Property Tax, it's only a matter of time

spamspamspam is legal, or semi legal in a few countries.. big benefit there.

we should legalise it here and tax it... we'd likely raise a few billion Euro that way. Did Calafornia recently vote to legalise it?, or did they vote not to?.. they were considering legalising it to raise money as they're broke, and were paying their public servants in IOUs or special Calafornia money....
 

I have no problem paying an extra tax provided it will be used wisely and carefully and if the government can show that there really is no other option at all

I would like to see some evidence of cost-cutting and/or savings from the government first before continually raising existing taxes and/or creating new ones.

A property tax just goes into the big pot with the other taxes and is used to pay the likes of Rody Molloy et al their golden handshakes after they screw up etc etc

The list is endless
 

In fairness the last budget was all about cost-cutting rather than raising taxes so I don't think you can argue there has been no evidence of cost-cutting recently.
 
DB74 said:
provided it will be used wisely and carefully
Click to expand...

Indeed. But not a day goes by where we discover yet another huge wastage of our money through incompetence or corruption. Only today we hear about the 250,000 cost per civil servant of decentralisation. Think about that as you hand over your hard earned money, and thank the lords of Leinster house for the priviledge.
 
As someone who said they would pay a propery tax, I do agree that it should not be wasted foolishly, like so much money today in this country, by this Gov.
 
Protocol said:
Mankiw & Taylor, Economics, published by Thomson (a popular textbook).
Click to expand...

Why would you believe anything that Mankiw says or writes. His neo-Keynesian ideas are what caused this mess (economic adviser to Bush II) and his total and utter cluelessness to this fact are summed up in this one quote: "If you were going to turn to only one economist to understand the problems facing the economy, there is little doubt that the economist would be John Maynard Keynes. Although Keynes died more than a half-century ago, his diagnosis of recessions and depressions remains the foundation of modern macroeconomics. His insights go a long way toward explaining the challenges we now confront."
All popular Keynesian economists were telling the world up to 2007/8 that everything was OK. Why would anyone believe that looking to Keynes could explain the economic problems of today?!?!
 
Howitzer said:
How so?
Click to expand...

I suggest reading some of the quarterly reports by the ESRI from 2006 to 2008. You only need to look at the summary and summary tables of each to get a picture of how grossly clueless they held onto the notion of a soft landing and fast recovery.

Another favourite of Politicians (here and abroad) is the OECD. Their 2007 annual report is oblivious to any significant problems in the economy.

For some total Keynesian opinion before, during and after the crisis I suggest reading through some of Paul Krugman's "economic" articles.

I think too many people (I'm not saying you) blindly believe politicians that it was correct to listen to the likes of the OECD, ESRI, IMF, etc. and that it still is correct to do so, without looking into what they were actually saying.
 
I think you maybe doing a disservice to John Maynard Keynes. I don't think he would have advocated the pro-cyclical policies and light touch regulation seen over the last decade.
 
Howitzer said:
I think you maybe doing a disservice to John Maynard Keynes. I don't think he would have advocated the pro-cyclical policies and light touch regulation seen over the last decade.
Click to expand...

Keynes' idea was exactly that, to counter the negative effects of the business cycle through fiscal and monetary stimulus. This is exactly what has been happening since the 90s, where every bust is being "fixed" through government intervention. As for regulation I agree that he advocated more, as he wanted governments to actively manage the economy. However, it is not lack of or inappropriate regulation that caused the crisis. Financial regulations have been increasing since the early 90s to a degree that is higher than the early 80s.
Keynes' theory is as wrong today as it was when it was first written. The only reason it is popular in political circles, is because it gives governments the backing to run deficits and intervene more in the economy.


Complainer said:
See http://www.leftycartoons.com/wp-content/uploads/keynes.png
Click to expand...

This cartoon nicely summarises the recurring cycle of boom and bust. But what it gets wrong is that governments and their economists never turn around and say Keynesianism is outdated or dead, but rather grasp onto it in order to increase economic interventions. It is government intervention that causes the artificial boom, which always has to lead to a bust; Keynesian "rescues" of the economy only reinflate the bubble.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register