Yep, back in the days when they paid little or no income tax. Now they provide a far larger proportion of their income but do so through the taxation system.
Yep, back in the days when they paid little or no income tax. Now they provide a far larger proportion of their income but do so through the taxation system.True, not-for-profit healthcare was primarily provided through a voluntary and philanthropic ethos with donations and subscriptions from private individuals and estates.
The rich providing services to the poor.
Sure, in the scheme of things, but still a subsidy and a significant one on a case by case basis.In the scheme of things, the costs of which would be chicken feed.
Borne by all taxpayers, in the scheme of things, chicken feed.
Lots of assumptions. Why not take what people say at face value and comment accordingly?Yes, that is the taxation system. I, perhaps incorrectly, assumed that you opposed paying for services that others use that you dont.
I assume, given the nature of this discussion, that there is an agenda on your part, not to pay no taxes, but to reduce taxes for high earners, in particular, where services are not being availed by those same earners and impose the cost of those services on lower-income earners.
Again, I assumed the agenda was to be able to avail of such options.
If you agree that nobody should be paying marginal tax rates above 45% then you must agree that the current rates are too high
Not if it kicks in at €5000.
So you think that a temporary emergency tax should be kept in place forever?
That’s why we have budgets. If we reduce the tax burden on hard work and achievement then we are more likely to get hard work and achievement.
That’s why we should strive to get to the average level of efficiency in the OECD when it comes to value for money in the delivery of public services.
LEAN, Kaizen, and other process improvement tools can and should be used to improve processes and efficiency. Duplication of services, duplication of actions, inefficient use of capital resources and restrictive work practices all lead to massive waste.
The possibility should certainly be there. A review and maybe a move to a smaller property. If you aren’t making the effort to fend for yourself then your fellow citizens shouldn’t have to keep paying your way.
Yep, back in the days when they paid little or no income tax. Now they provide a far larger proportion of their income but do so through the taxation system.
So you've said.They are too high at incomes of €33,800, not necessarily too high at higher incomes.
Why? They were at that level a short while ago and we didn't have any of those things.Such a drastic reduction if implemented swiftly would cause social unrest, in the end costing the state more. Incremental adjustments would be preferable but I doubt you would ever get to such levels in the absence of universal health care for all, free childcare, higher wages, etc, etc
Not without raising our game as a State drastically; maybe even to average OECD levels.No, I just dont think it is feasible to abolish anytime soon.
Why such emotive and offensive language? Would it be ok to describe long term welfare recipients as parasitic scum? I certainly don't think so and by the same token I don't think it's ok to use that sort of language about rich people.Without the rewards of such hard work and achievement being distributed fairly, invariably, those who control the wealth will gorge a larger slice of the pie, leading inevitability to the imbalances in our society once again.
I see no evidence to support that view.We can do better than average.
Agreed. We sell the same products for less now than we did 20 years ago. Those tools are part of the reason we can.All useful tools and ideas applicable to all organizations both public and private, reducing state spending and reducing the cost of private goods and services.
Not at all; hostels are used in many countries.And if evictions follow? Homeless families roaming the streets? The construction of shanty towns?
No. Are you?Are you harking for those days?
Sure, in the scheme of things, but still a subsidy and a significant one on a case by case basis.
Lots of assumptions. Why not take what people say at face value and comment accordingly?
As far as I can see we all want the same outcome; a society where work is rewarded and those who need a hand up get it. We just disagree somewhat on how to achieve it.
the lack of ethical standards and social responsibility by those who choose to adopt a parasitical lifestyle
Why such emotive and offensive language? Would it be ok to describe long term welfare recipients as parasitic scum?
Not at all; hostels are used in many countries.
Alternatively, if you choose to pay over and above that is your business, your investment in your children's education. But by no means are you subsiding my childrens education. I, and millions others pay for that through the taxation system.
That is your choice. If you believe that health services, education, transport etc are inadequate then you have the right to pay for your own services - but that is wholly conditional on being able to afford it.
Others, who cant afford such services, still need healthcare, still need education, still need housing and transport systems. Who is going to pay for it?
For instance, this discussion, in this format, is only possible by virtue of mobile and internet technology providers using the states communications apparatus. For that we all pay taxes. Even those who don't use the internet. They are subsidising you and me.
The taxation system is there to provide the fabric of our society, social services, education, health services, transport etc...that would otherwise not be available to the population at large due to cost restrictions of funding private education, health, transport, housing etc.
I think what he is saying is that a healthcare system, designed for profit, is not an efficient means of providing healthcare. So much so, that in order to initiate a private healthcare system, the public system must be allowed to deteriorate, otherwise, who would buy into it?
Private health insurance is not about providing healthcare, it is about generating profits.
I never said I was. I don't think it makes any difference whether children go to a public or private school as far as costs to the state are concerned - the state, ie taxpayer, pays the wages regardless. So we all subsidise each other in that respect.
it's probably cheaper for the state if children go to a private school as the state does not have to pay for the upkeep of the buildings.
Regarding private school costs, these are a lot lower then you would imagine, in fact they come in at about half the cost of putting a child in creche! And so many normal, working people are able to afford that.
Not sure about this example. I use Virgin Media and my mobile is with Tesco.
You are assuming that these services would be more expensive if provided by the private sector.
.....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....
...Again, I think most other countries in the world have a better track record than us when it comes to administration. ....
Any chance of some supporting evidence to back up your claims on things like net costs to other countries who tried to implement these ideas
or the point your making about the dog licences please ?
Quite a few http://www.metronews.ca/views/winnipeg/your-ride/2015/04/13/why-bike-licensing-schemes-simply-do-not-work.html (links) for [broken link removed] one.
In , less than 190,000 dog licences were purchased with an estimate of more than 700,000 dogs in the country. That's revenue of less than €380k per annum. An Post are paid for their contract to collect and administer licences, that doesn't leave a lot to fund the dog warden service in each local authority area.
Its probably cheaper for the state if I buy bottled water rather than drink tap water. Its probably cheaper for the state if I use my own septic tank rather than plug into the public waste system. Its probably cheaper for the state if I walk to work rather than rely on a public road system...etc
There are so many ways that it could be 'cheaper for state' if I did things without using state built structures and facilities. But if I do, then most likely so are many others, to the point that we all 'subsidise' each other to some extent.
Im sure the costs are cheaper, considering the state pays the salaries of teachers. If they paid the salaries of childcare minders, childcare would be a lot cheaper too.
The industry is regulated by comreg, a state body. Without which any cowboy outfit could set up shop, consumers ripped off, masts set up all over the place, etc..etc..
(Those things could still happen, but at least there is some deterrent and protections).
Im talking about the infrastructure of the state. The roads, the hospitals, schools, ports, water, defence, justice system, industrial parks, community parks, energy grid, etc...etc..
It is simply not plausible to assume the construct of a civil society in the absence of the organs of the state.
Anything the State can provide better than the Private Sector should be provided by the State. I see no evidence that this is the case with Healthcare but the State generally does a good job with Education as we have an average enough education system which compares well relative to the appalling waste of money in our health service.I totally agree, but the state should not provide everything, but rather those products / services that are needed but not always economical. Anything the market can provide, the state should not.
The factual bit - thats €380k (less costs, which could not be significant) more than the state woudl have had otherwise. It all adds up !
The estimated bit - estimates are worthless, often plucked out of the air. No offense Leo
It is now a legal requirement to have all dogs microchipped and I know that doesn't guarantee 100% compliance, but it should certainly facilitate some sort of accurate head count on the number of dogs in the country and over time, this will become far more accurate. I appreciate that the figures you have provided date back to 2012, so clearly they are well out of date at this stage.
Also, the microchip database gives a very simple list for people to cross check, to see if everyone has paid their dog licence.
Finally, as for the dog wardens... I actually wonder if they even exist tbh. I've never seen one, or heard of anyone else coming across one. However, if they do exist then I'm sure we could beef up their job spec to include monitoring cyclists (subject to a big arguement with their union and a few days strike action first, needless to say)
So go on then, how much of that €380k do you think goes to the exchequer after all costs are covered? Factor in what An Post is charging, the LA dog warden service costs, advertising, etc....
....there's a whole field of science that would take offence to your generalisation that estimates are worthless.
....The most extensive Irish survey on pet ownership only chose 200 households across the country as being representative, that found 49% of households owned one or more dogs.
...How many dogs are currently microshipped?...
....I'd like to see any evidence that micro chipping has made any difference whatsoever.
....Dog licence holders are listed in a database too. How is this more recent list going to become a magic cure to address lack of compliance?
...Every local authority either has their own dog warden service, complete with specially trained personnel, equipped vans, etc., or they have contracted those services out. I've never seen a high court judge, I do believe they exist though.
If your trying to tell me that dog wardens are funded exclusively from this income, then it certainly explains why I have never seen or heard of anyone else meeting one... I seriously doubt thats the case, if they do really exist. As for what I think the net take should be, if gross is €380k then I'd say net shoud be 15% less and thats being kind. If they made the process more efficient (i.e. changed the current paper based notification and subsequent licence, both sent by post etc.) then that could easily be trimmed to sub 10%. Anything above that percentage is simply being spent badly, imho.
A sample group that small was rediculous, there's no way that could accurately represent the nation.
The microchipping is now a legal requirement, so shortly after birth all new dogs will be microchipped and over time, this list will become complete (because older dogs that have not been microchipped will die off).
You can go into a public court and see a High Court judge (working), where can we go to see the wardens (working) ?
Hi all, just on the income from dog licenses, should it not be €3.8m rather than €380k (190,000 x €20.00)
If you (and others) did all of those things, it would be cheaper for the taxpayer yes. I agree that we all 'subsidise' each other to some extent as per post 468
Are you suggesing the state not pay the salaries of teachers in private schools? Fees would rise to such an extent that children would go to public schools where the state would then need to hire additional staff - the costs would just move.
this is a good example of what I believe we should strive for in other areas where the state is currently providing the product / service, such as transport, education and health for example
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?