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

[TheBigShort]

If you don't think that money should be taken from their neighbours and given to them to live on then what do you propose?

In the absence of a credible alternative is what I meant.

As I suggested in my last post the standard of services provided by the State is not good enough and not good value for money. Better education, better intervention and better support should help most of those people become productive and active members of society.

This is a credible alternative. But it costs money, which means more taxes. I don't object to that if it improves public services. I don't even object to imposing taxes on low earners if it is to enhance services that they can avail of, childcare being a prime example.

I object to taxes being imposed on low earners for the perception of 'fairness'. What is fair is totally subjective. But I for one don't think imposing taxes on low earners for no other purposes than to stop them "getting everything for free" or because they are the "underclass" (these quotes can be found in this thread, I'm not implying you made them) is BS.

Do you think it's okay that we just push them to one side to let them live out their days like some sort of a neglected pet? I just don't think that's good enough, not for them and not for society as a whole.

Absolutely not, and you already know that. But the ideas you muted, such as more education etc cost money. In other words, higher taxes (for everyone), including corporations. Would you support that?

 

[Purple]

It's always nice to randomly pick a European country that suits your agenda, but speaking of Sweden, they also have the most generous maternity leave for parents. They also have a cap on childcare costs. The max is about €250 a month regardless of how many kids. My childcare is €790 a month for two kids.
The Swedish model is funded by taxation levels that would make you weep.

I am against all universal welfare benefits including medical cards for kids and rich old people and children's allowance. In reality someone on €200,000 a year had €1000 a month taken from them and then given back less that State's admin costs. All they are doing is part funding a job in the Department of Social Protection. Either don't take it or don't give it back. I'm in favour of a refundable tax credit for each kid. That way there is no admin cost to the State.
Someone on €100,000 a year wouldn't pay any more tax in Sweden. Someone on €30,000 a year would pay a multiple of what they pay here. Take a look at it, someone on €30,000 a year or €576.92 a week would pay a whopping €181.29 a week in taxes in Sweden. In Ireland the same person pays €89.92 in income taxes (that includes social protection).
IN Sweden a single person getting €100,000 a year, or €1923 a week, takes home €1104. In Ireland they take home €1171 a week. The tax rates are 6% higher in Sweden for someone on €100,000 a year but twice as high for someone on €30,000. Now take into account that we have much more generous long term welfare supports and see how things look.

 

[TheBigShort]

I've had personal experience of the supports the State offers for young people with addiction and mental health issues and it is utterly deplorable.

I agree. But it is not untypical in a hierarchical capitalist society. Adoration for our brightest and best and sweep under the carpet the 'dregs'.

See that's why I hate socialism; it blames high earners for the ills of others when the real root cause has nothing to do with them

We don't live in a socialist society. Who was blaming high earners for anything?
The thrust of this topic, and others, is to lament the burden high earners have to endure in the taxation system by targeting, blaming, low earners and welfare recipients for wanting 'everything for free' (I'm thinking I might be able to pin this quote on you someplace).

It's based on petty jealousy and resentment, not on a genuine concern for the poor and forgotten.

Yes, the topics I engage in are typically that. Whinging and moaning about how poor people get everything for free, while working people 'have to pay for everything!"

 

[Purple]

In the absence of a credible alternative is what I meant.



This is a credible alternative. But it costs money, which means more taxes. I don't object to that if it improves public services. I don't even object to imposing taxes on low earners if it is to enhance services that they can avail of, childcare being a prime example.

I object to taxes being imposed on low earners for the perception of 'fairness'. What is fair is totally subjective. But I for one don't think imposing taxes on low earners for no other purposes than to stop them "getting everything for free" or because they are the "underclass" (these quotes can be found in this thread, I'm not implying you made them) is BS.



Absolutely not, and you already know that. But the ideas you muted, such as more education etc cost money. In other words, higher taxes (for everyone), including corporations. Would you support that?

Delivering better services doesn't cost more money. That's a cop out. It involves people doing their jobs better, it involves more efficient systems and processes so that less money is spent on duplication of admin and more is spent on services to the end user. That means lots of people who don't add value losing their jobs and more people who do add value getting jobs (will your mates in the Unions allow that to happen?). It means all those mission statements meaning something and the State being ruthless in making sure every action, every change, moves reality closer to the aspiration. When the waste and inefficiency is gone if more money is needed then increase taxes.

 

[Purple]

I agree. But it is not untypical in a hierarchical capitalist society. Adoration for our brightest and best and sweep under the carpet the 'dregs'.

It's typical of any hierarchical society and none are more hierarchical than a socialist one as such a structure is required for a command economy.

We don't live in a socialist society. Who was blaming high earners for anything?
The thrust of this topic, and others, is to lament the burden high earners have to endure in the taxation system by targeting, blaming, low earners and welfare recipients for wanting 'everything for free' (I'm thinking I might be able to pin this quote on you someplace).

No, I go on about the so-called "squeezed middle" who don't actually pay for anything either.

Yes, the topics I engage in are typically that. Whinging and moaning about how poor people get everything for free, while working people 'have to pay for everything!"

see above. I don't object to the State taking everything I earn every Thursday and Friday. I do object to people who don't make any net financial contribution to the State telling me I am not paying my fair share and that they do and that they are somehow squeezed.
I object to a Dickensian socialist agenda which is just one step above "the white man's burned" which supposes that the poor are the victims of the rich and that a socialist intelligentsia is required to balance things out, like how the good white men had to look after the poor darkies in Africa as they were just too stupid to look after themselves when confronted by the intrinsically more intelligent white capitalist.
I object to smoked salmon socialist "professionals" (members of the socialist intelligentsia) whose hearts bleed for the "poor" and who lament how the "employer classes" exploit the poor (but are happy to charge those same employers €500 an hour for their opinion) while they ignore the dignity of work and would never come into social contact with someone from West Finglas or Moyross or Jobestown let alone give them a job.
I object to shoddy public services being excused by claiming there is a lack of resources. I'm sure there are in some cases but it's a blanket excuse and people die on hospital trolleys and young men hang themselves because people are allowed to hide behind that excuse. I feel angry about it. We deserve better. The people who need help deserve better. The young men who are drug addicts and commit crime and devastate their families and communities and live tortured lives, bereft of hope and self worth deserve better, as do those around them. I'm sick of excuses. I'm sick of the same disingenuous cowards trotting out the same tired and trite lines. I'm sick of mediocrity being where the bar is set.

 

[TheBigShort]

In reality someone on €200,000 a year had €1000 a month taken from them and then given back less that State's admin costs.

All they are doing is part funding a job in the Department of Social Protection.

And those jobs need to be funded don't they? Or do you think, given your stated concern for welfare of the poor and needy, that those jobs should be voluntary? Or do you think that it is the poor and needy that should fund those jobs?

Someone on €100,000 a year wouldn't pay any more tax in Sweden. Someone on €30,000 a year would pay a multiple of what they pay here. Take a look at it, someone on €30,000 a year or €576.92 a week would pay a whopping €181.29 a week in taxes in Sweden. In Ireland the same person pays €89.92 in income taxes (that includes social protection).
IN Sweden a single person getting €100,000 a year, or €1923 a week, takes home €1104. In Ireland they take home €1171 a week. The tax rates are 6% higher in Sweden for someone on €100,000 a year but twice as high for someone on €30,000.

I couldn't ask for a more illustrative example of how devoid the commentators on this site, that persistently attack low income earners and welfare recipients for not 'paying their share', are than the example above.

The Swedish model, is cited, as an example we should follow. I don't disagree.

So will we see a thread, or topic, on how high earners in Ireland pay 6% less tax than their Swedish counterparts? Will we see a thread on how low-middle income earners are screwed in Sweden, so as to facilitate the generous childcare system that high income earners can avail of?

I doubt it.

To paraphrase a quote from the movie of my username, "I have a funny feeling that when the [economic] crisis is over, we will get back to doing what we always do - blame poor people and immigrants".

 

[TheBigShort]

It's typical of any hierarchical society and none are more hierarchical than a socialist one as such a structure is required for a command economy.



No, I go on about the so-called "squeezed middle" who don't actually pay for anything either.



see above. I don't object to the State taking everything I earn every Thursday and Friday. I do object to people who don't make any net financial contribution to the State telling me I am not paying my fair share and that they do and that they are somehow squeezed.
I object to a Dickensian socialist agenda which is just one step above "the white man's burned" which supposes that the poor are the victims of the rich and that a socialist intelligentsia is required to balance things out, like how the good white men had to look after the poor darkies in Africa as they were just too stupid to look after themselves when confronted by the intrinsically more intelligent white capitalist.
I object to smoked salmon socialist "professionals" (members of the socialist intelligentsia) whose hearts bleed for the "poor" and who lament how the "employer classes" exploit the poor (but are happy to charge those same employers €500 an hour for their opinion) while they ignore the dignity of work and would never come into social contact with someone from West Finglas or Moyross or Jobestown let alone give them a job.
I object to shoddy public services being excused by claiming there is a lack of resources. I'm sure there are in some cases but it's a blanket excuse and people die on hospital trolleys and young men hang themselves because people are allowed to hide behind that excuse. I feel angry about it. We deserve better. The people who need help deserve better. The young men who are drug addicts and commit crime and devastate their families and communities and live tortured lives, bereft of hope and self worth deserve better, as do those around them. I'm sick of excuses. I'm sick of the same disingenuous cowards trotting out the same tired and trite lines. I'm sick of mediocrity being where the bar is set.

I don't disagree with you. What do you propose? Imposing taxes on the poor to relieve the burden on the wealthy?
Or increasing taxes across the board to implement a Swedish type model?

 

[TheBigShort]

I do object to people who don't make any net financial contribution to the State telling me I am not paying my fair share and that they do and that they are somehow squeezed.

Who are these people?

 

[Firefly]

Correction, it should read age and experience, or simply experience.

The cynic in me says that the original post was what was meant. In any case regarding the coupling of age and experience, I still see no reason why age should be a factor in determining a fair wage. If you were getting gas installed in your home and you had two RGI installers quote for the job with 5 year's experience each, would you pay the 55 year old more than the 35 year old just because he/she was older? And if so, how much more?

I also find it interesting that very last on your list is "projected earnings of the work provided". This should be amongst the first factors in determining what someone is paid, along with the supply of labour for the same role. If I need a cleaner for my house and someone is 50 years old with 20 years experience there's no way I am going to pay them more than someone in their 20s and new enough to the job - the role is basic and supply is plenty.

As you have mentioned in any case it's all subjective and this is where the role of the market comes in to help. When you do your weekly shop or renew your car insurance or decide on childcare for your kids, you are primarily focused on value for money, not necessarily the cheapest offering, but the best offering based on your budget. Do you really think about the employees in the companies offering these services and if so do you regularly pay a higher price for those products/services because they have higher costs? Companies themselves are also trying to get the best value for money whether they are buying light & heat, stationary, deciding where to locate or how much they wish to pay for staff.

 

[Firefly]

But I for one don't think imposing taxes on low earners for no other purposes than to stop them "getting everything for free"

The thrust of this topic, and others, is to lament the burden high earners have to endure in the taxation system by targeting, blaming, low earners and welfare recipients for wanting 'everything for free' (I'm thinking I might be able to pin this quote on you someplace).

In Purple's defence, the source of this quote was made to me by someone employed by Irish Water. How does that make you feel?

 

[TheBigShort]

In Purple's defence, the source of this quote was made to me by someone employed by Irish Water. How does that make you feel?

So much better, thank you.

 

[Firefly]

So much better, thank you.

All part of the service!

 

[Purple]

And those jobs need to be funded don't they? Or do you think, given your stated concern for welfare of the poor and needy, that those jobs should be voluntary? Or do you think that it is the poor and needy that should fund those jobs?

No, the jobs are not necessary at all. The welfare could be paid to recipients in a far more cost effective way. Children's allowance can be scrapped and replaced with a refundable tax credit. The jobs are a waste of public money which could be used to cut taxes or deliver more services. It is a perfect example of the State being run for the benefit of State Employees rather than the public.

I couldn't ask for a more illustrative example of how devoid the commentators on this site, that persistently attack low income earners and welfare recipients for not 'paying their share', are than the example above.

Eh? The example I posted showed that people on low to medium incomes in Sweden pay far more tax, i.e. their fair share.

The Swedish model, is cited, as an example we should follow. I don't disagree.

Good, so you agree that low and middle earners in Ireland are under taxed and should pay their fair share.

So will we see a thread, or topic, on how high earners in Ireland pay 6% less tax than their Swedish counterparts? Will we see a thread on how low-middle income earners are screwed in Sweden, so as to facilitate the generous childcare system that high income earners can avail of?

No, because that's not what happens.

To paraphrase a quote from the movie of my username, "I have a funny feeling that when the [economic] crisis is over, we will get back to doing what we always do - blame poor people and immigrants".

Blame them for what?

 

[Purple]

I don't disagree with you. What do you propose? Imposing taxes on the poor to relieve the burden on the wealthy?
Or increasing taxes across the board to implement a Swedish type model?

Bring it all up Swedish levels of taxation and Swedish levels of short and long term welfare. Then insist that Public Servants perform to Swedish levels. If we did that we'd end up with a large surplus since we have a much younger population.

 

[Purple]

I don't disagree with you. What do you propose? Imposing taxes on the poor to relieve the burden on the wealthy?
Or increasing taxes across the board to implement a Swedish type model?

If you don't disagree with me then what do you propose? Are you happy to leave things as they are with high taxes on high earners, very low taxes on low and medium earners and shoddy public services which leave the poor poor while wasting vast amounts of public money?

 

[TheBigShort]

The cynic in me says that the original post was what was meant.

The cynic in you is wrong.

I still see no reason why age should be a factor in determining a fair wage.

It helps to gauge the level of experience of a prospective employee. If I need to hire a childminder, I may tend to favour a more mature person with a proven track record over someone not long out of school. I may even be prepared to offer more money.
Age & experience.

If you were getting gas installed in your home and you had two RGI installers quote for the job with 5 year's experience each, would you pay the 55 year old more than the 35 year old just because he/she was older? A

No.

I also find it interesting that very last on your list is "projected earnings of the work provided"

You have little to be interested in. The list was in no particular order, nor was it a complete list.

If I need a cleaner for my house and someone is 50 years old with 20 years experience there's no way I am going to pay them more than someone in their 20s and new enough to the job - the role is basic and supply is plenty.

The roles may be basic and supply plenty, but I may be prepared more for the older worker if it meant greater reliability. A colleague of mine, whose husband runs a small cafe is loathe to hire young people in their 20's. Always ringing in sick, wanting to swap shifts for one party or another. He prefers mature reliable staff.

Do you really think about the employees in the companies offering these services and if so do you regularly pay a higher price for those products/services because they have higher costs?

Don't be silly. How, as a retail customer, am I supposed to be able to gauge, with any realistic accuracy, the cost structure of these companies?

 

[TheBigShort]

Delivering better services doesn't cost more money.

Doesn't necessarily cost more money, I agree. But if you are talking about public services in the round, then realistically, investment in IT, new processes, implementation of new strategies and concepts etc, will, at some point need extra financial investment. That investment may produce savings in the long run, alternatively, depending on the actual service, it may simply just cost more money. For example, additional cancer screening services for provincial and rural towns will provide a better service for those populations, but cost more money in taxes for everyone.

That means lots of people who don't add value losing their jobs and more people who do add value getting jobs (will your mates in the Unions allow that to happen?).

For sure, why wouldn't they?

When the waste and inefficiency is gone if more money is needed then increase taxes.

And if waste and inefficiency was got rid of in the private sector then prices could start to fall. The regulated industries of telecommunications, health insurance and energy providers would be a good place to start. Instead of the annual circus of finding the 'best quote' for the exact same service, surely 'the free market' would find the true value of the product and charge accordingly.

 

[TheBigShort]

Children's allowance can be scrapped and replaced with a refundable tax credit.

What if you have lost your job and are not contributing tax?

 

[TheBigShort]

Eh? The example I posted showed that people on low to medium incomes in Sweden pay far more tax, i.e. their fair share.

Eh? The example you posted showed that people on low to medium incomes in Sweden pay far more tax, in return for better social services.

The example you posted also showed that higher income earners in Ireland pay less income tax, 6% less in fact.
So let's see if we can bridge a gap here. Let's impose a 6% increase on higher earners to kick start a tax reform program that provides better public services like in healthcare, maternity care, childcare, education etc. This in turn can relieve the associated costs in this country that have been left to the 'free market' profiteers imposing undue burdens on lower and middle incomes. To such a point that in some cases they are also welfare dependent.
In return for a more just and equitable system, low and middle income earners will be required to pay their 'fair share' of income tax.

 

[Firefly]

The cynic in you is wrong.

I'll take your word for it.

It helps to gauge the level of experience of a prospective employee. If I need to hire a childminder, I may tend to favour a more mature person with a proven track record over someone not long out of school. I may even be prepared to offer more money.
Age & experience.

But you're not comparing like with like - the mature person in your example has a proven track record whilst the younger person is just out of school. What if the younger person was 25 and a qualified teacher but the 55 year old never looked after kids before?

You have little to be interested in. The list was in no particular order, nor was it a complete list.

I'll take your word for it.

The roles may be basic and supply plenty, but I may be prepared more for the older worker if it meant greater reliability. A colleague of mine, whose husband runs a small cafe is loathe to hire young people in their 20's. Always ringing in sick, wanting to swap shifts for one party or another. He prefers mature reliable staff.

Then he is discriminating based on age. Do you agree with this?