Cut the dole to cut higher tax rates


This is all over the place.
 
Firefly said:
This is not reflected in the article as far as I can see, but only in the title of this thread?
Click to expand...

Ah c'mon, the article is littered with claims of unfairness for income earners compared to lower income earners.
And if the author was not intending to reflect this, then unfortunately, the OP took it to mean that.
As do I.
 
TheBigShort said:
No its absurd. Driving people closer to poverty in order to provide a extra income to those that have higher incomes is absurd.
Click to expand...
You're assuming that the status quo is fair to the higher earner and reducing their taxes is some sort of present to them.

High earners were hit first and hardest in response to the recession (which is fair enough and there wasn't much grumbling). But unfortunately what goes up is very difficult to bring down without the squealing of the shrill left. What is proposed here is a rebalancing of our tax structure which has skewed to be far too progressive. That looks like robbing the poor to pay the rich but it isn't.
 
Reactions: jim
Sarenco said:
No, that's just your political judgment - it doesn't demonstrate that the opposing view is absurd.

I assume you have heard of the parable of 10 men in a bar?

http://www.irishexaminer.com/viewpo...-parable-for-the-times-we-live-in-108946.html
Click to expand...

Yes I have read it before, and it has no bearing on what we are talking about as at no point does it state what the disposable income for each drinker is after they buy the drinks.
So really it is a waste of newspaper ink.
 
orka said:
You're assuming that the status quo is fair to the higher earner and reducing their taxes is some sort of present to them.
Click to expand...

No I am not. I know only two well the difficulties imposed through taxes and charges on working people.
What I am against is tackling the notion that for instance, a €40,000 a year earner has an unfair tax advantage over a €80,000 a year earner. And that the resolution to this is to transfer some of the tax liability from the higher earner onto the lower earner.
 
TheBigShort said:
Yes I have read it before, and it has no bearing on what we are talking about as at no point does it state what the disposable income for each drinker is after they buy the drinks.
So really it is a waste of newspaper ink.
Click to expand...

The point of the story is pretty obvious - if you attack high earners (by taxing them at punitive levels), they may simply decide not to show up at all. Or they may decide to drink their beers in another country where they won't be attacked to the same extent. The subsidised lower earners ultimately lose out in those circumstances.
 
TheBigShort said:
Yes I have read it before, and it has no bearing on what we are talking about as at no point does it state what the disposable income for each drinker is after they buy the drinks.
Click to expand...
Are you suggesting that equality of outcome is desirable? I thought we'd sorted that one out.
My disposable income is very low because I've a large mortgage and as a separated father of 4 children I have to rent a large-ish house. I have €60 a week to spend on groceries and cycle into work because I can't afford petrol. I still pay 52% income tax when I try to earn more to ease the burden. Should my tax be reduced because of that?
 

Yeh I get the point it is trying to make but it fails dismally. First thing to note is that the cost of providing the drinks (ignoring for a moment the absurdity of using alcohol as the example of a public service necessity) has reduced and each drinker carries on drinking as before. Its hard to see where a problem would arise where everyone was still receiving the public service.
I could imagine that a difficulty would arise if the barman had reduced the number of beers available between the men for the €80 (ie cutbacks).
But as it stands, reading the article again, it could be equated to reducing the 20% tax rate to 18% on first €33,500.
Someone on €33,500 will benefit more than someone on €25,000.
But hard to see higher earners being ganged up on in this instance where taxes are being reduced for all.
 

No I didnt suggest that. I suggested that the parable failed to identify the disposable incomes of the men.
But its ok, Ive just emailed them and drinker 1-9 have a disposable income of €1 to €10 each after the drinks. The tenth worker, paying the hefty €66, has €500 a week after the drinks.
Detail like that may put a different perspective on the story.
 
You know a lot of imaginary people...

It doesn't help the potential outcome though - that the tenth man leaves (the country) taking not only his €66 contribution to the drinks but also his €500 that he has been spending locally on goods and services.
 
TheBigShort said:
Yeh I get the point it is trying to make but it fails dismally.
Click to expand...

I'm afraid you are not getting the point at all.

Increasing tax rates beyond a certain point (or retaining tax rates at that point) is counter-productive for raising further tax revenue. The disposable income of various taxpayers after they've paid their taxes is simply not relevant in this regard.

Say incomes above a certain level attracted tax at a rate of 100%. Nobody would have any incentive to earn an income above that level so the economic effect of a 100% tax rate is to decrease the tax take at that level to zero. As such, tax revenue is maximised a rate that is somewhere between 0% and 100%.

I would suggest that a marginal tax rate above 50% may not be the rate at which revenue is maximised. If that is the case, then (subsidised) lower earners are actually being disadvantaged by high marginal tax rates on higher earners.
 
orka said:
It doesn't help the potential outcome though - that the tenth man leaves (the country) taking not only his €66 contribution to the drinks but also his €500 that he has been spending locally on goods and services.
Click to expand...

And why would he leave again? I think it more probable that the other 9 would be more inclined to leave through mass emigration given the poor incomes.
Anyway, we could talk around the houses on this article which is nothing more than a simplistic whim to suit a particular agenda.
It is open to all sorts of interpretations which cannot be resolved in the absence of finer detail.
In a word, its garbage.
 
The words of Jonathan Swift come to mind; ‘There are none so blind as those who will not see. The most deluded people are those who choose to ignore what they already know’*

*The second bit is a bit harsh in the context of a friendly conversation. It's only included because it's one of the few quotes I know and I'm trying to sound smart.
 
It would be interesting if middle and higher income earners start a serious campaign to match Swedish income taxes and services in Ireland as it would call out the many bluffers of the Irish left.

If you're earning say above 50k-60k or so you've nothing to lose - you get better services and have more disposable income. You're already paying taxes that are on a par with Nordic countries. Overall you're likely to have less disposable income taking everything into consideration - childcare, health insurance, pensions.

The reason Ireland can't move to a Nordic model is because such the trade unions will not allow it, vast swathes of their members would suddenly have to pay a huge amount more in income taxes.
 
I will be debating the issue with Father Seán Healy on Matt Cooper at 5 pm.

And I hope to speak from the audience on the Claire Byrne Show on RTE 1 at 10.30 pm tonight.

Brendan
 
Try not to bring up any facts when talking to Seán Healy as they get in the way of his narrative.
You could tell him you are proposing these things because you believe in social justice, just not his interpretation of what's socially just. Pseudo-socialists shouldn't have a monopoly on such phrases.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register