The Feckin Government

bonkey

Originally posted by capistrano
The average industrial wage is €28k, and somebody on that level of income is far better off because their income tax rate is just 20% now.

You keep saying things like this, and I keep pointing out that you're not showing that they are.

Watch - I can do it too :

The average industrial wage is €28k, and someone on that level of income is far worse off because their real available income after all costs have been paid is less.

See - I don't provide any evidence either. So my point is as valid as yours. Not more so, not less so. Equally valid. And it will remain so until one of us providesfigures that actually support our argument, as opposed to figures which only appear to support our argument.

But direct taxation is based on your own consumption,

Some is, yes.

so you can avoid some of it if you like.

And other bits you can't....still resuting in a relatively fixed cost to each and every tax payer which is mostly independant of their salary level and entirely absent from your calculations.

I take it you would rather the balance was more weighted in favour of income tax.

You can take what you. I was just pointing out the flaw in your argument.

Who's worse off? Not the person on the average industrial wage as I poited out earlier.

Yes you did indeed point that out. But look - I used the same amount of proof and equally "showed" that they were worse off at the top of this post.

If you're going to use figures, then use figures that actually show what you're saying they do. That would involve a comparison of gross salary, net salary, net salary after a calculated fixed-tax cost, and ideally, the whole lot adusted for inflation over the time period.

You haven't done this. You've cherry-picked the figures you want, and are claiming that they show something that anyone even half-versed in mathematics can spot they don't.

I'm not saying you're wrong in your conclusion, I'm saying that your arguments don't support your conclusion.....which I find funny considering how derogatory you've been of other people's understanding of the facts.

The income of a person on the minimum wage is tax free.

a) No, its not, as Victor already pointed out.
b) You are again failing to consider the costs of indirect taxation that these people did not have in whatever earlier timeframe you're referencing. Lets not forget that all indirect taxation is not waived. Oh - and lets not leave inflation out of it either.

So minimum wage people are better off.

Min wage people may be better off, but once again your argument doesn't show that they are.

So I just don't accept your premise that "working class" people are worse off. You haven't justified your argument.

I'm not convinced you read my argument. I never made any such premise or argument. Where did I say there were worse off? All I have said, and continue to say, is that it is possible for them to be worse off, even allowing for the decreases in taxation etc. that you keep offering as proof of how things have improved.

The idea that better off people should pay a very large portion of their income in tax to support less well off people leads to a country where not enough people have money to spend and invest and drive the economy forward.

And there you go again. Who said anything about "a vvery large portion"? No-one. What figures has anyone - yourself included - provided to show that it would be a very large portion? None.

And lest you misinterpret what I'm saying, I'll be clear. I am challenging your assertion that it would be a "very large portion" of their income tax, relative to what it is today. I am not saying they should or should not pay it if it is, or is not a large portion. I am not saying its a good or bad idea. I am challenging your assertion of what it would cost.

jc

Mighty_Mouse

I've been away for a few days but surprise, surprise the 'propaganda' campaign AGAINST SF has continued!!!!

I know that Sinn Féin is quite relevant to the thread but we've kinda had that arguement a zillion times recently. I'd be more interested in hearing what people think about the other parties.

I agree :eek: (I'll offer something on the other parties later)

In relation to supporting indiginious Irish businesses as an economic policy........how can anyone argue against this? Personally I believe that the next step in our economic progress is to switch from an FDI multinational focus to developing Irish home-grown businesses which can provide services/products/employment to match the multinationals. This is in line with SF policy so a plus for me.

capistrano

Originally posted by bonkey
And lest you misinterpret what I'm saying, I'll be clear. I am challenging your assertion that it would be a "very large portion" of their income tax, relative to what it is today. I am not saying they should or should not pay it if it is, or is not a large portion. I am not saying its a good or bad idea. I am challenging your assertion of what it would cost.

What it would cost to do what? Get ride of poverty? Provide excellent health care, education, social protection for everyone. I don't think it would ever happen. Someone earlier suggested adding 3-4% to the higher rate. That would bring in some more money, but it wouldn't solve all our problems. So then let's add another 3-4%, but that still won't solve all our problems. Where do we stop? Throwing money at problems isn't the answer. It's a question of management. We need to manage our current resources better before we consider drastic measures like increasing income tax, otherwise we will get no benefit from the extra tax burden. Mind you, public sector managers have my sympathy, becasue they find it almost impossible to implement change due to the influence of the unions.

Also, increasing tax benefits state coffers but on the downside limits peoples disposable income and therefore may harm the economy.

BuffyBot

Originally posted by capistrano
Victor said the mimimum wage wasn't enough to live on. I was just pointint out that, while it's not enough to live well on, it apparently enough to live on.

Resorting to semantics is never a good thing. You are familiar with the concept of a standard of living, I presume?

bonkey

Originally posted by capistrano
What it would cost to do what?

We were talking about indirect taxation vs direct taxation.

You can figure out what the cost being referred to might be from that.

jc

aodh_rua

Originally posted by capistrano
There were no cutbacks. Spending on Health, Education and Social Welfare has gone up every year since the last election.

The headline figures may have risen, but there have most certainly been cutbacks. Case in point - funding for Irish universities has dropped by about 20% in the last two years. Last year there were staff and service cuts in order to break even, this year they're staring at going millions of euro into debt.

Similar services cutbacks and hiring freezes have been forced on the health system.

Sparks

Originally posted by capistrano
Rubblish! I aggree that he PD's are right-wing economically but they are libertarian socially. They want to give people the freedom to make their own decisons. Doesn't sound very authoritarian to me.

How any one can think that Michael McDowell isn't an example of authoritarianism simply escapes me...

Sleepy

Originally posted by Mighty_Mouse
Personally I believe that the next step in our economic progress is to switch from an FDI multinational focus to developing Irish home-grown businesses which can provide services/products/employment to match the multinationals.[/B]

I don't think I've heard an economic outlook as naieve as that since I was in Leaving Cert economics class, and that wasn't exactly yesterday. Buy the economist, read it, come back with an educated view of the world economy and if you still believe what you've just typed, I'd be interested to hear why.


No, the government may not have cut back on the amount of cash they've pumped into the health system but unless cash is managed, it doesn't have ANY effect. Health, Education and Welfare are all worse off under the government of the last few years.

monument

Originally posted by capistrano
They want to give people the freedom to make their own decisons. Doesn't sound very authoritarian to me.

They may want to give business more freedom, and some people more economic freedom. That's about it.

ReefBreak

You say he's authoritarian, but you don't say why. So, let's hear it.

Sparks

Originally posted by ReefBreak
You say he's authoritarian, but you don't say why. So, let's hear it.

Where were you for the last few years RB? How did you miss the FOI amendment, the limp-wristed attempt by McDowell to reform the Gardai, the thousands of euros spent chartering private aircraft to deport refugees, indeed, the sheer belligerence he demonstrates at every provided opportunity?

capistrano

Originally posted by BuffyBot
Resorting to semantics is never a good thing. You are familiar with the concept of a standard of living, I presume?

I just thought that emotive talk of folks not having enough to live deserved a rash response. Sure, lower income people have a lower standard of living than higher income people. It stands to reason. I'm getting lost in this discussion now. I don't know what it's about anymore.

capistrano

Originally posted by monument
They may want to give business more freedom, and some people more economic freedom. That's about it.

And personal freedom. For example, they supported divorce from their inception. They are pro-choice (at least more than the other parties), they support people's freedom in relation to their sexuality. But most importantly they support people's right to keep more of their income so they can make their own decisions for themselves and their families.

capistrano

Originally posted by Sparks
How any one can think that Michael McDowell isn't an example of authoritarianism simply escapes me...

Pure assertion. Give me examples of McDowell's authoritarianism. (And how you would have done differently, if you can.)

capistrano

Originally posted by Sparks
Where were you for the last few years RB? How did you miss the FOI amendment, the limp-wristed attempt by McDowell to reform the Gardai, the thousands of euros spent chartering private aircraft to deport refugees, indeed, the sheer belligerence he demonstrates at every provided opportunity?

Sorry, Sparks, I hadn't read this post when it submitted the last one.

But anyway:

A limp-wristed attempt to reform the Gardai? He introduces the Garda Ombudsman - An authoritarian would never want such scrutiny of the police force.

So he deports failed asylum seekers. These people are not refugees, they applied asylum and after due process it was found that they did not have a valid case for asylum. So this makes him authoritarian??? What would you suggest? That we let everybody who makes it to Ireland stay for as long as they like. That's not a sensible immigration policy - indeed it's completely unworkable.

Sparks

Originally posted by capistrano
A limp-wristed attempt to reform the Gardai? He introduces the Garda Ombudsman - An authoritarian would never want such scrutiny of the police force.

That's incorrect. He has not introduced an Ombudsman. There is no such thing in the Republic now, nor is one planned. You're thinking of the PSNI - and their Ombudsman has far more sweeping powers than the planned Garda Complaints Board will - the PSNI Ombudsman, for example, can make arrests, has it's own personell, and doesn't have to give 48 hours notice before it shows up at a police station to conduct an investigation.

So he deports failed asylum seekers. These people are not refugees, they applied asylum and after due process it was found that they did not have a valid case for asylum. So this makes him authoritarian???

The manner in which he does so is what makes him authoritarian, if not outright racist.

What would you suggest?

I'd suggest not being so inhumane that you spend thousands of euros that could be better spent elsewhere, just to get rid of a few people that will be leaving anyway in a short space of time. Not only would it be more economic, it would be more humane.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

capistrano

Originally posted by Sparks
That's incorrect. He has not introduced an Ombudsman. There is no such thing in the Republic now, nor is one planned. You're thinking of the PSNI - and their Ombudsman has far more sweeping powers than the planned Garda Complaints Board will - the PSNI Ombudsman, for example, can make arrests, has it's own personell, and doesn't have to give 48 hours notice before it shows up at a police station to conduct an investigation.

That's incorrect is it? Maybe you should read the bill before you make such pronouncements. It clearly says the Garda Bill will setup a Garda Ombudsman Commission. I have not confirmed your 48 hour allegation, but I think that's the current situation not the case after the Garda Ombudsman Commission is up and running.

I'd suggest not being so inhumane that you spend thousands of euros that could be better spent elsewhere, just to get rid of a few people that will be leaving anyway in a short space of time. Not only would it be more economic, it would be more humane.

That's just ridiculous. You think economic migrants are on holiday here and will go home "after a short space of time". Ireland needs a proper immigration system but you seem to approve of letting in whomever shows up. What's inhumane about thoroughly investigating every case for asylum and if found to be invalid then repatriating them at no cost (to the asylum applicant) in a chartered plane. A lot of western countries have asylum detention centres - we don't!

MeatProduct

Originally posted by capistrano
Very interesting. I surprised my self with these scores:

Economic Left/Right: -0.62
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.74

So I'm a centrist really, with a strong leaning towards the libertarian.

Just so everyone knows where I stand:

Economic Left/Right: -4.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.00

The same as the Dali Lama!

Nick

monument

Originally posted by ReefBreak
You say he's authoritarian, but you don't say why. So, let's hear it.

I don’t remember saying “he”, I said the PDs.

Anyhow, adding to the above reasons given by Sparks… “Michael has introduced six major pieces of legislation”, one resulted in the Public Order Act (2002). This gives the police even more heavy-handed powers, allowing them to take freedom away from people. One would have to say that is very authoritarian.

AngelofFire

Economic Left/Right: -2.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.85


hmm my social liberterian result is accurate. but i always thought i was more left than that.