New political party anyone?

[zephyro]

There appears to be an inability in most people's minds to distinguish between the provision of essential services and the delivery of those services. They seem to think that if a service is to be delivered, it must be delivered by a public sector body.

Exactly so, I couldn't have put it better. When I have the misfortune to find myself listening to this viewpoint I can only wonder whether it is an inability or unwillingness to understand.

There are several posters here of this ilk. I'd love to hear why it's logical for retail and legal companies to be privately owned but not bus, health insurance and peat (!) companies.

 

[DublinTexas]

Alright here my program for goverment

A.) The tax system will be simplyfied with a flat 12.5% tax on all income to the average wage according to CSO figures and 17.5% on all income above that figure. No complicated reductions/credits/return. Flat it is.

B.) Corporate Tax will remain on 12.5% for trading and 25% for non trading with the reinstatement of the 10% tax for manufactoring until we can ensure a upskill program is in place for companies leaving.

C.) The VAT will be put to 15% (standard) and 5% (reduced) the mimimum allowed under EU rules
Food: however the reduced rate is now also chargeable on food for human consumption, the 21.5% penal rates for savory snacks etc will be reduced to 5%. Alcohol however will be on the top rate of 15%

D.) The 160€ health insurance levy will be scrapped and the insurance market clearly opened.

E.) The 10€ Airport tax will be scrapped.

F.) Public Servants (before 1996) will have to contribute to their guaranteed pensions. A calculation must be made to assess the money that is needed to generate the pension entitlement which is than split by 60% for state and 40% for employee (i.e. if 100 € are needed the employee has to pay 40 €). This is similar to a private person contributing to a pension fund that should generate a certain income (which however we knowis not guaranteed). No % depending on income but a fair market value.

G.) The states holding in AerLingus will be sold to the highest bidder however the slots in Heathrow will be retained.

H.) The state holdings in ESB will be sold to the highest bidder, however a Public Service Obligation will apply.

I.) H applies to Bord Gas

F.) HSE will be abolished and a Health Management Agency established that will procure the required services ensuring public service.

J.) M50 roadtall will be abolished, the bridge has been paid enough and we are all paying road tax


That's all I can think off.

So now where is this new policitical party so that we can discuss my unrealistic demands.

I'm sure they are not perfect and some details need to be ironed out or even scrapped, but at least I have an idea.

 

[UptheDeise]

Here's my two cents

1. I would reduce the number of TD's to 80. We don't need 166.
2. I would reduce the Seanad to 20. We don't need 20. I would also allow the public to vote for the Seanad.
3. I would get rid of all the 'support' staff for both houses. Junior ministers, pr consultants, advisors, experts, pa staff etc etc.
4. I would bring in a credit based system with the dole. Not now but when we come out of the crisis. People have 2 years worth of credit. If they use up the 2 years. Tough. They get no payments anymore... nothing, zilch, nada.
5. I would get rid of the grants system for farmers in the EU. Farming is oudated and the money saved on this could be better invested.

 

[Padraigb]

Now that we know what this proposed new party is likely to do (wreck the country entirely) it might be time to abandon this thread.

 

[Protocol]

Alright here my program for goverment


C.) The VAT will be put to 15% (standard) and 5% (reduced) the mimimum allowed under EU rules
Food: however the reduced rate is now also chargeable on food for human consumption, the 21.5% penal rates for savory snacks etc will be reduced to 5%. Alcohol however will be on the top rate of 15%

Lower VAT = lower tax revenues. How would you make up for the loss in revenues?

F.) Public Servants (before 1996) will have to contribute to their guaranteed pensions. A calculation must be made to assess the money that is needed to generate the pension entitlement which is than split by 60% for state and 40% for employee (i.e. if 100 € are needed the employee has to pay 40 €). This is similar to a private person contributing to a pension fund that should generate a certain income (which however we knowis not guaranteed). No % depending on income but a fair market value.

Please note that public servants pre-95 already contribute 6.5% of salary for their pension, plus the new levy.

You are talking about civil servants (30,000-35,000 or 10-15% of public servants).


I'm sure they are not perfect and some details need to be ironed out or even scrapped, but at least I have an idea.

 

[Ancutza]

Now that we know what this proposed new party is likely to do (wreck the country entirely) it might be time to abandon this thread.

I don't think so at all. There are some VERY valid points being raised here.

I agree so far with the suggestion that there be less TDs, Senators and their support staff. Afterall what is sauce for the goose is the same sticky stuff for the gander.

I don't agree that we abolish the army although I think we should retract it from its foreign theatres of operation and it should be explicitly de-unionised. The same for the medical profession (doctors & nurses working in hospitals) and essential public services such as refuse collection, telecommunications and power generation and distribution.

Gerry Rooney should be charged with treasonous incitement amongst the ranks and jailed. Thereafter any armed services member unhappy with their lot should be allowed to leave and join the dole queue and the rest of them put to work in what they signed-up for, the service of their country's greater good.

Sorry to bang on about the army so much but if the country can't rely on them as a force of order and reason then all is lost.

 

[Purple]

I agree with a lot of the points being made around reducing spending etc but we are not just an economy, we are a society as well. We can't function as a society if we do not have an economy but we still need some social cohesion.

 

[DonDub]

Given the increasingly obvious FF mismanagement of the economy over the last number of years (for which I apologise as I voted them at least twice), Labours socialist agenda and Fianna Gaels 'say-anything-to-get-into-power' approach I'd like to put the case for the formation of a new political party.

What we've had until now is an oligarchy dressed up as a democracy but declared to be a Republic. So where will the new party position itself and any suggestions for a manifesto?

I'm going to go for centre right, more republican than democratic, and tipping towards being more right than centre.

Agree a new party might help to get us out of this mess; however, the key issue is the crap electoral system we have -
it encourages clientelism and 'cute hoorism' . In fact, our PR system actively militates against anyone with an IQ greater than an amoeba's from getting elected. Those few TDs who do demonstrate a degree of intelligence - typically deploy it to maintain the status quoto protect their own interests, and those of the amoebas who make up the majority in the Dail.

So, what we need is a party who will:

1) Articulate a compelling vision for a 'new' Ireland

2) Describe the difficult decisions required to achieve the vision

3) Prioritise major reform of our electoral system i.e. move to a list system, reduce size of Oirechtas by at least 50%.

4) Seek a mandate

5) Get elected

6) Do it!!



Easy.......................

 

[zephyro]

Now that we know what this proposed new party is likely to do (wreck the country entirely) it might be time to abandon this thread.

That's right, because at least with the current system and incumbents we're guaranteed to avoid such an outcome.

 

[DublinTexas]

Thank you Protocol for pointing out the civil servants vs public servants difference. However still both groups need to pay a fair share as outlined. I think there was a gentlemen in yesterdays questions and answers who pointed out that he would need to pay 25% of his salary into a private pension fund to have a similar cover his techer wive has. So I think it's only fair that both civil and public servants contribute, but not via the "levy" but rather via a fair contribution sharing between them and the state.

In respect of VAT, I do actualy not think that a lower VAT rate is harmfull or would generate a loss. The right way of taxing those of us who have a higher disposable income is by the means of a sales tax. Unfortunatly a Sales tax has disadvantages over a VAT (VAT = less paperwork for business and is somewhat fairer throughout the distrubtion chain).
VAT is still the easiest way to tax those of us who spend more money. A lower VAT will result in more spending and hence in the creation of more jobs generating more income tax generating more spending in generating more VAT and hence more tax overall.

 

[Padraigb]

... A lower VAT will result in more spending and hence in the creation of more jobs generating more income tax generating more spending in generating more VAT and hence more tax overall.

How come everybody else has failed to understand that? [I am trusting that you did the sums.]

 

[PaddyW]

I'm with DublinTexas on the VAT. Lower VAT means lower prices in the shops, which should hopefully result in higher spending on these goods, more jobs creating these goods, therefore creating more taxation for the government to collect.

Also, make this country a meritocracy ....

 

[DublinTexas]

How come everybody else has failed to understand that? [I am trusting that you did the sums.]

Because the typical reaction is always "raise taxes" that is a natural instinct of politicans.

Lowering the VAT can on it's own not work, you also need to address other aspects of the taxation system (like income tax) and you need to be willing to introduce VAT on goods that currently don't have any at the same time. It's about distributing the tax burden more to a consumption level rather than an income level with so many exceptions that it's hard to do a tax return.

Vat is a regressive tax because it costs lower-income people a larger percentage of their earnings than those on higher incomes. So lowering it has also a positive effect on those who have a low income because it increases their spending power.

Comrade Gordon has understood that and lowered it in the UK.

 

[Padraigb]

Because the typical reaction is always "raise taxes" that is a natural instinct of politicans.

Our politicians have been lowering taxes for years, to the point where we moved from being one of the highest-taxed economies in the developed world to one of the lowest-taxed.

Lowering the VAT can on it's own not work, you also need to address other aspects of the taxation system (like income tax) and you need to be willing to introduce VAT on goods that currently don't have any at the same time. It's about distributing the tax burden more to a consumption level rather than an income level with so many exceptions that it's hard to do a tax return.

Wriggle, wriggle. Now some VAT has to rise, and you make unclear suggestions about IT. I am flummoxed by your last sentence.

Vat is a regressive tax because it costs lower-income people a larger percentage of their earnings than those on higher incomes.

It's not necessarily regressive if you have different rates for different types of goods and services.

So lowering it has also a positive effect on those who have a low income because it increases their spending power.

Your initial point was about economic effects, not about social justice.

This is voodoo economics.

 

[UptheDeise]

Lower VAT will not necessarily mean high sales and therefore higher taxes accumulated. The UK government did that and it hasn't work, ultimately causing the exchequer £12 billion is loss revenue.

Most companies these days are having perpetual sales, so a reduction in VAT wouldn't make any difference.

 

[DublinTexas]

Our politicians have been lowering taxes for years, to the point where we moved from being one of the highest-taxed economies in the developed world to one of the lowest-taxed.

I disagree we might have lowered the direct taxes but the indirect taxes are what are brining in the money or the stealth taxes (like bin charges).

Wriggle, wriggle. Now some VAT has to rise, and you make unclear suggestions about IT. I am flummoxed by your last sentence.

In my original proposal I quite clearly stated that "Food: however the reduced rate is now also chargeable on food for human consumption." So I always said that some type of VAT needs to rise while others go down.

In theory I actualy even would prefer a fair taxmodel based on consumption tax alone but I don't think that we are ready for that in any form yet. Not that we are ready for anything anyhow.

It's not necessarily regressive if you have different rates for different types of goods and services.

Well would you prefer a single VAT rate on everything? I'm happy to debate that.

Your initial point was about economic effects, not about social justice.

So an economic effort that at the same time is social justice is bad? What now because I favor tax cuts I'm not allowed to also use social justice as an argument?

This is voodoo economics.

I cleary said that this is my idea, at least I have one unlike out ride it out 360 degree turn goverment.

Maybe you could share you alternative proposal for what we should do, because I'm very interested in hearing that one.

 

[csirl]

A.) The tax system will be simplyfied with a flat 12.5% tax on all income to the average wage according to CSO figures and 17.5% on all income above that figure. No complicated reductions/credits/return. Flat it is.

This measure alone would have a very very positive effect on the economy. Though I would prefer just a straight flat rate of e.g. 14% instead of 2 rates. We need to get away from the current tax/sw system whereby hard work is penalised and doing nothing is rewarded.

 

[Padraigb]

This measure alone would have a very very positive effect on the economy.

Assertion isn't enough. A big statement like that needs to be explained.

Though I would prefer just a straight flat rate of e.g. 14% instead of 2 rates. We need to get away from the current tax/sw system whereby hard work is penalised and doing nothing is rewarded.

It would save a lot of money if we withdrew all social supports from people.

 

[DublinTexas]

Assertion isn't enough. A big statement like that needs to be explained.

It would save a lot of money if we withdrew all social supports from people.

Where in the world did you see a withdraw of all social support in there?

Lower taxes don't mean less social support, if you make a fairer tax burden and streamline the support than you actualy are able to deliver better services.

Again, maybe you could share you alternative proposal for what we should do, because I'm very interested in hearing that one.

 

[csirl]

Assertion isn't enough. A big statement like that needs to be explained.



It would save a lot of money if we withdrew all social supports from people.

Based on the figures required to run the country in the 2009 Book of Estimates, a flat rate tax of 14% would raise the same amount of tax as under the current tax regime.

I would contend that this is a much lower rate of income tax than the typical PAYE working family is paying. These people would have more money to spend.

Also, as the rate is drastically lower than the 41% rate of tax, that people would be more willing to pay it thus reducing both evasion, and most importantly avoidance. Past experience - early 90s - suggests that the tax take would go up due to the lower rate. It would also encourage people to work harder as they would not lose nearly 50% of their income in tax/prsi for doing extra work or upskilling to a better profession.

So I would contend that the flat rate would take in significantly more tax revenue that the current system and at much lower compliance costs.