There were many golden opportunities during the crash that both goverments didnt act on
They had a golden opportunity to do that during the crash....reform the whole PS/CS, pay structures, jobs for life etc. They didn't do it then- it will never be done
What I oppose is the concept being pushed here that tax increases and welfare cuts be imposed solely for the purposes of providing tax cuts to higher earners.
Very well put.Probably not, SF/AAA and maybe main stream parties in Ireland are wedded to the idea of income taxation as a mix of punishment and charity, rather than an intelligent way of redistributing income that benefits all citizens.
We can only go so far with a situation where something like 570,000 pay nothing at all in income taxes
Nothing I say here will convince you otherwise
That most people can't be bothered attempting to argue against this type of 'logic':what does that say about the view held in favour of the proposal?
Someone on €17000 pays 20% on all of that income but applying personal credits to the tax liability, it results in a zero return.
But someone who earns €100,000 also gets personal tax credits. And applying those credits to the first €17,000 (taxed at 20%) of the high earners income also returns a zero liability on that first €17,000 of income.
So the proposal here is lets punish the low earner via higher taxes because they dont pay any, even though a higher earner doesn't pay tax on the equivalent level of income (USC aside).
So the proposal here is lets punish the low earner via higher taxes because they dont pay any, even though a higher earner doesn't pay tax on the equivalent level of income (USC aside).
What I oppose is the concept being pushed here that tax increases and welfare cuts be imposed solely for the purposes of providing tax cuts to higher earners.
All im looking for is a concrete proposal to support the views held here.
None are forthcoming so far, so what does that say about the view held in favour of the proposal?
That most people can't be bothered attempting to argue against this type of 'logic':
Why should I or others bother to make constructive suggestions when we know in our hearts that you'll similarly misrepresent anything we say?
Misrepresentation is the antithesis of discussion. You're still at it.Its called a different perspective, useful for discussion forums.
Im not intending to offend or antagonise anyone any more than they antagonize me.
Im simply on one side of the debate. If that offends or antagonizes anyone you can be sure remarks such as low earners or welfare recipients getting a free ride antagonizes me.
Misrepresentation is the antithesis of discussion. You're still at it.
I'm not here to defend the Indo. You've repeatedly sought to misrepresent what I have said and sought to defend it as "a different perspective, useful for discussion forums."Did you even read the Indo article that is at the centre of this discussion?
"Its not fair that low earners get a free ride on the backs of the top 20pc".
I'm not here to defend the Indo. You've repeatedly sought to misrepresent what I have said and sought to defend it as "a different perspective, useful for discussion forums."
As if.
No, the proposal here is to have a fair taxation system rather than an unfair one which punishes hard work.So the proposal here is lets punish the low earner via higher taxes because they dont pay any, even though a higher earner doesn't pay tax on the equivalent level of income (USC aside).
No, the proposal here is to have a fair taxation system rather than an unfair one which punishes hard work.
Threads evolve. The piece in the Indo was perhaps provocatively titled but it got the thread started and the discussion in the thread since then has been around fairness, international comparisons, rebalancing, other considerations, what changes could be made etc. I don’t think there has been a mention of ‘free ride’ by anyone since then (except by you – at least 12 times!). In hindsight, a better thread title might be ‘is our tax system unfair to high earners’? That’s what pretty much what we’ve been discussing. But people might not have engaged as much with such a vanilla starting point. Your constant harping back to the thread title and initial post is tiresome TBH. You did it on the other mega thread too (“but he saaaaaaaiiiiiiddddd… look – I can quote verbatim – it was said in post 1 therefore that is the entirety of what everyone is discussing”). Tiresome and ultimately a thread killer. Worth repeating – threads evolve.This topic is a misrepresentation of how low earners are apparently on a free ride on the backs of the top 20%. I make no apologies for calling this to be nonsense and challenge the propagators to back up their agenda with concrete details.
Threads evolve.
The piece in the Indo was perhaps provocatively titled
the discussion in the thread since then has been around fairness, international comparisons, rebalancing, other considerations, what changes could be made etc.
I was referring to what is being said in this thread, not what the title says.Not quite Purple ,
The heading started bluntly {Cut the Dole to reduce higher Tax rates.}
No doubt it would work , but as thread evolved it seems to mise , that all agree that Dole is good , less taxes is good , whats not good are those who leg-lift the system and abuse welfare.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?