, but all legal and above board as long as Revenue AGREE with it.


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> Here is an article that explains it somewhat.
> https://www.google.ie/amp/s/amp.ind...ff-against-tax-or-pay-the-price-29144566.html



Normally when someone declares something to be legal they would back it up by something more substantial than a newspaper article. I did find it amusing that the reference came from the Indo by the way!




TheBigShort said:


> Certainly, from the plumbers perspective, he would be stupid to claim anything less than his actual business usage, wouldn't he? Instead, he will be more inclined to claim the upper limit of his phone bill for business use - thus a tendency to exaggerate the actual amount, but all legal and above board as long as Revenue AGREE with it.



My point is that is incorrect. Just because Revenue may agree to it doesn't mean it is legal. In fact, there is nothing stopping Revenue analysing someones records if they see fit, as per Leo's parents.


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> Normally when someone declares something to be legal they would back it up by something more substantial than a newspaper article. I did find it amusing that the reference came from the Indo by the way!



Admittedly I'm struggling to find anything on the Revenue website, but aside from the article (written by a tax consultant) I have direct experience with Revenue on this exact matter. Only in my case it was for staff mobile phones - they were set at a fixed monthly rate for business use with certain limitations (calls outside Roi, data usage etc would incur additional charges payable by the employee).
The fixed monthly bill was an allowable cost as it was for business use. It was accepted that a certain amount of personal usage would apply, but as it didn't affect the monthly bill, then this usage would be disregarded.

I don't get the Indo reference.


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> Admittedly I'm struggling to find anything on the Revenue website, but aside from the article (written by a tax consultant) I have direct experience with Revenue on this exact matter. Only in my case it was for staff mobile phones - they were set at a fixed monthly rate for business use with certain limitations (calls outside Roi, data usage etc would incur additional charges payable by the employee).
> The fixed monthly bill was an allowable cost as it was for business use. It was accepted that a certain amount of personal usage would apply, but as it didn't affect the monthly bill, then this usage would be disregarded.



That's all fine & dandy and sounds like you're in clover. The point I am making is that exaggerated expenses are not legal and it's up to Revenue to pursue them, as we have both agreed. 



TheBigShort said:


> I don't get the Indo reference.



I wouldn't have though socialists would read the Indo, never mind use it as a reference.


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> I wouldn't have though socialists would read the Indo, never mind use it as a reference.



????


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> ????



Silly me, sure I'd forgotten, your a capitalist


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> Silly me, sure I'd forgotten, your a capitalist



Capitalism is merely a feature of Socialism. Some people see capitalism as an ideology in itself, true, if the ultimate societal goal is as shallow as price discovery.
But if you think outside the concept of the 'market', then you can see that without socialism, capitalism is redundant.


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> Capitalism is merely a feature of Socialism. Some people see capitalism as an ideology in itself, true, if the ultimate societal goal is as shallow as price discovery.
> But if you think outside the concept of the 'market', then you can see that without socialism, capitalism is redundant.



I take it by not replying that you still believe exaggerated expenses relating to personal expenses are legal?


----------



## jjm

Capitalism over socialism the bottom line is we need to keep an eye on both in Ireland,


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> I take it by not replying that you still believe exaggerated expenses relating to personal expenses are legal?



No I don't. _Allowable_ expense claims, agreed with Rehvenue, results in exaggerated claims. I take it by not responding you believe a self asssesed taxpayer would be stupid to not to avail of the maximum allowable?
The article I posted also allows for a tax deduction of €3.20 (unvouched) per day for heat, electricity, internet, where a person's private residence is also their registered business address. Or €750+ per year.
Do you think a person who uses their residence as their registered business address would be stupid not to avail of this allowable, legal tax deduction?


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> No I don't.


Thanks for clarifying. So these expenses are not "All legal and above board" then. It's good we agree on that.



TheBigShort said:


> Allowable expense claims, agreed with Rehvenue, results in exaggerated claims.


You would need to provide something to back this up, but yes in a self-assessment model it's not inconceivable that exaggerated claims are made. Again, this is up to Revenue to pursue.



TheBigShort said:


> I take it by not responding you believe a self asssesed taxpayer would be stupid to not to avail of the maximum allowable?


That's up to each self assessed taxpayer to determine.



TheBigShort said:


> The article I posted also allows for a tax deduction of €3.20 (unvouched) per day for heat, electricity, internet, where a person's private residence is also their registered business address. Or €750+ per year.
> Do you think a person who uses their residence as their registered business address would be stupid not to avail of this allowable, legal tax deduction?


That's up to each self assessed taxpayer to determine.


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> yes in a self-assessment model it's not inconceivable that exaggerated claims are made



Thank you. 



Firefly said:


> That's up to each self assessed taxpayer to determine.



I was asking you, for your opinion. Do you think it would be stupid or not, not to avail of the maximum allowable and legal deduction (in effect, to exaggerate the expense claim in order to reduce tax liability)?


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> I was asking you, for your opinion. Do you think it would be stupid or not, not to avail of the maximum allowable and *legal* deduction (in effect, to exaggerate the expense claim in order to reduce tax liability)?



Are you sure you have this correct? I thought we covered this? Personal expenses claimed for business use are not legal, regardless of what Revenue say..

To add....

I don't get what all the fuss is about. First you say PAYE workers don't get a break:



TheBigShort said:


> Expect maybe for the PAYE worker, who doesn't even get the opportunity to touch their own income before it's whisked away to Revenue and Social Protection - where is the equality of opportunity for PAYE worker's there?



Then you go on about various self-employed people: painter & decorator, strawberry seller and plumber, all using their mobiles for business and personal use and then admit to availing of the perk yourself!



TheBigShort said:


> I have direct experience with Revenue on this exact matter. Only in my case it was for staff mobile phones - they were set at a fixed monthly rate for business use with certain limitations (calls outside Roi, data usage etc would incur additional charges payable by the employee).
> The fixed monthly bill was an allowable cost as it was for business use. It was accepted that a certain amount of personal usage would apply, but as it didn't affect the monthly bill, then this usage would be disregarded.



So I am lost - are you saying the self-employed get a better break or something? As I have been saying for a few pages now, business expenses should be for business use only and if personal expenses are put in as business expenses they are not legal, whatever Revenue say. It's up to each person to determine what they do.


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> personal use and then admit to availing of the perk yourself!



??? The employees may use the phones for personal use, but they are not profiting directly - that is, the cost of the phones usage is used by the employer to reduce tax liability.



Firefly said:


> So I am lost - are you saying the self-employed get a better break or something?



Not at all, all I am saying that the self-assessment system lends itself to the possibility of exaggerated expense claims. The point was raised earlier that indeed some 40% of self employed tax returns are under declaring by €18,500 on average. Obviously, sometimes in error. 
To my mind, it is wholly natural to reduce your tax bill by as much as you can. And if Revenue rules facilitate that in anyway then a taxpayer would be stupid not to take advantage of it.


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> ??? The employees may use the phones for personal use, but they are not profiting directly - that is, the cost of the phones usage is used by the employer to reduce tax liability.


Who pays the phone bill, you or your employer?



TheBigShort said:


> Not at all, all I am saying that the self-assessment system lends itself to the possibility of exaggerated expense claims. The point was raised earlier that indeed some 40% of self employed tax returns are under declaring by €18,500 on average. Obviously, sometimes in error.


I agree. It's a self-assessment system and is therefore open to abuse. It's up to Revenue to pursue.



TheBigShort said:


> To my mind, it is wholly natural to reduce your tax bill by as much as you can. And if Revenue rules facilitate that in anyway then a taxpayer would be stupid not to take advantage of it.



I hear what you are saying, but unless it's written into law Revenue could take a different stance at any time. Granted, it would probably only happen if they found against you on other fronts.


----------



## Protocol

Fresh analysis from Seamus Coffey.

The OECD have fixed some bad data: they were using the wrong average earnings data,









						Taxing Wages and the OECD Average
					

Last year we queried  how it was that the OECD placed Ireland in the “low tax” group for it measure of the net personal income tax rate (inc...




					economic-incentives.blogspot.com


----------



## Protocol




----------



## Protocol

As I have repeatedly said, our MTR on average earnings are too high, but our effective tax rates are not:


----------



## cremeegg

So we need to shift the average tax rate from 20% to 25%. Interesting that the average rate corresponds with the actual standard rate.

And we need to shift the marginal rate down from 50% to 35%.

At a macro level what would this achieve. Surely the incentives it would provide to the economy are exactly what is not need in an economy nearing full employment with capacity restraints in so many areas.


----------



## Purple

The changes should be well flagged and slow, maybe over 5-10 years.
I'm not sure the marginal rate should be as low as 35%. 
Just bringing everyone into the tax net would be better. I'd like to see what impact that would have on those Eurostat figures.


----------



## Protocol

I suggest rates of 20, 30, 40, 50.

Keep the top 50 rate, but only for income over at least double mean earnings.

Say 90k or 100k starting point for top 50% MTR.


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote

Protocol said:


> I suggest rates of 20, 30, 40, 50.
> 
> Keep the top 50 rate, but only for income over at least double mean earnings.
> 
> Say 90k or 100k starting point for top 50% MTR.



Multiple rates make it more difficult to compute and also for the taxpayer to understand what they have to pay. If it was me I would have a tax-free allowance of 13k* and then remainder at 35% on all income.

Meanwhile the change in the reference rate by the OECD is very important as it really changes the conversation on tax in Ireland. I've long said that the benchmark for debate should be *average full-time wages*. It is about *€47.5k, *if you look at Table 5 here.

In the housing costs debate people continuously cite the average earnings figure which is €38.8k which includes people on part-time earnings. It ignores the fact that most people buy houses at a point in their lives when they are in full-time employment, and usually with another person. A couple earning average full-time wages will gross €95k a year. At these earnings a house at €300k looks pretty affordable.


*equivalent to state pension


----------

