Cut the dole to cut higher tax rates


The middle key on the very left of your keyboard. That's the Caps Lock key - it can do magic things. You've found the comma key, but don't use it nearly enough. To the right of the comma key is the full-stop key..again this does magic things.
 
jjm2016, I find it very hard to read your posts. Can you add some punctuation please?

From what I see your point seems to be that tax cuts on high earners will not filter down/out as a reduction in what people charge. Is that correct?
 
Im not saying they should be off all summer. Im saying to get them to work an extra six weeks you will have to pay them. That costs money.

Why should it be an "extra" 6 weeks? Why can't they work the same hours as every other civil servant? We constantly hear of under-resourcing across the public sector. Teachers are intelligent people, could they not help out when the schools are closed?



So you have heard of people complaining about prices.

People complain when prices are raised more so than constantly complaining about the prices per se. And even if they did, competition would bring prices down


Yes, so what? De-regulate the regulators?

I'm not saying that. I am pointing out that those whose job it was to regulate the banks (The Dept of Finance & civil servants) didn't do their job properly. People have been calling for bankers and builders to be put in jail, what about the those meant to be regulating the industry?


Look, there are merits to de-regulation, privatisation etc. Generally, private companies are quicker and more flexible to adapt to change, demand etc.

And lower prices, and better choice. I was thinking about this last night in Tesco...can you imagine the choice and prices available to people if we only had one, state owned supermarket chain in the country!!

There are also benefits in having fuffy adds and clever marketing strategies in that themselves create further employment, creating further markets etc. This is capitalism at its best and spreading effectively among the population.
Not sure what you are saying here. The ads are obviously effective, otherwise they wouldn't be used.



Do you really think that these "small cliques of individuals in executive boards" only exist in the private sector? You seem to think that public sector = good and private sector = bad !
 
Last edited:

As others have tried to point out, your lack of punctuation and use of run-on sentences make this a difficult read. So it's not really clear what point you're trying to make.

high earners already paying top rate taxes and they have already factored this into there fees /costs and you now give some of it back and they dont pass it on and you take it off some one on the dole if that person now needs there services

Are you really suggesting that all high earners are consultants/doctors or solicitors? Or do you think those on the dole have need for the services of those who earn even more than those such as stock brokers, CEOs, marketing directors, pilots, etc.. Or are you suggesting it is the role of the tax system to sort out high costs in certain services sectors?
 

We constantly hear about 'market value' and people negotiating their contracts. Teachers have obviously negotiated their contracts and you think they can be changed without cost?
A report yesterday identified the need for some 70,000+ construction workers over next five years. Why cant the current construction workers just work an extra day for free? It would bring down the cost of housing for first-time buyers!

There is actually a private education school system (subsidised by the taxpayer). It hasnt really taken off in the general population however. Quite expensive for most people.

People complain when prices are raised more so than constantly complaining about the prices per se. And even if they did, competition would bring prices down

So you have heard of people complaining about prices.

People have been calling for bankers and builders to be put in jail, what about the those meant to be regulating the industry?

You were making the point of the benefits of de-regulation. I merely pointed out that it is not as so clear cut as that. I pointed out how, despite the real and perceived benefits to the consumer, the negative aspects are the trickle up economics where small cohorts of people gorge on profits for their own benefit.
I used the banking sector as an example of where, despite regulations remaining in place, that sector went out of control in its lending practices, which was tantamount to having a de-regulated sector. Would you favour a de-regulated banking sector?
By all means throw the regulators, developers and bankers into jail for any criminal activity. But that wasnt my point or intent. Im trying to explain to you that whilst there are obvious benefits to de-regulation there are also drawbacks.
The energy sector is an example of an industry of limited real benefits. Minimum and maximum prices are fixed by a regulator giving the impression that a free market economy is operating. It is in effect a sector with limited access to it. Ditto the private health insurance sector. Another sector that layers multiple 'plans' for consumers to choose from in the name of 'choice'. If it was a state body this would be called red-tape, too much bureaucracy, etc. In the private sector it is called 'choice'.

And lower prices, and better choice. I was thinking about this last night in Tesco...can you imagine the choice and prices available to people if we only had one, state owned supermarket chain in the country!!

Yes, it would be horrible, and nowhere will you find me supporting state ownership of a sector for the sake of it. Im merely pointing out that the privatisation of some sectors does not always deliver what it says on the tin.

Not sure what you are saying here. The ads are obviously effective, otherwise they wouldn't be used.

I got a nice colourful brochure from my health insurer this morning, reminding me what a great service they provide me (I havent had cause to use it yet, thankfully). After telling me how good they are, they gently reminded me of my renewal date approaching and that they will send me more information.
All nice and fine, except this stuff costs money and is reflected in the price I pay. This could all be done on-line and money saved. This is inefficiency, and like the motor tax office, all their business could be moved on-line, reducing prices.


Do you really think that these "small cliques of individuals in executive boards" only exist in the private sector? You seem to think that public sector = good and private sector = bad !

No I dont think that at all, I think that there is more opportunity for private operators to exploit the wealth created by workers in the private sector than there is in the public sector.
The levels of pay at CEO level in the private sector in comparable size organizations (budgets, staffing) far outstrips the levels of pay in the public sector.
The flip side is that public sector employees lower down the food chain, can in some instances, enjoy better rewards than their private sector counterparts.
This could be resolved two ways, increase wages at the top in the public sector at the expense of lower grade workers, or cut wages at the top in the private sector for the benefit of lower grade workers.
I prefer the latter option, and in doing so, the issues of imbalances in the taxation system being cited here could be resolved.
 
If they only worked 33 weeks a year then yes, they certainly should.

There is actually a private education school system (subsidised by the taxpayer). It hasnt really taken off in the general population however. Quite expensive for most people.
As the state funds education for every child when parents choose to send their children to a private school they are not consuming a service which they have paid for through their taxes. Therefore private education subsidises the public system, not the other way around. If all the kids in private schools went to public schools the state would have to put

Ok, so there was no deregulation in the financial system. The State and it's structures just failed to do their job.

I agree that there are major issues with so called free markets when there are very few players and, in the care of the private healthcare industry, the main supplier of services is the state.



Yes, it would be horrible, and nowhere will you find me supporting state ownership of a sector for the sake of it. Im merely pointing out that the privatisation of some sectors does not always deliver what it says on the tin.
I agree again. In my view the State should regulate but not run. That applies to refuse, healthcare and many other sectors.

Three is a row; I agree again. What really gets to me is when they send information about charities they support with my money.

The pay levels of the top people in public companies is an issue. Particularly in banking and finance where they are selling a reasonable homogeneous product and the institutions have been around for 100 years plus. It's different if a technology company is built on the creativity of the founder, then he or she is the one adding the value and so should be rewarded accordingly. I'm not sure how that can be changed though and the taxation system is certainly not the way to do it. It also involved a few small number of people so while it's irksome it is statistically inconsequential.
 

I am going to make this as clear as I can:

I think there should be regulation in the banking sector. Absolutely 100%.

Those who should have been regulating the banking sector didn't do their job properly. If they had done their job properly we wouldn't be in the mess we are in. It's like a water park, if you restrict younger children from going down a big slide and put a life guard at the entrance you'll be safe enough. If the life guard falls asleep under the sun, you are going to get younger children chancing their arm. An accident will happen and the slide will be closed for everyone. Shouldn't the life guard be held accountable along with the parents of the children?
 

Yep, no problem with that. You have identified a sector that requires more, or better regulation, rather than less regulation. So de-regulation is not always a benefit, and that was my point.
As I have said any criminal activity or negligence by regulators or whoever should be accounted for. The banking sector was a failure on the part of regulators and the industry itself. The industry itself has its own internal regulation, it has its own sectoral regulation through accountancy and auditory bodies, which for large fees, promise to hold and implement the highest of standards in line with regulations.
Put simply, if the traffic lights are broken because of inefficiencies in the traffic management system, it does not mean I drive my car recklessly through a junction. Im still ultimately responsible for my own actions, I do not need a state authority (as adequate or inadequate as it may be) to hold my hand.
 
Yep, no problem with that. You have identified a sector that requires more, or better regulation, rather than less regulation. So de-regulation is not always a benefit, and that was my point.
The answer to regulators not enforcing existing regulation is not the imposition of more regulation. Rather it is to ensure the correct enforcement of that existing regulation. If that doesn't work then fine, change it.
The rhetoric from the left wing media (RTE. Irish Times etc.) was that the failure was the result of "light touch" regulation. That's simply not the case.
 
It has......

Hi Leo,

You've raised some good points in your previous response on this, so I've "liked" it accordingly... won't go back over beaten ground too much other than to say:

  • I never said that roads, traffic lights, cycle lanes sould be exclusively funded by those using them, only that all should be contributing (including cyclists, to get back on point here).
  • I see there being a couple of key benefits to having cyclists pay an annual tax, those being: i) It's further revenue for the state and ii) it's installing a discipline on the cyclists to appreciate the services they get (and hopefully respecting the rules of the road better etc. as part of this).
  • Your reference to a cycle tax/licence being a disincentive in every jurisdiction in which it was introduced may be correct, but I put that down to people not wanting to pay tax. Sure, it's easy to say "oh, the cycle tax put me off cycling"because the cyclists have a vested interest in trying to avoid facing a tax, but thats not to say that licencing and taxing the cyclists is the wrong thing to do.
  • Your follow on comment about the cost to implement and administer is simply down to how it was managed etc. - outsource it to an existing organisation, rather than try to set up a new administration from scratch and you'll see costs managed better for example. Alternatively, think of something similar to the annual dog licence and how that works.
There's clearly some merrit in your point about emissions, but any credit to be given would have to be carefully thought out and not just given as a further "gift" alongside the tax break in the cycle to work scheme. If the people cycling were to show evidence that had got rid of their car / motorbike for example and were now regularly using their bikes then by all means thats a good thing and deserves recognition, but not for the fella who bought a €1k bike one Saturday to get half the cash back from the taxman and then let it sit in the garage for the next 12 months.
 
If they only worked 33 weeks a year then yes, they certainly should.

Should what? If they work 33 weeks, presumably they negotiated that with their employer?
If you want people to work for free, simply offer them the option.

As the state funds education for every child when parents choose to send their children to a private school they are not consuming a service which they have paid for through their taxes.

That is their choice. There is no requirement to send a child to a fee-paying school, there is however, a requirement to send them to school. I think society has figured this out to be a good thing. Certainly, whether a child is sent to a public or private funded school would indicate that the parents of those children think it is a good idea.
Perhaps, private schools should get a rebate from not utilizing the state system? But then again, private schools already receive subsidies. Not only that, the children participate in state funded, organised and administered examinations too.

Ok, so there was no deregulation in the financial system. The State and it's structures just failed to do their job

Yes, and industries own self-imposed, fee charging regulators, auditors and accountants et al.

in the care of the private healthcare industry, the main supplier of services is the state.

????

It also involved a few small number of people so while it's irksome it is statistically inconsequential.

I would disagree. Just because the ineptitude of high paying executives has not been revealed in all cases doesn't mean that overpaid executives are not prevelant in society.

The answer to regulators not enforcing existing regulation is not the imposition of more regulation. Rather it is to ensure the correct enforcement of that existing regulation.

That is why I said more or better regulation. What can deduce is that less or de-regulation in bank lending practices is not desirable.
 
Should what? If they work 33 weeks, presumably they negotiated that with their employer?
If you want people to work for free, simply offer them the option.
They get paid for the summer months. Didn't you know that?

Nobody is saying otherwise. The point is that if the children went to public schools instead there would be an additional cost to the school; therefore fee paying schools are a subsidy on the state system, not the other way around.

Yes, and industries own self-imposed, fee charging regulators, auditors and accountants et al.
They are not self imposed, they are imposed by the state.

The state buys a massive amount of healthcare from the private sector; GP's, hospitals etc. Every public hospital with private wards is the state providing an infrastructure from which the private healthcare sector buys services. Everyone who presents at an A&E and is duped into signing a form to be treated as a private patient is the same thing. The National Treatment Purchase Fund is the same thing.

I would disagree. Just because the ineptitude of high paying executives has not been revealed in all cases doesn't mean that overpaid executives are not prevelant in society.
How many people are we talking about? Is it hundreds, thousands? I can't see it being a meaningful number in the context of the overall workforce.

That is why I said more or better regulation. What can deduce is that less or de-regulation in bank lending practices is not desirable.
Again, nobody is saying otherwise. I just pointed out the lie perpetuated by the left that the problem was due to deregulation or light touch regulation. It wasn't, it was due to gross incompetence by auditors and highly paid officials and most particularly by the Financial regulator, the Central Bank and the Department of Finance. So far none of those people have been held to account. While there is a very slim chance that those in the private sector will be there is no chance that any state employee will ever have to answer for their (in)actions.
 
There you go BS.
 

Anywhere it has been tried, it has resulted in an overall reduction in tax revenue. Sadly, I don't think Ireland and our leaders will somehow be the first country to implement an efficient system that will actually result in a net gain to the exchequer, I fear we all know the opposite would be the case.

Doing something about the non-existent policing is the only way to target road compliance with the law. Multiple reports over the years have shown ~98% of motorists exceed the 50kmph limit in urban areas for example. Licencing, insurance, even penalty points has had no effect. Why should we expect a licence to affect cyclists, many of whom also drive, differently?


Believe me, I'm all for widening the tax base, but I just don't see how this could be implemented in any way that would result in a net gain.


Again, I think most other countries in the world have a better track record than us when it comes to administration. But you know that the dog licence has only 20-30% compliance here? Dog licence revenue doesn't even cover the cost or the wardens, let alone what it costs to administer and issue licences, and pay An Post for their collection services.


I'm not sure the credit idea should be brought in here. Production and collection of evidence would be far too expensive, so it would have to be based on an honesty system, and we're just not honest enough for that to work here.

People buying bikes on the BTW scheme don't get cash back, they get a reduction in their income tax deductions. So it's a reduction in the tax take to the exchequer that is to a large degree offset by the tax take on the bike/ and increased tax take from the larger bike industry.
 
They get paid for the summer months. Didn't you know that?

Yes, but I took it as implied in your comment about construction workers (that if they only worked 33 weeks) that they had also negotiated holiday pay conditions, like teachers.
Obviously now you didn't, so perhaps you could explain now why construction workers couldn't work extra days for free, rather than hire an additional 70,000+ over the next few years? Or even better, why dont you give up your holidays for free and work instead?

Nobody is saying otherwise. The point is that if the children went to public schools instead there would be an additional cost to the school; therefore fee paying schools are a subsidy on the state system, not the other way around.

No, there would not be. You have already stated that they have paid for the state school service in their taxes. So the resources are there for them already, they choose not to use them (except for the subsidies they receive and participation in the state examinations).


They are not self imposed, they are imposed by the state.

Im talking about their own internal regulations, procedures etc that failed dismally. Highly qualified, and paid financial 'experts' who didnt spot what was going on, or did, but failed to act professionally.
Really, if you have a throbbing pain in your head do need the State doctor to tell you have a headache? Do you wait until the State doctor arrives to diagnose you, or if you feel unwell do you act upon it yourself?


Thats fine, but you are talking about something else. Im not disagreeing the shambles of health structures in this country. Im saying simply de-regulating or privatising an industry does not always yield the desired outcomes - efficiencies, best price, etc. The private health insurance sector is an example of that. If what carries on for 'choice' was provided by a state body it would be labelled as bureaucratic, too much red-tape etc.

How many people are we talking about? Is it hundreds, thousands? I can't see it being a meaningful number in the context of the overall workforce.

I think it was yourself that said we are a high wage economy. There are 16,168 income earners earning in excess of €275,000 pa. It would be interesting to see what exactly is done to earn amounts greater than this. Certainly professionals at the top of their game could reasonably justify amounts in and around, or above, that figure. But I suspect that there would also be a lot of exaggerated self-worth.
Without naming names, I can think of one chief presiding over a national sports organisation who earns a multiple of the total prize money afforded to the championship winners of a league that is in perpetual financial difficulty.


Its hardly a lie perpetuated by the 'left'. A simple google search will return such claims from various quarters (including the left, but certainly not exclusively).
 
Purple you work in engineering manafacturing you should know that there are a lot of hardworking people employers/employees working on very low margins ,Employers have not taken a pay rise for years,Employees would not think of looking for a pay rise ,They have taken pay cuts worked short time let go and hired back again and now you want to tax them who are you going to give this money too,where do you think it will end up ,I am talking about Employers/employees on low pay
PS
I am not ignoring the question you asked i will address it when i get a chance
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Rates are too high but so are the amounts at which the lower rate kicks in.

Rates are too high at too low a level. Given the cost of living, headline VAT rate, stealth refuse, property, car taxes, I would disagree that taxes are too high at the highest levels (say top 20%). Remember, the top 20% will benefit also in take home pay with any increase of the tax band from €33,800.

The lower rate should kick in at a much lower income level.

The higher rate should kick in at a higher level.

There may be some scope for the lower rate to kick in at lower levels but in the round the yield will be small.

The PRSI ceiling should be reintroduced.

If benefits are to remain capped.

USC should be phased out as a priority

Dont agree entirely with this. Adjusted yes, but not abolished.

Nobody should contribute less than 10% of their income in tax.

Why 10% and not 9% or 11%. I agree in principle that a contribution should be made but it should be relative to services provided.

Nobody should be paying the higher marginal rate until they earn 150% of the average industrial wage.

No real sense to this, flies in the face of what you want to achieve. If average industrial wage falls (or more likely a greater portion of low wage jobs are created then a greater portion of higher earners will get caught paying higher rates of tax - causing threads like this to opened, back to square one.

Nobody should contribute more than 45% of their marginal income in tax.

I dont necessarily disagree with the sentiment but if you combine your 150% limit with this then in todays incomes then there will be a huge shortfall in taxes collected, even the low-income earners couldnt fill that void.

Overall tax receipts should be reduced as we reduce costs in delivering services.

How do you reduce the costs in delivering services other than primarily through pay cuts and reduced numbers in the public service?

We should strive to be average by international standards when it comes to value for money in the health service (let’s not set the bar too high)

Average by EU standards fair enough. Average international standards, no way. Too many basket cases dragging that average down.

We should strive to have wage costs as a proportion of healthcare spending at OECD average levels.

See above re international standards.

Welfare rates for short term unemployed should be increased and those for long term unemployed should be decreased.

Or decreasing to a minimum set level.

Public housing should be provided on 3 to 5 years lease agreements. There should be no expectation that the state will provide a house for anyone for their whole life.

What happens after 5yrs? Evictions?

We should, over a period of a decade or two, move towards self funded pensions for everyone in the private and public sector (new entrants only in both sectors) in order to address the single biggest financial issue facing this country.

Yep, no problem.


No problem with that but it will take time and investment, more money. Would you be prepared for the government to increase borrowing if an agreed program was established?
 

I don't understand this to be honest. Teachers are paid during summer months, so why shouldn't they work? I can't see how it involves asking them for something for free. Of course the other option is to not pay them for the summer months.
 

I don't think that is correct. They do chose to use them - the state pays the salaries of teachers in private schools and some people chose to send their children there - they are still using the services that they have paid for. If all the private schools closed tomorrow, all that would happen is that the state schools would need to hire more teachers there - the costs would stay the same.

I get the feeling that a lot of people from the left have issues with private schools. I can understand where the feelings come from - equality of opportunity and all that. We will be sending our boy to a private school in Cork - he is currently going to a feeder school (it's not officially a feeder school but the majority of boys from there go). We're quite involved in the primary school and the vast majority of parents are normal, professionals trying to give their children the best. We're putting money aside already and our fella is only 6. Others chose to smoke 20 fags a day, go to the pub 3 or 4 times a week, buy cars they can't afford and other things. Good luck to them but it's not for us.