Tim Hartford on Basic Income and other suggestions

Firefly

Registered User
Messages
3,488
Hi,.

The idea of a Basic Income has been knocking around for a long time now, but this article by Tim Hartford (Financial Times columnist) puts forward clear numbers against it along with proposals to privatise education and how to shake up the housing market. I've been a fan of Tim's for a long time now and have a few of his books. I would be interested in what others think of his proposals.

http://timharford.com/2015/05/what-a-radical-conservative-government-could-do

Firefly
 
Hi Firefly,

Very interesting article ... while i can see a lot of merit in most of the suggestions ... two points that stood out to me :
1. No mention of self - employed and how they are taxed ... this is a real issue, the proposal will only work if ww can be sure we are getting all the taxes due from the self-employed.
2. You can be sure that some would blow the 8k basic wage and come back looking for more based on their disability i.e. drug and drink addiction / gambling etc ... if society were to operate a basic wage system then we would need to be prepared to allow those who abuse it to fall below the poverty line and suffer the consequence, one of the big problems in current day society is a lack of personal responsibility.
 
one of the big problems in current day society is a lack of personal responsibility
It is indeed and it's getting worse.
Handouts that people haven’t earned and will never earn are now called “entitlements” as if to give the impression that they have some intrinsic right to get them or that they have somehow paid for them.

We live in a society where hard work and success are treated as bad things, as if wealth cannot be created but only re-distributed and so those with wealth must somehow have it at the expense of those who are poor. This is of course rubbish but we behave as if it’s an immutable truth.
 
Purple , Kinda disagreeing with some of your comment.

Is it not true ? that the very very wealthy , have skewed the other end of the system to make them untouchable .
It seems we have a cohort of (entitlers) at the top end that are screwing us .
It seems we have a cohort of (entitlers) at the other end that are screwing us.
It seems Mr Average who worked hard to provide for himself gets screwed from both ends.

Both cohorts can,t see their responsibilities .
 
Is it not true ? that the very very wealthy , have skewed the other end of the system to make them untouchable .
It seems we have a cohort of (entitlers) at the top end that are screwing us .

Is this true at all in Ireland, Gerry? I honestly don't think it is. Anyone earning serious money is paying serious tax, as far as I can see.
 
Purple , Kinda disagreeing with some of your comment.

Is it not true ? that the very very wealthy , have skewed the other end of the system to make them untouchable .
It seems we have a cohort of (entitlers) at the top end that are screwing us .
It seems we have a cohort of (entitlers) at the other end that are screwing us.
It seems Mr Average who worked hard to provide for himself gets screwed from both ends.

Both cohorts can,t see their responsibilities .
Internationally the super rich, i.e. multi-billionaires, skew things in their favour but not here in Ireland.
The people in the middle here, Mr/Ms Average, actually pay very little tax and in the vast majority of cases are net recipients from the state. It is only the top 20 or 30% of earners who are net contributors and the rest of us lean on them. Them's the facts, although it doesn't suit the ideological agenda of many people in politics and the media so it is ignored and public figures are allowed to get away with spouting the most ludicrous BS.
 
The top 1% of income tax payers pay something like 22% of total income tax receipts. A substantial percentage of income earners pay nothing.
 
It's true that high earners in Ireland pay a disproportionate share of direct taxes, yes.

But this is linked to their disproportionate share of the income.

Legal, medical, accounting, property costs are all too high in Ireland, so as a result it's no surprise that landlords, lawyers, medical consultants, etc. pay a lot of tax, it's because they charge too much.

It is now well established that we have some of the highest legal fees in the world, which didn't drop much during the Great Recession.

See here:




Commercial rents are still way too high, some of them need to fall 90%. UORR are still in force for many leases.

Example: Debenhams have paid 100 million in rent to the Roche family.

GPs in Ireland charge 50, while French GPs charge 25 [I realise the 50 is partly to subsidise the GMS patients].
 
It is now well established that we have some of the highest legal fees in the world

Really? Could you link to anything to support that claim? There's certainly nothing in the linked Indo article that backs it up.

Landlords, etc., will rationally charge whatever the market will bear. The same applies to anybody selling a service or product - that's simply the way markets work and there's nothing peculiar about Ireland in this regard.

In any event, high taxes will ultimately feed into prices paid by end-users so this becomes a rather circular argument.
 
It's true that high earners in Ireland pay a disproportionate share of direct taxes, yes.

But this is linked to their disproportionate share of the income.

You ignore the obvious point though that the Irish income tax system is sharply progressive - which really puts the kibosh on Gerry's charge that "the rich" are screwing us.
 
T Mc Gibney.

Is the Irish system {sharply progressive} ? I thought the big yowl was that because the base is too narrow only PAYE people get really hit.
I wasn,t saying that {the rich} are screwing us ,but it seems too big a % of the (elite) get inordinate breaks, and maybe as per Protocol earn too much !
Or could it be that the argument should be total taxes paid not just income tax.
(I am NOT an expert atall just observing)
 
T Mc Gibney.

Is the Irish system {sharply progressive} ? I thought the big yowl was that because the base is too narrow only PAYE people get really hit.
I wasn,t saying that {the rich} are screwing us ,but it seems too big a % of the (elite) get inordinate breaks, and maybe as per Protocol earn too much !
Or could it be that the argument should be total taxes paid not just income tax.
(I am NOT an expert atall just observing)

Here's one for a good read: "Debunking Irish Income Tax myths"
The top 1% of all income tax cases in Ireland earn 9.1% of income and pay 30.4% of the taxation
The top 5% pay almost 55% of all taxation from 22.7% of the income

Not sure where you seen inordinate breaks for the "elite" - but the top 1% paying 30% of taxation doesn't look like a tax break to me.

In terms of overall taxes paid, I assume you are also referring to VAT?

- No VAT pretty much on any food stuff to cook for yourself
- No VAT on kids clothing, or most hygiene articles
- Reduced VAT rate on heating fuel and electricity
So in terms of necessities the VAT system is quite OK I think.

(Note that I do think the standard rate of VAT (23%) is way too high)

Add to that things like free travel scheme, medical cards, etc.

Here's a link to more Revenue statistics: http://www.revenue.ie/en/about/statistics/income-distributions.html
 
Newirishman,
Thanks for that but more questions,

Was there not inordinate tax breaks on various {development} type things over the years ? Benefitted, I presume the (elite).
The infamous tax amnesty benefitted the (elite)
Low rate tax payer couldn,t get full breaks on pension funding .Directors could do (funnies).
Medical facilities , is it not true that even the elite are subsidised?
If Vat reduces , problem is what taxes replace it?

I always worry about statistics, as its very hard to get a fair overview from them and all vested interests are adept at selling their sectional interest.

I am NOT in the {hang those dastardly rich people}
but there seems to be a cohort of professions/people who visually appear to be doing better than their efforts justify.
I sense that Mr Average is being screwed , this may well be lazy reading by me or lazy reporting of statistics by media.

(just commenting, I don,t have nuff knowledge to be sure )
 
Was there not inordinate tax breaks on various {development} type things over the years ? Benefitted, I presume the (elite).
The infamous tax amnesty benefitted the (elite)
Low rate tax payer couldn,t get full breaks on pension funding .Directors could do (funnies).
The obsession with property development in this country - and related tax breaks, subsidies, and other crazy stuff - is "unhealthy" to say the least.

It is true that if you don't pay taxes you won't get a lot of tax breaks. Which is why for many reasons it is a not always a good idea to use the income tax system to distribute money (taxsaver ticket another example)

Medical facilities , is it not true that even the elite are subsidised?
The elite (which I am not sure who that group is in your opinion) tends to have and pay for private medical insurance. Without it, the HSE would be in even bigger trouble.


If Vat reduces , problem is what taxes replace it?
Maybe reduce spending instead?


but there seems to be a cohort of professions/people who visually appear to be doing better than their efforts justify.
I sense that Mr Average is being screwed , this may well be lazy reading by me or lazy reporting of statistics by media.

What efforts should that cohort of professions/people (again, clarify who) be making so that they are in your opinion "allowed" to be doing better?
I am probably in the top 10% income group in this country. I usually work 40-45 hours a week, but I can't say that I am killing myself over work.
Am I allowed to do "better" then someone who is on half my salary, and maybe working his/her buttocks off at all hours of the day?

This all sounds a bit like "entitlement" culture to me.
 
T Mc Gibney.

Is the Irish system {sharply progressive} ? I thought the big yowl was that because the base is too narrow only PAYE people get really hit.
I wasn,t saying that {the rich} are screwing us ,but it seems too big a % of the (elite) get inordinate breaks, and maybe as per Protocol earn too much !
Or could it be that the argument should be total taxes paid not just income tax.
(I am NOT an expert atall just observing)

With respect Gerry, if you need me to answer those questions for you, I can only conclude that your earlier rhetorical questions were just trolling. :mad:

As for the tax amnesties being some sort of tax break for the wealthy - the last tax amnesty was 22 years ago FFS. :rolleyes:
 
T Mc Gibney,

Not trolling ,
Just can,t see overall tax system as progressive ?
The Tax amnesty was one helluva tax break! I know a long-long -long time ago and I know a few loopholes have been plugged recently.
It seems the TAX the RICH camp reckon the RICH are creaming it .
It seems the NO PAY TAX DOWNTRODDEN workers are paying nought.

Is there any unbiased info that has been honestly collated.
Bit like the UK Brexit debate , each camp trumpets the argument that suits them .

(again I am just commenting)
 
T Mc Gibney,

Not trolling ,
Just can,t see overall tax system as progressive ?
The Tax amnesty was one helluva tax break! I know a long-long -long time ago and I know a few loopholes have been plugged recently.
It seems the TAX the RICH camp reckon the RICH are creaming it .
It seems the NO PAY TAX DOWNTRODDEN workers are paying nought.

Is there any unbiased info that has been honestly collated.
Bit like the UK Brexit debate , each camp trumpets the argument that suits them .

(again I am just commenting)

You are clearly not reading the replies.
You might argue that the tax bands might need adjustment, but it overall the taxation system is very much progressive.
It is simply: the more you earn, the higher the tax rate.

Follow the links posted and *read* the stuff, otherwise it isn't commenting but trolling.
 
Is there any unbiased info that has been honestly collated.
Read the report supplied with the earlier post Gerry! Generally you have come across as being a fair arbiter of what is right and wrong but on this occasion I do feel that you are generalizing on an issue without listening to any of the counter arguments made.
Why not be more specific in terms of your assertions that the "rich" are not carrying a fair burden of taxation? Look up the information that is available on comparable economies and see whether the Irish higher earners are being preferably treated by the taxman!
 
Back
Top