"We are the only OECD state where some get back more than they pay in income tax"

Duke of Marmalade said:
I would say everyone is in violent agreement with this statement given the qualifier which I have put in bold.
Click to expand...

I would have thought so too, but the subsequent hysteria and persistent references to Soviet Russia et al would suggest different.

Duke of Marmalade said:
So one could argue that Ireland does achieve this objective, albeit some or fall through the safety nets. But that is a matter of opinion as to what is practical given Ireland's current state of economic, social and political development.
Click to expand...

True, I would go further to state that we live in one of (or in a group of) the wealthiest, most developed and safest countries in the world.
I agree about the safety net , or those that fall through it. It is hard to envisage a society that is all things to all people.
Take homelessness for instance, an age old problem that is hard, for multiple reasons, to wholly eradicate. Nevertheless, when the homelessness rate starts to increase, coupled with a new demographic (working people, with families), then something is going wrong that wasn't occurring previously.
It is simply not sufficient to dismiss what is happening as a consequence of the market, or some 'invisible hand', or as the failure of public sector worker's to deliver the service.

Duke of Marmalade said:
BTW. "mute" unable to speak "moot" open to debate
Click to expand...

Duh!
 
Firefly said:
Yet for everyone who is lucky enough to have an income of over 2m you would tax them so that they would have an equal outcome....
Click to expand...


The point is not to collect more tax ( accepting the implication of previous comment of a 100% tax).
The point is to establish a social norm. Who would pay themselves €2.5m if €0.5 would be taken up in tax? The net tax take would be zero as no one would pay themselves greater than €2m.
But in the absence of incomes greater than €2m then, the money that would have been used for those greater incomes will need to find a home elsewhere. Some ideas could be, increasing wages for employees lower down the chain, increasing spending in the economy, reducing reliance on welfare. Or, invest in more employees, increasing spending in the economy, reducing reliance on welfare. Or invest in research and development, increasing spending in the economy, reducing reliance on welfare.

The €2m maximum income is a ball park figure. In 2012, there were some 300 individuals who earned greater than this amount. I estimate that with 80,000 people on All Ireland day, only one person would be unduly affected. To the point that they had to survive on €2m a year.
To re-iterate the point, a max income is not to penalise, but to create a social norm, just like a social norm has been created with a minimum wage.
 

Exactly....equality of outcome!!
 
TheBigShort said:
For all of 300 people!
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter. As you said it was a ballpark figure. Nothing stopping someone from picking 1m or even 100k for that matter. The point is that when asked, you said you were for equality of opportunity over equality of outcome, yet you would equalise the income for a particular group of people.
That's equality of outcome...
 
Last edited:
TheBigShort said:
I think I answered this already, oh yes...
Click to expand...
Do you think that we already provide that?



TheBigShort said:
What do you think is equitable? I don't think you have answered that yet.
Click to expand...
What we provide is equitable. What it costs is not.



TheBigShort said:
I think I answered this already, oh yes...
Click to expand...
Do you think that we already provide that?



TheBigShort said:
Yes, so therefore it's mute.
Click to expand...
OK, so how do you propose we do that when you want a maximum income?



TheBigShort said:
I think I answered this already, oh yes...
Click to expand...
Do you think that we already provide that?



TheBigShort said:
Equality of opportunity, and you?
Click to expand...
Ditto. That's why I would rather see money spent equipping people to get out of poverty rather than money being spent keeping people in a state of perpetual dependence.
 
@BigShort, I too would like your feedback on this:

 
See that's where you socialists just don't understand wealth creation. If the person who earns €2 million but could earn €5 million if they expanded their business, worked harder etc. has their income capped they just won't engage in the economic activities which would generate the additional €3 million. The business won't expand, the additional people will not be employed. The additional tax revenues from employers PRSI and the income tax from those employees won't exist and the economy will not grow in that area. For someone to gain an income of €3 million they have to generate economic activity far exceeding that. The tax take from that economic activity will be far greater than the €3 million you want to take. The net result will be that everyone gets poorer together, but then, that is socialism.
 

They could always move their businesses somewhere else too...
 

I think Bono nailed it...

"Ireland has a very different attitude to success than a lot of places, certainly than over here in the United States. In the United States, you look at the guy that lives in the mansion on the hill, and you think, you know, one day, if I work really hard, I could live in that mansion. In Ireland, people look up at the guy in the mansion on the hill and go, one day, I'm going to get that b*****d. It's a different mind-set."
 
Firefly said:
They could always move their businesses somewhere else too...
Click to expand...
Or they could leave their business here but move somewhere else with less penal income tax rates. Plenty do so now. They just have to move to Northern Ireland to pay less tax but there are plenty of other places too.
 

By any infinite stretch of the imagination, applying a 100% tax to 0.015% of the working population does not amount to equality of outcome. No more than a 40% tax on incomes of €100,000 is too. Or 20% on incomes of €20,000.
But to soothe your capitalist impulses, and considering that the nuts and bolts of such a proposal would need in-depth scrutiny, let's reduce it to 99.9% tax.
 

Someone earning 3m would take home 1,000 more than someone earning 2m. That's not a material difference in any way shape or form and in my book that's still equality of outcome...
 
Firefly said:
Someone earning 3m would take home 1,000 more than someone earning 2m. That's not a material difference in any way shape or form and in my book that's still equality of outcome...
Click to expand...

Is minimum wage equality of outcome? Do you oppose a minimum wage?
 
TheBigShort said:
Is minimum wage equality of outcome?
Click to expand...
I don't believe so as there is still opportunity for someone to earn more. Someone who works 40 hours at the minimum wage can earn 40 times more than someone who only works 1 hour at the minimum wage.

Taxing someone 100% of their income above an arbitrary threshold makes it impossible for them to earn more and is equality of outcome.
 
Last edited:
TheBigShort said:
Is minimum wage equality of outcome? Do you oppose a minimum wage?
Click to expand...
The dole is €5.50 an hour so that. along with other income transfers through the welfare system, sets a floor below which people will not work. There are multiple examples on this site showing that people with families need to earn in or around the average industrial wage in order to have the same income they will get on welfare. Do you think that is equitable? Do you think the socialist solution of paying people more than the market value of their labour is a viable solution to that issue?
 
Firefly said:
Taxing someone 100% of their income above an arbitrary threshold makes it impossible for them to earn more and is equality
Click to expand...

For 300 people in Ireland!
If you want that level of income can be increased to €3m or even €4m, thus reducing the number of people affected.
But either or, the purpose is not to put an undue burden on anyone's income, but rather set a value upon which we, as a society, determine to be more than sufficient in income as a social norm.
As Krugman wrote when talking about this subject "we should try to create the society each of us would want if we didn't know in advance who we would be".
 
TheBigShort said:
For 300 people in Ireland!
If you want that level of income can be increased to €3m or even €4m, thus reducing the number of people affected.
Click to expand...

That's my point. You could just as easily decrease it to 1m or 500k or 100k and increase the number of people affected. It is equality of outcome!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register