Cut the dole to cut higher tax rates

We live in a world where some people earn €18,000 a year and others earn €180,000 a year.

This is an undesirable situation.
...
Why is it undesirable that a medical consultant after 10 years' training and 10 further years' experience should be paid 10 times more than someone who is collecting glasses in a pub?

I would have thought it was very desirable.

The solution lies not in fiddling with the tax system, but in developing an economy where there is more opportunity for well paid work.

It may be possible to increase the amount of well paid work, but there will always be a demand for unskilled, low paid work.

Brendan

Perhaps the best response to your point is to say that there must be something wrong with our education system, if a fully grown adult has no more skills to contribute to society than collecting glasses.

I for one would like to live in a society with more economic equality than that. Which is not to say that someone with greater responsibility should not be paid more than someone with less. I would like to see a free market set wage rates, I suspect that a lot of our higher paid professionals would find that uncomfortable. At present wages in the medical sector are set by government policy, restricted training places, and anti-competitive practices rather than a free market. Other high earners, in the legal profession are even further removed from the market.

We have a situation where some sectors, although it has to be admitted less that previously, think pharmacies, airlines and taxis, capture rewards beyond what a free market would pay them.

Fiddling with taxes is not the solution to this unfairness. Abolishing restrictive practices would be a better approach.
 
Last edited:

Just wondering, do you want to outlaw glass lifting and other basic jobs?
 
T McGibney said:
Just wondering, do you want to outlaw glass lifting and other basic jobs?
Click to expand...

Not at all, I collected glasses in a pub myself for a time. But I wouldn't expect to be able to afford to put a roof over my head, raise a family or generally bear the responsibilities of adulthood based on what I could reasonably expect to earn from collecting glasses.

I would hope that my children, and by extension everybody else's children, would acquire the skills to contribute and thereby earn more than a glass collector.
 

Doesn't that kinda prove Brendan's point?

Why is it undesirable that a medical consultant after 10 years' training and 10 further years' experience should be paid 10 times more than someone who is collecting glasses in a pub?

Btw, you are spot on when you say that fiddling with taxes is not the solution to unfairness. Part of the reason why the tax system is in its present messy state is that it has been constantly fiddled with for years in order to achieve various, often mutually conflicting, objectives.
 

In fairness, I cant recall anyone over 25 employed with the sole function of just collecting glasses.
Waiting at tables and taking orders yes, but solely glass collecting, no. But if there are such people I would hazard a bet that it has more to do with lack of available opportunity rather than a lack of available skills on the workers part.
 
Most minimum wage employees are from middle income households.
That means they are most likely students working part time or mothers working part time. If anyone is working long term and full time and they are on minimum wage for most or all of that time then they are not very bright, not very motivated or a combination of both.
 
Purple said:
If anyone is working long term and full time and they are on minimum wage for most or all of that time then they are not very bright, not very motivated or a combination of both.
Click to expand...

Or due to a physical disability acting as a major impediment to career progression, or a mental disorder such as aspergers or dyslexia also acting as a major impediment to career progression, or lack of educational opportunity e.g. no SNAs, overcrowded classrooms, lack of funding for schools, or poor educational background coming from a broken home or abusive home, or bullying resulting in lack of self-esteem, or immigrants with poor English or a combination of these things and a multitude of many more reasons.
I would imagine that the amount of people that are being paid minimum wage and are actually 'not very bright' is tiny, close to non-existent.
 
"Why is it undesirable that a medical consultant after 10 years' training and 10 further years' experience should be paid 10 times more than someone who is collecting glasses in a pub?


One assumes that the glass collector is not the business owner of the pub?

Also, I personally know 30-year old medical consultants. They spent 5 years in medical school and the rest as fairly well-paid trainees in hospitals in a well-defined promotion structure that encompasses long hours (overtime rates), few exams but much time-consuming research and very responsible roles admittedly.

Not disagreeing with the thrust of the quote - but ... !

Marion
 
Brendan Burgess said:
Why is it undesirable that a medical consultant after 10 years' training and 10 further years' experience should be paid 10 times more than someone who is collecting glasses in a pub?

I would have thought it was very desirable.
Click to expand...

In fairness to cremegg it think the point may have been the differential in income inequality between those who earn most and those who earn learn least.
The limitation of high earnings to €180,000 was perhaps as inadequate as the reference to full-time glass collectors (is there such a thing?).
The problem with increasing inequality in income is that the higher the earnings go, then invariably the higher the proportion of tax will be paid by those at the top of the income scale.
And as we are discovering this is leading to protest against high earners having to 'pay for everything'.
Two possible options in my opinion, high earners take a pay cut, or start increasing the income of low earners.
The latter is most feasible and reasonable.
 
You are really scraping the barrel now!
I'm on the dyslexic spectrum, too complicated to go into in detail (when I type something if some of the words are not underlined in red I presume spellcheck is not working ). I was in a class of 46 in primary school (in the late 70's and 80's). I didn't have dyslexia then, I was just stupid. The point is that many people have stuff to deal with. That doesn't mean they can't ever earn above minimum wage. My friends daughter has Downs Syndrome. She only earns minimum wage but obviously we aren't talking about people like her.
 
Last edited:
TheBigShort said:
I would imagine that the amount of people that are being paid minimum wage and are actually 'not very bright' is tiny, close to non-existent.
Click to expand...

They said in 2007 that the number of vulnerable people who were highly dependent on urban bedsit accommodation was similarly tiny, close to non-existent. They changed their minds when these people ended up sleeping on the streets.
 
T McGibney said:
They said in 2007 that the number of vulnerable people who were highly dependent on urban bedsit accommodation was similarly tiny, close to non-existent. They changed their minds when these people ended up sleeping on the streets.
Click to expand...
Very few people who work full time are on the minimum wage for very long. The idea that families are being supported on one ir two minimum wage incomes is nonsense.
 
Purple said:
Very few people who work full time are on the minimum wage for very long. The idea that families are being supported on one ir two minimum wage incomes is nonsense.
Click to expand...
That's true. But there is also a cohort of vulnerable people who work for minimum wage in quasi-sheltered employment. One particular multinational retailer has an excellent reputation for employing people in such situations. Each successive minimum wage hike unfortunately makes it more costly to do so and a general sharp increase in wages might well put an end to these people's employment prospects.
 
The same applies in general unskilled young people from socially deprived backgrounds. An employer taking on someone in their late teens with a history of trouble with the law, who is functionally illiterate, no real work ethic and a chaotic personal life which has a high probability of impacting on their work life is doing so with the knowledge that there is a very high probability that their new hire will cost them money and would probably cost them money even if they weren't paying them anything... and yet there are lots of employers who want to give these kids a chance and take them on anyway. The State makes it harder and harder to do so because of an ignorant and bigoted socialist view which is pervasive in our left wing government, our left wing public sector and our left wing media which holds that employers are exploitative and immoral and that therefore anyone who is low paid is being exploited.
 


And that was my point. People arent stupid, or 'not very bright', they just have stuff to deal with.
 
TheBigShort said:
Two possible options in my opinion, high earners take a pay cut, or start increasing the income of low earners.
Click to expand...

Or increase taxation of low earners.

The sense of entitlement within our society is breathtaking. If you are a low earner, none of of the following (examples) should be affordable:

- Foreign holidays
- Meals out
- Coffee (other than homemade)
- Nights out

Where did the idea come from that those on minimum wage or the dole should enjoy anything other than a most basic standard of living? (i.e. home, basic food, and healthcare)
 

What about cake? Let them eat cake?
 

Hmm, minimum wage employees are likely to be mothers working part time. Sadly this may be true, but it shouldn't be acceptable. There is a real need to allow working mothers to work less than full time hours without having to work in minimum wage jobs. this is legislated for elsewhere but not in ireland. It is another reason the Squeezed middle does exist. There is very little well paid part time work openly available, despite a huge huge number of highly qualified and experienced women who would give anything for a family friendly job.
 
If they are skilled and working part time they will get higher rates of pay than the minimum wage. For example the majority of GPs are women, something like 70%, and yet the majority of GP hours are done by men. Female GPs can work part time and still make a good living. That says more about the tax system and lack of competition in the industry than anything else but it's an example of women working part time but getting far in excess of the minimum wage.
My friend has 3 kids and works part time as a hair dresser. She's really good at it and gets very well paid for her time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register