Paying for everything with other people's money

[Purple]

I was answering the question put in the thread. It would be good to know what your answer is, and the perhaps the basis for that answer.

So you won't answer my questions then. Of course you don't have to but it does weaken your position when you won't give a view on these core issues.

 

[The Horseman]

To be fair, what I said above was not a proposal - it was a question.



Personally, I think a number of things need to change with the system including these two for starters :
(a) anyone who is working 40 hours a week should not require welfare support. They should be paid sufficiently to support their family (within reason). The idea of supplementary income support does not sit well with me - the employers should be paying their employees enough to live on. And this includes the Department of Defense !!
(b) Social Welfare needs to be split in two - into those who require a security blanket (for whatever reason) versus those who make it a lifestyle choice (those who are out of work for years and years or who have never worked). The benefits between both concepts should be very different.

Completely agree with this especially (b).

 

[TheBigShort]

So you won't answer my questions then. Of course you don't have to but it does weaken your position when you won't give a view on these core issues.

It doesn't weaken my position, because I have answered the question that was put in the thread and the basis for that answer.
You haven't answered the question, so you have no position, neither weak or strong.
I was hoping to avoid repetition, but here is my answer from earlier post and the basis for that answer.

I stand corrected on the figures.

But the point still stands. A couple earning €50,000 - €80,000 between them, both working, with a mortgage and childcare will be hit very hard by this. It's possible you could tip thousands of such couples into mortgage arrears.
Others earning less will simply be queuing up for welfare supports to keep their head above water.
Wage demands on employers will increase.
Others will rely on more borrowing, re-mortgaging, credit cards, debt re-financing.
Others will become more prudent in their consumption, reducing consumer demand, putting small medium sized businesses under severe pressure.

Do you have an answer to the OP question?

 

[Purple]

My view is that we need to go back to the sort of income tax system we had in the mid 90's or maybe the Swedish model.
I paid income tax and PRSI as a first year apprentice. PRSI was paid on the first pound (punt) earned. I went onto the higher tax band as a third year apprentice (I was working in excess of 60 pay hours a week). Someone doing the same thing now doesn't pay any tax. I find that wrong, immoral and damaging to society. We cannot keep punishing people for working and creating wealth.
We need to broaden the tax base generally through things like property tax, water charges, wealth taxes, etc. and we need to broaden the payroll tax base by getting everyone, yes everyone, who works to pay some payroll taxes. The specifics can be decided by people who have access to all the numbers.

I agree with the proposals above that the rates of unemployment benefit should be tied to how much people have paid in, make it a pay related social insurance system, and that longer term rates should be lower. That could be done by freezing the current rates for long term unemployed and only increasing the short term rates over the coming decades.
Small steps.

 

[TheBigShort]

Here is the question again. Anything from Yes/No/Dunno will suffice at this stage.

"I support the removal of the personal tax credit of 1,650 euro per person to fund increased spending on public services"

My answer is no.

 

[Purple]

Here is the question again. Anything from Yes/No/Dunno will suffice at this stage.

Why do you keep trying to deflect from the overall substantive issue by deflecting/directing towards the specific? This is a discussion forum. We are not the Department of Finance. The discussion is about the general nature and balance of our taxation and welfare systems.

 

[TheBigShort]

Why do you keep trying to deflect from the overall substantive issue by deflecting/directing towards the specific? This is a discussion forum. We are not the Department of Finance. The discussion is about the general nature and balance of our taxation and welfare systems.

I'm not diverging at all. A specific question was asked, I have answered the question and provided the basis for that answer. You can do the same if you want. If you don't want then fine. But to answer the specific question asked by the OP may go someway to understanding your position on other substantive issues.

 

[Purple]

I'm not diverging at all. A specific question was asked, I have answered the question and provided the basis for that answer. You can do the same if you want. If you don't want then fine. But to answer the specific question asked by the OP may go someway to understanding your position on other substantive issues.

The substantive issue from the OP was;

Over the last few weeks, the usual budget discussions have occured were everyone wants increased spending using other peoples money. Maybe its time to decide what type of services we want, and how we fund them.

Stop deflecting the discussion into the minutia of a particular point.
I have outlined my opinions above.

 

[TheBigShort]

The substantive issue from the OP was;

Yes, upon which a direct question was asked.

 

[Purple]

Yes, upon which a direct question was asked.

There you go again.

 

[TheBigShort]

I am wondering if a poll was run for say 10,000 people, across all areas of society, and suggested the following wording how many would say yes:

"I support the removal of the personal tax credit of 1,650 euro per person to fund increased spending on public services"

So you won't answer my questions then. Of course you don't have to but it does weaken your position when you won't give a view on these core issues.

I get it, if I don't answer your question, I'm

.... trying to deflect from the overall substantive issue by deflecting/directing towards the specific?

But if you don't answer the OP question, that's just fine and dandy!