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

[TheBigShort]

I do think the issue of how a few thousand people are becoming billionaires needs be be looked

Perhaps you could expand on the above comment. I may have misconstrued but I took it to mean that there should possibly be an income limit.

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.

And that's where you free-marketeers don't understand economics.
Nobody will be restricted from engaging in economic activity. And there is scant evidence to suggest that a person, earning €2m a year, will cease to engage in the economic activity that earns him or her€2m a year because of lack of earning potential. If such a person ceases to engage, there is plenty of evidence to suggest someone else will fill the void if a market opportunity exists.

 

[TheBigShort]

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!!

But to reduce it to €100k would put an undue burden on a significant portion of the population. It wouldn't work. The proposal is not a proposal to grab more tax. The proposal is to establish a social norm.

 

[Purple]

Perhaps you could expand on the above comment. I may have misconstrued but I took it to mean that there should possibly be an income limit.

I don't know what the solution is but I don't think income limits are a viable solution.

And that's where you free-marketeers don't understand economics.
Nobody will be restricted from engaging in economic activity. And there is scant evidence to suggest that a person, earning €2m a year, will cease to engage in the economic activity that earns him or her€2m a year because of lack of earning potential. If such a person ceases to engage, there is plenty of evidence to suggest someone else will fill the void if a market opportunity exists.

Why would someone take on an extra workload and stress of expanding their business for no net gain?
If you think that the economic activity will just happen, i.e. someone else will do it, then you are very much mistaken.

 

[Firefly]

But to reduce it to €100k would put an undue burden on a significant portion of the population. It wouldn't work.

What about 500k? What about 1m? Who is to know? Who will decide? The People Before Profit have picked an income of €100k per year for special treatment and in the very next sentence say "Move towards a maximum income."

[broken link removed]

In any case, it's arbitrary and it doesn't matter....it's still equality of outome!

The proposal is not a proposal to grab more tax.

It is. You are proposing to take 100% of someone's income above a certain level.

The proposal is to establish a social norm.

That all depends on how the taxes would be spent. As you say, we are one of the richest countries in the world yet still have a homeless crisis and people waiting on trolleys in A&E.

 

[Firefly]

And that's where you free-marketeers don't understand economics.
Nobody will be restricted from engaging in economic activity. And there is scant evidence to suggest that a person, earning €2m a year, will cease to engage in the economic activity that earns him or her€2m a year because of lack of earning potential. If such a person ceases to engage, there is plenty of evidence to suggest someone else will fill the void if a market opportunity exists.

They would move and possibly take their jobs with them. A potentially nice little bump to the dole queue.

 

[Firefly]

Equality of opportunity, and you?

Can you please update the above post as you would impose a marginal tax of 100% on some people thereby resulting in equality of outcome?

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

Super taxes on stratospheric incomes (as opposed to high taxes on over €100k per SF) will do little for redistribution. I also tend to agree with BigShort that it would not have a significant direct impact on output. I believe ABBA were subject to 98% tax - didn't stop them pumping out the hits.

But let's not knock the impact of such a measure on social cohesion which can be important for overall economic output.

I think few of us (except possibly Liverpool supporters) begrudge Wayne Rooney his "obscene" weekly pay. But when corporate boards vote multi million pound packages to their executives even Theresa May cries foul. The idea that these guys will not get outa bed for less than, say, €10m is plain nonsense.

And it is not only Trade Union members that feel the resentment and a basic unfairness in such a state of affairs. Even more disaffected are the middle and upper middle classes who will be inclined to ask resentfully "does she really deserve 20 times what I earn?". (I have used a factor of 20 here as the ratio of BigShort's fat cat earning 2m to SF's fat cat earning 100k.)

 

[TheBigShort]

I don't know what the solution is but I don't think income limits are a viable solution.

The solution to what? Can you outline what the issue is with regard billionaires.

Why would someone take on an extra workload and stress of expanding their business for no net gain?
If you think that the economic activity will just happen, i.e. someone else will do it, then you are very much mistaken.

It all depends on the trade or business. But if I ever get to a €2m salary, I would like to think I'd be in the position to delegate any additional stress.

 

[Purple]

The solution to what? Can you outline what the issue is with regard billionaires.

I thought you would also have concerns about the concentration of wealth among a relatively small number of people and how that can lead to them having undue influence at a political level. That's my concern; power must reside with the people.

It all depends on the trade or business. But if I ever get to a €2m salary, I would like to think I'd be in the position to delegate any additional stress.

You may like to think so but that's not what happens. The more you earn the more stress and work you have.

Anyway, why would anyone seek to grow their business if there was no possibility of any gain for them?

 

[TheBigShort]

Can you please update the above post as you would impose a marginal tax of 100% on some people thereby resulting in equality of outcome?

nice try. But your definition of equality of outcome obviously differs to mine. In no way, shape or form, would I class a €2m income limit, that, all things remaining equal, will remain out of reach for the vast working population for the remainder of their lifetimes as equality of outcome.

 

[TheBigShort]

thought you would also have concerns about the concentration of wealth among a relatively small number of people and how that can lead to them having undue influence at a political level. That's my concern; power must reside with the people.

That's it? That is your concern? And you think undue influence at political level only begins at €1bn+?

You may like to think so but that's not what happens. The more you earn the more stress and work you have.

Please!
So the most stressed, hardest working people are the millionaires??
That is simply laughable.

 

[Purple]

That's it? That is your concern?

Yep.

Please!
So the most stressed, hardest working people are the millionaires??

No, that's not what I said.

 

[TheBigShort]

The more you earn the more stress and work you have.

No, that's not what I said.

I think it stands to reason that that is exactly what you said.

Yep

Why makes you think that billionaires exert undue political influence? Do you think politicians are immune from undue influence from less wealthy people?

 

[TheBigShort]

Super taxes on stratospheric incomes (as opposed to high taxes on over €100k per SF) will do little for redistribution.

Is there much evidence of this? I would suggest that it would, in time, have a massively positive impact.

 

[Purple]

I think it stands to reason that that is exactly what you said.

No, I said the more you expanded your business the more stressful it becomes. You then misrepresented what I said and concluded that I said they endured the most stress.
Watching a family member die of cancer is more stressful. Being a soldier in combat is more stressful. Being a Garda trying to get help for a drug addicted kid with our hopelessly dysfunctional mental health service is probably more stressful.

What I said was that expanding and growing a business is more stressful than just leaving it as it is. That's all.

Why makes you think that billionaires exert undue political influence?

Reading and watching the news over the last 20 years. Do you think they don't?

Do you think politicians are immune from undue influence from less wealthy people?

No. I don't like Unions or any other vested interest groups that seek to usurp the sole right of the people, through their parliament, to decide how the country should be run.
Given that you have no problem with Unions exerting their influence on the government (note it's "the government" not "government") I take it you have no problem with other vested interest groups doing the same thing.

 

[TheBigShort]

No, I said the more you expanded your business the more stressful it becomes.

Not necessarily. Expanding a business can be quite invigorating.

Reading and watching the news over the last 20 years. Do you think they don't?

For sure, but implied in my question was the issue that you recognized with billionaires as distinct with any other income group. My bad for not making that clear.
And to recall, you initially raised the issue of billionaires in the context of wage inflation, not political corruption.

No.

You have completely diverted the subject from talking about wage inflation, and how you consider that there are issues with billionaires that need to be looked at, to political corruption.

 

[TheBigShort]

usurp the sole right of the people, through their parliament, to decide how the country should be run.

Eh, how do you usurp the right of the people through parliament??
I have no issue with anybody or any grouping lobbying politicians for their interests or issues to be addressed, as long as that lobbying is transparent to the public.
If you are following the public pay talks you can see the demands by ICTU and you can see the demands of DPER representing the State. You can also drill down into individual unions to see any particular demand specific to that union.
I have no issue with billionaires lobbying for their own interests, as long as those interests are transparent to the public.
The government will decide it's interests on behalf of the State and the voters can decide their interests at the ballot box.

 

[Firefly]

nice try. But your definition of equality of outcome obviously differs to mine. In no way, shape or form, would I class a €2m income limit, that, all things remaining equal, will remain out of reach for the vast working population for the remainder of their lifetimes as equality of outcome.

We're not talking about equality, we're talking about whether you support equality of outcome. You would tax (small) cohort of people to such an extent that they would have the same income. Using your figures, it would currently affect 300 people. Nothing stopping that 2m magic number from being reduced to bring more people in. This is equality of outcome and it's a pity you and the other socialist posters on here cannot admit it.

 

[Purple]

Not necessarily. Expanding a business can be quite invigorating.

Sure, but it's also very stressful. People don't do it for the fun of it. They do it to make more money. Are you suggesting that business owners will expand and take risks and employ more people and generate more tax revenue for the State if there is no financial gain for them?

For sure, but implied in my question was the issue that you recognized with billionaires as distinct with any other income group. My bad for not making that clear.
And to recall, you initially raised the issue of billionaires in the context of wage inflation, not political corruption.

Money talks. Do you think that a person who is on the average wage has the same influence as someone worth billions?

You have completely diverted the subject from talking about wage inflation, and how you consider that there are issues with billionaires that need to be looked at, to political corruption.

No, you have taken one comment and run with it. It is you who has completely diverted the subject. I am simply answering your questions on this issue.

 

[Purple]

We're not talking about equality, we're talking about whether you support equality of outcome. You would tax (small) cohort of people to such an extent that they would have the same income. Using your figures, it would currently affect 300 people. Nothing stopping that 2m magic number from being reduced to bring more people in. This is equality of outcome and it's a pity you and the other socialist posters on here cannot admit it.

In fairness to TheBigShort he answers questions and offers opinions which is more than ca be said for some posters who only cross-examine and question other posters comments. He's also fighting on multiple fronts at the moment