PDs tax cut plan

JimmySmith

Personally, i would rather hear them say they will not charge people any more stealth taxes.
The PD's will give with one hand and take even more with the other.
I just don't trust them anymore at all.

Sam Vimes

mickcarroll10 wrote:

Well surely by removing private beds from the public hospitals,which is Harneys plan after all(you always forget to mention it) will increase the number of beds for public patients.

Hardly privatising the health service. At the moment public patients and tax papers are subsidising private beds,you apparently want to keep that going.

:mad:

jesus christ people, read all my posts before accusing me of misrepresenting stuff. the article i read (the online news on the 3 network) only mentioned cutting the upper tax bracket and nothing else. if you're going to call anyone a liar, phone 1800 330 333 and give out to the 3 network

i never said anything about privatising the health service. i'm not sure where you're getting the idea that i want "public patients and tax papers subsidising private beds"

i suppose i "forget to mention" harney's health care plan because the title of the thread is "PDs tax cut plan", not "mary harney's health care plan"

i'm increasing the font size because people can't read. i retract my comment that the pd's are misleading the public by saying the tax cut helps the poor
i'm sure they really believe that tax cuts will help the poor. my main point is that they don't. nobody can't deny that a tiny amount to one person is equivalent to a massive amount to the government.

i firmly believe that for each euro less that a poor person saves in income tax, they'll have to, for example, pay 5 more for their children's school books because subsidies will have to be cut. the only people who benefit from tax cuts are the very rich who don't need subsidies and save large amounts when tax is cut

mickcarroll10 wrote:

Stop misrepresenting their policies,fine you dont have to like them but your are distorting the arguement to suit your warped ideas.

if you had actually read my posts before replying, you would have seen that the article i read didn't give the full plan, only the part about cutting the higher rate. i didn't misrepresent anything

what exactly is "warped" about the idea that a f*cked up health care system can not be fixed by cutting its budget any more than it can by making the doctors and nurses rush through treating people?

mickcarroll10 wrote:

How many people are on the top rate of tax,please??????

Are they all rich ??????

Do they all earn 1 million????

Stick to the facts if you can:mad:

i quite clearly wasn't claiming that they all earn 1 million. read the post again. the figure i used to work out the taxes was 1000 a week, or 52000 a year. hardly 1 million. there probably aren't 2 million in the workforce but i think the fact that a lot of people earn more than 1000 a week makes the estimate roughly correct. in the absence of the census data on people's earnings, i made an educated guess. hardly warped.
lets adjust my estimate to 1 million. then €1 per person per week is €52 million a year to the govt. still significant enough that govt services would have their budgets cut and have to make the money back elsewhere.

that doesn't mean i think there are 1 million on the higher tax bracket. as people have pointed out, a lot of people will taken out of the higher bracket and a lot won't pay any tax. imagine if 1 million each saved €10 a week (obviously not a life changing amount). where would the govt make up for the half billion its just lost?

Delboy05 wrote:

Perhaps a 3rd tax rate of 50% on the portion of an individuals earnings over 120k

correct me if i'm wrong here but i believe they used to have that and got rid of it. i probably am wrong on that because i have no idea where i heard it

Commander Vimes

Commander Vimes wrote:

correct me if i'm wrong here but i believe they used to have that and got rid of it. i probably am wrong on that because i have no idea where i heard it

Ah another person too young to remember...

The 1980's when most people paid 70% of their income in taxes.
The highest marginal rate was in the 60's per cent wise-add on prsi and you were in the 70's.

The country was bollixed because , the government had to keep taxing to chase the ever increasing national debt and no body had any money to spend as the govt was taking it all
Tens of thousands emigrated to either Britain or the states every year.
Business was bad.

Today is much much much much better compared to then.

Theres plenty of evidence from recent history that rising direct taxes is bad for peoples incentive to work and bad for the economy.
It would seem to me that indirect taxes at least have an element of choice to them.

Things are far from perfect at the moment but theres loads of reasons for that and the current tax structure isnt one of them.
Try tackling ineffeciencies first particularally in the health service.

mickcarroll10

Commander Vimes wrote:

jesus christ people, read all my posts before accusing me of misrepresenting stuff. the article i read (the online news on the 3 network) only mentioned cutting the upper tax bracket and nothing else. if you're going to call anyone a liar, phone 1800 330 333 and give out to the 3 network

i never said anything about privatising the health service. i'm not sure where you're getting the idea that i want "public patients and tax papers subsidising private beds"

i suppose i "forget to mention" harney's health care plan because the title of the thread is "PDs tax cut plan", not "mary harney's health care plan"

i'm increasing the font size because people can't read. i retract my comment that the pd's are misleading the public by saying the tax cut helps the poor
i'm sure they really believe that tax cuts will help the poor. my main point is that they don't. nobody can't deny that a tiny amount to one person is equivalent to a massive amount to the government.

i firmly believe that for each euro less that a poor person saves in income tax, they'll have to, for example, pay 5 more for their children's school books because subsidies will have to be cut. the only people who benefit from tax cuts are the very rich who don't need subsidies and save large amounts when tax is cut



if you had actually read my posts before replying, you would have seen that the article i read didn't give the full plan, only the part about cutting the higher rate. i didn't misrepresent anything

what exactly is "warped" about the idea that a f*cked up health care system can not be fixed by cutting its budget any more than it can by making the doctors and nurses rush through treating people?


i quite clearly wasn't claiming that they all earn 1 million. read the post again. the figure i used to work out the taxes was 1000 a week, or 52000 a year. hardly 1 million. there probably aren't 2 million in the workforce but i think the fact that a lot of people earn more than 1000 a week makes the estimate roughly correct. in the absence of the census data on people's earnings, i made an educated guess. hardly warped.
lets adjust my estimate to 1 million. then €1 per person per week is €52 million a year to the govt. still significant enough that govt services would have their budgets cut and have to make the money back elsewhere.

that doesn't mean i think there are 1 million on the higher tax bracket. as people have pointed out, a lot of people will taken out of the higher bracket and a lot won't pay any tax. imagine if 1 million each saved €10 a week (obviously not a life changing amount). where would the govt make up for the half billion its just lost?



correct me if i'm wrong here but i believe they used to have that and got rid of it. i probably am wrong on that because i have no idea where i heard it

So whos fault is it for posting up rants without reading their full policies??

If you are going to start or continue a debate try to read up the policies or statements that started the debate rather than just relying on headlines.

As for your comments on the heath service,they are a joke.

Whos cutting the health budgets?NOBODY

By international standards and when you compare hospitals through out the country some patients are being kept in for a day or 2 extra for the exact same procedure.

Also in Dublin there are a couple of hundred elderly people in acute hospital beds that are causing problems in A & E.

Some of these peoples families have refused to look after them and have also refused permission for their relatives to be moved to nursing homes.

When are the families going to act like families and to help to take care of their mothers & fathers?

You can always blame the state,but where is personal responsibility gone?

mickcarroll10

Commander Vimes wrote:

.

i firmly believe that for each euro less that a poor person saves in income tax, they'll have to, for example, pay 5 more for their children's school books because subsidies will have to be cut. the only people who benefit from tax cuts are the very rich who don't need subsidies and save large amounts when tax is cut

Commander Vimes wrote:

.


Where did you get this formula?

What subsidies have to be cut??

Sam Vimes

mickcarroll10 wrote:

Where did you get this formula?

What subsidies have to be cut??

i got the formula from my head.

budget-a lot of money=budget cut

commander Vimes,it's a fact that the total tax take since taxes were lowered has risen considerably.

On another note-no bítching in this thread please.

Delboy05

Commander Vimes wrote:

correct me if i'm wrong here but i believe they used to have that and got rid of it. i probably am wrong on that because i have no idea where i heard it

have to say i never heard of a 3rd income tax rate in this country....always just been the 2 as far as I know....

Delboy05

Delboy05 wrote:

have to say i never heard of a 3rd income tax rate in this country....always just been the 2 as far as I know....

1986 budget wrote:

The standard 35 per cent rate band is being widened so as to improve further the position of taxpayers in the middle income group. Our long term objective must be to bring a far greater proportion of taxpayers into this band.

The reduction of the top rate of income tax from 60 per cent to 58 per cent is a recognition of the fact that high marginal tax rates tend to have a disincentive effect particularly when, as for single people, they begin to apply at income levels which are not uncommon among those who have particular skills which we need to develop and deploy effectively in both the private and public sectors.

There you go the standard rate was 35% and the top rate was 58% in 1986.
Prior to 86 the VAT rate was 35% :eek:

Want to go back to that lads ? Country was broke and people were poor as the government took all your money...

Sam Vimes

mickcarroll10 wrote:

So whos fault is it for posting up rants without reading their full policies??

If you are going to start or continue a debate try to read up the policies or statements that started the debate rather than just relying on headlines.

As for your comments on the heath service,they are a joke.

that's a classic example of poor arguing technique. you calls my posts a "rant". you also say my comments on the health care system are a "joke". then you say i'm "relying on headlines". all of those are attempts to try to discredit me without actually proving anything.

i wasn't relying on headlines. i read an article that was missing some facts. also, should i make the writing bigger? can you still not read my retraction? i retracted the part about them being dishonest with the tax cuts but i maintain that tax cuts are a bad idea and they should focus on fixing the mess they created rather than vote grabbing.

mickcarroll10 wrote:

Whos cutting the health budgets?NOBODY

until the tax cuts come in and there's a few billion less to go around. it won't necessarily be the health budget that will suffer but something has to. so who's cutting the budgets?THE PDS

mickcarroll10 wrote:

By international standards and when you compare hospitals through out the country some patients are being kept in for a day or 2 extra for the exact same procedure.

Also in Dublin there are a couple of hundred elderly people in acute hospital beds that are causing problems in A & E.

i agree there are inefficiences in the hospitals but that will take massive infrastructural reorganisation to fix. they'd be trying to change the working practices of thousands of people. not an easy task. shouting "WORK BETTER" is not the answer to the problem
another example from today FM:
at the moment there are consultants working at three or more hospitals because there aren't enough to go around. they split the week between the three so all the hospitals only have a consultant for a third of the week and the consultant works extremely long hours.
if the budget was raised they could hire enough consultants, and throughput would triple
and if it was raised to the level it needs to be at, they could build enough hospitals to cope with our increased population, rather than cramming people into a hospital that was never designed to take care of that many people

mickcarroll10 wrote:

Some of these peoples families have refused to look after them and have also refused permission for their relatives to be moved to nursing homes.

When are the families going to act like families and to help to take care of their mothers & fathers?

You can always blame the state,but where is personal responsibility gone?

that's getting into the idea that the problem is with the people and they should change. a very dangerous road to go down in politics. its the road followed by radicals the world over. people are people and no amount of rallying will change that

Sam Vimes

Earthman wrote:

commander Vimes,it's a fact that the total tax take since taxes were lowered has risen considerably.

well that's to do with inflation and the strength of the economy. i'm sure take has increased since the rate was dropped from 60% in 1986, simply because the currency is worth a lot more and people's wages are higher. doesn't change my point.

unless you mean they just dropped income tax and icreased stealth taxes to compensate?

Delboy05

Earthman wrote:

There you go the standard rate was 35% and the top rate was 58% in 1986.
Prior to 86 the VAT rate was 35% :eek:

Want to go back to that lads ? Country was broke and people were poor as the government took all your money...

but there was still only 2 rates in place, as there is now.

I'm all for the PD's plans - taxes are still to high in this country for those in the middle.....

oscarBravo

Delboy05 wrote:

but there was still only 2 rates in place, as there is now.

I can distinctly remember there being three bands in place when I started work in 1987.

Let's see... ok, here we go:

Specifically we can expect to see the PAYE allowance being increased and the 35% tax band widened. (No mention was made of the two higher bands so my suspicions are that the 45% band will be eliminated and the government will cut their losses by collecting more on the 58% band.)

Delboy05

Delboy05 wrote:

but there was still only 2 rates in place, as there is now.

I'm all for the PD's plans - taxes are still to high in this country for those in the middle.....

There was a middle rate in the 40's
Google is your friend

Commander Vimes

Commander Vimes wrote:

well that's to do with inflation and the strength of the economy. i'm sure take has increased since the rate was dropped from 60% in 1986, simply because the currency is worth a lot more and people's wages are higher. doesn't change my point.

Your point doesnt even make sense.
You say tax rates down means a budget cut in services when it is a fact that tax takes have risen year on year since the 90's with the rates dropping whereas most service budgets have risen

unless you mean they just dropped income tax and icreased stealth taxes to compensate?

Well the Vat rate is 21% now compared to 35% in the 80's...

until the tax cuts come in and there's a few billion less to go around. it won't necessarily be the health budget that will suffer but something has to. so who's cutting the budgets?THE PDS

Rather than post opinion as fact can you show us where budgets for various services have been cut.
I'm not saying some havent but show us the correlation that you are going on about ie lower tax rates=less tax take = less in the kitty for services.

You are making a point that makes no sense and are not giving any facts to back it up.

Thats a textbook Rant if you ask me.

Sam Vimes

Earthman wrote:

Your point doesnt even make sense.
You say tax rates down means a budget cut in services when it is a fact that tax takes have risen year on year since the 90's with the rates dropping whereas most service budgets have risen

in fact its your point that doesn't make sense. you're saying that budgets have increased despite tax decreasing. this is true but your point assumes everything else is constant. the irish economy has boomed in the past few years. this is the reason budgets have been able to increase. the govt are taking a smaller percentage, but its a percentage of a much larger pay packet, resulting in a net gain.

simple maths says that if the government drops tax, they will have less revenue. the strength of the economy or the inflation rate are irrelevant.

Earthman wrote:

Well the Vat rate is 21% now compared to 35% in the 80's...

i wasn't actually claiming they had introduced stealth taxes. i thought you were implying that. and vat isn't a stealth tax

Earthman wrote:

Rather than post opinion as fact can you show us where budgets for various services have been cut.
I'm not saying some havent but show us the correlation that you are going on about ie lower tax rates=less tax take = less in the kitty for services.

You are making a point that makes no sense and are not giving any facts to back it up.

Thats a textbook Rant if you ask me.

i'm saying that the PDs plan to cut tax will result in budget cuts. i'm afraid i don't have evidence of budget cuts that haven't happened yet

here's the correlation:

there are 10 people with 10 apples each. the govt takes 20% of each person's apples so they have 20 apples

if the people somehow get 20 apples each (ecomonic boom), the govt can continue taking 20%, and they'll have 40 apples, or they can drop to 10% and they'll still have 20. so they've dropped tax and have the same revenue. this, however, is a result of economic boom and is not a result of anything the govt did. it does NOT show that dropping tax increases revenue. it shows that economic boom increases revenue. if there was no economic boom after a tax decrease, revenue would decrease. only some very creative (ie, wrong) maths could disagree with this


where's the confusion here?


edit: here's an example of budget cuts. my friend works in the postal service. his manager gets them to do regular overtime and then tries to get out of paying them for it. its not his fault. the work has to get done and it requires a certain amount of man power. the govt won't give the manager enough money to hire the required number of people so he has to make the current employees work overtime without pay

Commander Vimes

Commander Vimes wrote:

you're saying that budgets have increased despite tax decreasing. this is true

Good you've accepted that,it is a fact.

but your point assumes everything else is constant.

no it doesn't.

the irish economy has boomed in the past few years. this is the reason budgets have been able to increase.

Why has it boomed though? its because of a combination of the lower taxes and lower interest rates.The jobs are here relative to the 80's on account of this and people are staying to earn their money at the lower rates.

the govt are taking a smaller percentage, but its a percentage of a much larger pay packet, resulting in a net gain.

Resulting from the incentives of more take home pay from the lower taxes which brought about more people working and more people spending,making even more business in the economy and even more people working again.
Basic economics.

simple maths says that if the government drops tax, they will have less revenue. the strength of the economy or the inflation rate are irrelevant.

Complete and utter rubbish-see my last point and then go have a look back over the last 15 years and anaylise properly what it is that has happened.

i wasn't actually claiming they had introduced stealth taxes. i thought you were implying that. and vat isn't a stealth tax

Vat is down a third on what it was when this country was bollixed,that was only possible due to the changes that were made.
As for stealth taxes,well things have to be paid for.It makes sense that they are part paid for by those that use them most

i'm saying that the PDs plan to cut tax will result in budget cuts. i'm afraid i don't have evidence of budget cuts that haven't happened yet

I'm not surprised because , I asked you to show me where budgets have had to be reduced due to a fall in tax income arising out of a drop in tax rates...
There is no evidence of that but theres plenty to the contrary.

here's the correlation:

there are 10 people with 10 apples each. the govt takes 20% of each person's apples so they have 20 apples

then they decide to take 10% instead of 20%, meaning they now have 10 apples, where they once had 20


if the people somehow get 20 apples each (ecomonic boom), the govt can continue taking 20%, and they'll have 40 apples, or they can drop to 10% and they'll still have 20. so they've dropped tax and have the same revenue. this, however, is a result of economic boom and is not a result of anything the govt did. it does NOT show that dropping tax increases revenue. it shows that economic boom increases revenue


where's the confusion here?

I'm afraid I have to put this in the way that I'm about to put it as I'm aghast at your post... you've produced some fictional storybook maths common in first class infants...
You've not done one thing there to counter the overwhelming evidence, that tax take has risen.
I'll give you another simple economics lesson as you obviously dont have much of a grasp on the subject.
You give people more money, they have more to spend.
More money spent in an economy makes it grow.

edit: here's an example of budget cuts. my friend works in the postal service. his manager gets them to do regular overtime and then tries to get out of paying them for it. its not his fault. the work has to get done. it requires a certain amount of man power. the govt won't give the manager enough money to hire the required number of people so he has to make the current employees work overtime without pay

My local post office has hired extra postmen recently.

mickcarroll10

In my area we havnt had any post on a Monday for years? Why so is it because of the PD Budget cuts that dont exist yet?

No its because of the sick rate of between 16-27% in some of the postal areas.Also the stanglehold some of the postal unions have in terms of firing people who dont turn up?

Sam Vimes

Earthman wrote:

Good you've accepted that,it is a fact.

i accepted revenue has increased. i said it was for reasons other then the ones you said

Earthman wrote:

Why has it boomed though? its because of a combination of the lower taxes and lower interest rates.The jobs are here relative to the 80's on account of this and people are staying to earn their money at the lower rates.

i think the many american corporations that settled here might have had some small impact on our economy. that's one time i like tax cuts. low corporate tax brought them in. you're trying to say that the economic boom was solely the result of tax cuts. excuse me but that's bollo*ks. if that was the case, all countries would just drop tax when they found themselves in trouble as if it was some sort of silver bullet

Earthman wrote:

As for stealth taxes,well things have to be paid for.It makes sense that they are part paid for by those that use them most

that's my point right there. they'll drop income tax but as you say, things have to be paid for, so all government services will become more expensive. that's the core point that i'm making and you've just said it yourself.

Earthman wrote:

I'm not surprised because , I asked you to show me where budgets have had to be reduced due to a fall in tax income arising out of a drop in tax rates...
There is no evidence of that but theres plenty to the contrary.

you're asking me to provide evidence for cuts that HAVEN'T HAPPENED YET. that's why i don't have evidence of them.

Earthman wrote:

I'm afraid I have to put this in the way that I'm about to put it as I'm aghast at your post... you've produced some fictional storybook maths common in first class infants...

i was trying to dumb things down because you don't seem to understand the concept that if the govt takes less, they'll have less

Earthman wrote:

You've not done one thing there to counter the overwhelming evidence, that tax take has risen.

i'm not trying to counter that. i know tax take has risen. you're saying its risen because tax was decreased. i'm saying it happened because the ecomony grew, 90% because of all the corporations that located here and not because of tax cuts.

Earthman wrote:

I'll give you another simple economics lesson as you obviously dont have much of a grasp on the subject.
You give people more money, they have more to spend.
More money spent in an economy makes it grow.

my whole point is that if they cut income tax, government services become more expensive, resulting in people having LESS money, not more because the cost burden is put on a smaller group (eg people who buy school books). you admitted this happens in your post.

Earthman wrote:

My local post office has hired extra postmen recently.

i never said that no post offices are hiring people. i gave one example from personal experience

mickcarroll10

Commander Vimes wrote:

at the moment there are consultants working at three or more hospitals because there aren't enough to go around. they split the week between the three so all the hospitals only have a consultant for a third of the week and the consultant works extremely long hours.
if the budget was raised they could hire enough consultants, and throughput

Are you by any chance the son or daughter of a consultant?

WHo is responsible for the cap in consultant numbers???

Who are resisting all attempts to change their work practises?

mickcarroll10

Commander Vimes wrote:

i think the many american corporations that settled here might have had some small impact on our economy.

Are you joking with this comment a small impact?

How many jobs are provided by US MNCs??


i never said that no post offices are hiring people. i gave one example from personal experience

Yes ignoring my comments on sickness rates which is the real problem in the postal service?

Sam Vimes

mickcarroll10 wrote:

Are you by any chance the son or daughter of a consultant?

WHo is responsible for the cap in consultant numbers???

Who are resisting all attempts to change their work practises?

i don't know who's responsible for that, i don't actually work for the health service. i'm not sure what your point is here

mickcarroll10 wrote:

Are you joking with this comment a small impact?

yes i was joking with a small impact. i was saying that it was this that cause the boom, not simply tax cuts.

mickcarroll10 wrote:

How many jobs are provided by US MNCs??

i work for one that employs about 5500 here

mickcarroll10 wrote:

Yes ignoring my comments on sickness rates which is the real problem in the postal service?

i did not "ignore" your comment. stop using a tried and tested BAD arguing technique. you posted while i was writing my reply

mickcarroll10 wrote:

In my area we havnt had any post on a Monday for years? Why so is it because of the PD Budget cuts that dont exist yet?

i already said the postal service is underfunded. what do you think will happen when the govt suddenly has half a billion less to play with. will that somehow increase their budget?
we're currently in a situation where most, if not all, public services are underfunded. the answer to this problem is not to decrease the money used to fund them

mickcarroll10 wrote:

No its because of the sick rate of between 16-27% in some of the postal areas.Also the stanglehold some of the postal unions have in terms of firing people who dont turn up?

perhaps they're sick all the time because they're overworked without pay? surely there's a reason there's a higher sick rate with postmen than other public services. you can't simply say "stop getting sick" and hope the problem solves itself

samb

Earthman wrote:

. Why has it boomed though? its because of a combination of the lower taxes and lower interest rates.The jobs are here relative to the 80's on account of this and people are staying to earn their money at the lower rates. Resulting from the incentives of more take home pay from the lower taxes which brought about more people working and more people spending,making even more business in the economy and even more people working again.
Basic economics.
.

Obviously it is about balance. If you have zero taxes then we have anarchy and no government. If we have 100% taxes then we have no incentive to be inovative and productive. I'm sure we can all agree on this.
Lowering taxes from too high a level will incentivise growth as you have said. Also increasing taxes form too low a level will mean more revenue and investment for the future.

That said you are being too simplistic in your analysis for crediting lower taxes and lower interest rates for the celtic tiger. They are of course factors that must be aknowledged but there are many other factors. Many of the people driving our economy today were educated in the 1980's, if the government had lowered taxes then and cut back on education then we wouldn't have the sucess today. External factors such as booming English speaking economy, low corporation tax, huge amount of available labour (woman) all played a part.
Our economy could take a major hit from global downturn, oil prices, construction boom ending etc. This could cause a serious lack of revenue for public services but would not be due at all to higher taxes. If this happens what should we do-lower taxes or neglect public services?. In the good times we can afford low taxes,but if hard times come, we cannot afford to neglect our pubic services.
Your analysis seems to presume that low taxes will automatically drive growth and increase revenue regardless of external factors and education. The scandinavian countries (particularly sweden and finland) have much higher taxes than we have but are doing very well. I believe that they are better prepared for any downturn in the future because they have invested in public infrastructure etc.
If you are in favour of lower taxes-just how low would you like them to go?

murphaph

Earthman said what I tried to say but he put it better. Lower direct taxes and higher indirect taxes are good as the former encourages you to actually work (that's being productive and contributing to GDP and so on-good for your wages, your employer and consequently good for the economy). he latter encourages you to spend wisely but there's a choice there, so that's why I like it. I don't have to blow my SSIA on that flash car but if I do I can expect to pay dearly in VAT etc. for it.

At first it may appear that discouraging people to spend money by increasing VAT etc. is a bad thing, but it can have the strange effect of forcing the seller to be that bit more competitive (also good for the economy).

Basically we are a small open economy and if we get all proud about things we're sunk. Germany only manages to stagger on because it has such a large domestic economy but we would all have a terrible standard of living* if we tried to sustain such high unemployment (we don't need to imagine-we had the 80's) by following their model (high direct taxes give little encouragement to actually work).

VAT is limited to 25% by the EU anyway so it can't go back up to 80's levels anymore but of cours they can create other indirect taxes.

*not starvation, but say goodbye to weekend city breaks and impulse buys!

Sam Vimes

murphaph wrote:

Earthman said what I tried to say but he put it better. Lower direct taxes and higher indirect taxes are good as the former encourages you to actually work (that's being productive and contributing to GDP and so on-good for your wages, your employer and consequently good for the economy). he latter encourages you to spend wisely but there's a choice there, so that's why I like it. I don't have to blow my SSIA on that flash car but if I do I can expect to pay dearly in VAT etc. for it.

that would be fine if it was only luxury goods that go up with higher indirect taxes. you can choose not to buy a car but you can't choose not to pay the electricity bill. everything gets more expensive with indirect taxes so your choice becomes pay the extra or leave it in the bank

samb

Commander Vimes wrote:

that would be fine if it was only luxury goods that go up with higher indirect taxes. you can choose not to buy a car but you can't choose not to pay the electricity bill. everything gets more expensive with indirect taxes so your choice becomes pay the extra or leave it in the bank

You can chose to use less electicity though. It incourages people to be less wasteful generally.

Commander Vimes

Commander Vimes wrote:

i accepted revenue has increased. i said it was for reasons other then the ones you said

Prove it-otherwise you are posting opinion as fact which is against the rules around here.

i think the many american corporations that settled here might have had some small impact on our economy. that's one time i like tax cuts. low corporate tax brought them in.

and low income tax assured people stayed here to take up the jobs.

you're trying to say that the economic boom was solely the result of tax cuts. excuse me but that's bollo*ks. if that was the case, all countries would just drop tax when they found themselves in trouble as if it was some sort of silver bullet

Well what was the reason,you seem to know but are keeping it a secret...

that's my point right there. they'll drop income tax but as you say, things have to be paid for, so all government services will become more expensive. that's the core point that i'm making and you've just said it yourself.

So you are saying government services have become more expensive due to tax cuts? How and where are you getting that from?

you're asking me to provide evidence for cuts that HAVEN'T HAPPENED YET. that's why i don't have evidence of them.

No I'm asking you to show me why you think this will happen when all precedent shows the opposite.

i was trying to dumb things down because you don't seem to understand the concept that if the govt takes less, they'll have less

Mainly because you have failed to show this.
Governments have cut taxes consistently in the last 15 years and they've always ended up with more money.
Why? because the tax cuts injected money into the economy and it grew leading to more tax income on that bigger economy at lower rates.

i'm not trying to counter that. i know tax take has risen. you're saying its risen because tax was decreased. i'm saying it happened because the ecomony grew, 90% because of all the corporations that located here and not because of tax cuts.

The corporations came here because of the available labour force and low corporation tax.
In the 1980's that labour force emmigrated because taxes were too high.

my whole point is that if they cut income tax, government services become more expensive, resulting in people having LESS money, not more because the cost burden is put on a smaller group (eg people who buy school books). you admitted this happens in your post.

What are you saying,the government should buy peoples school books ?You've not shown how government services become more expensive simply due to tax cuts.
I think you are trying to say that , tax cuts lead to charges for services.
They dont.
Charges for services are a policy.One is not caused by the other.
Tax cuts are a known fiscal mesure to boost growth in the economy.
Growth brings more tax revenue.That has been shown to be the case.
I'll give you another basic lesson in Economics.
They are free today but I might have to charge for them later
The costs of services are rising with various services as a result of normal everyday events (oil,labour etc).The money available to the government is rising due to a growing economy,the more money you give people to spend, the more it will grow.
The charge for various services is a policy independent of tax cuts ie it could be implimented regardless of whether taxes were rising or falling.

It's better to run services more effeciently than peg money at them to keep them going.Unfortunately more of the latter seems to be happening than the former.
To be honest with you thats where I'd be concentrating my angst if I were you because thats the root of the problem not the lowering of personal tax rates.

i never said that no post offices are hiring people. i gave one example from personal experience

and the implication is that we should raise taxes instead of putting a few cent on the price of a stamp...
If you think that policy would run with the voters, well good luck to you with the vote hunting...

samb

samb wrote:

Obviously it is about balance. If you have zero taxes then we have anarchy and no government. If we have 100% taxes then we have no incentive to be inovative and productive. I'm sure we can all agree on this.
Lowering taxes from too high a level will incentivise growth as you have said. Also increasing taxes form too low a level will mean more revenue and investment for the future.

That said you are being to simplistic in your analysis for crediting lower taxes and lower interest rates for the celtic tiger. They are of course factors that must be aknowledged but there are many other factors.

Oh I understand that.I was keeping things simple for commander Vimes to be honest... That was not a full discussion,I was merely addressing his points for the holes that were in them.I fully recognise that lots of other things ran in tandem with the low tax rates to create the tiger but I'd contend that they were interconnected things that needed the low rates.

Many of the people driving our economy today were educated in the 1980's, if the government had lowered taxes then and cut back on education then we wouldn't have the sucess today.

A lot of the labour force was made possible by free college too which was a wise spend on the increased tax take.

Our economy could take a major hit from global downturn, oil prices, construction boom ending etc. This could cause a serious lack of revenue for public services but would not be due at all to higher taxes. If this happens what should we do-lower taxes or neglect public services?. In the good times we can afford low taxes,but if hard times come, we cannot afford to neglect our pubic services.

Agreed but thats not an argument for raising taxes at this point in time.It is a very good reason though to make government spending leaner fitter and more effecient,I think.

Your analysis seems to presume that low taxes will automatically drive growth and increase revenue regardless of external factors and education.

Well it's only a part reflection of my thoughts,I'd have lots more.I'd contend that free university education( though with some fee's now-but not a patch on the real cost of the education ) is not external it's internal and was completely funded by our growing tax take.

The scandinavian countries (particularly sweden and finland) have much higher taxes than we have but are doing very well. I believe that they are better prepared for any downturn in the future because they have invested in public infrastructure etc.

Well we do have a lower unemployment rate than sweden but I'll grant you that their health service is tonnes ahead of ours.

If you are in favour of lower taxes-just how low would you like them to go?

I would leave it at 20% and 40% if I was to vote on it.I'm a fan of the current tax regime.Theres no need for it to go lower.
Theres a big need for effeciencies to be enforced though in order to get better value for that tax take in my opinion.

Sam Vimes

earthman, i was in the middle of writing a post rebutting everything you've just said but i decided you're a troll based on the clearly incorrect things you have been saying along with baseless rubbishing of my posts by simply calling them "a joke" etc.

so i'm not bothering to reply to you anymore.

democrates

I'll outline my understanding of the PD view, and then my disagreement.

PD view:

Global competition is more an opportunity than a threat if you play it right. Every country must fight to make a living. If we sit back and don't compete our economy will decline and we'll have lower social services, higher unemployment, crime, and a raft of social ills.

While building competitive indigenous enterprise takes many years, foreign investment can be attracted rapidly. In order to parachute in those job offers, we must be investor friendly. That means low corporation tax, solid contract law, and light regulation on operations. We did that and achieved economic growth and near full employment. But global competition inexorably intensifies, so we must go further with investor-friendly measures to retain current economic trends.

In addition, low income tax rewards people who work hard, by giving them more take-home pay. This makes it more worthwhile to work than draw welfare, and also fuels consumer spending.

Less government involvement in activities best run competitively by the private sector, excepting strategic infrastructure that isn't feasible to replicate (eg eircoms local network). The civil service and semi-states have many people on high pay and conditions, but little pressure to perform, so rather than throwing more money at this to make the problem bigger, it must become more efficient. For Ireland to maximise competitiveness, it's civil service must be more productive than those of competing nations.

The PD's are convinced of this view because they've tried much of it and it 'worked'. Before we tried it we were in sh1t. Open shut case? Then why do so many people become so incensed when told they never had it so good?

People are divided. In broad stoke, if you have or anticipate a high-earning business or career, the pds offer a big carrot. Similarly if you have property, the attendant housing boom yields a feelgood factor, plus equity release for geared investments promising comfortable golden years.

But many have legitimate grievances. The gap between rich and poor has shot up, and will continue to on this road. We have an emergent upper class, well appreciated by its members, and those who act as though they were. But many others don't naturally adapt well to this, reminded of the landed gentry of yore, and yet it's not simply begrudgery. Money brings more choices in life, more freedom. As wealth distribution skews, freedom itself becomes ever more concentrated with a few.

True, the rising tide has lifted nearly all boats. Many in the working class now enjoy cars, their own home, inheritances, holdays, well-paying trades, even foreign holiiday homes (a long way from spending dole on booze, bets, burgers and corpo rent for some of them). But many don't. The lower paye masses starting out are up against it. Colossal house prices, tots in creches from 8 til 6, rising interest rates, long commutes, rising stealth taxes, rising bills, rising blood pressure, declining contentment. Their lives are damn hard graft.

In isolation no problem, but the new inequality rubs. Of course wealthy parents will do the best for their kids. The best of everything. Toys, designer clothes, healthcare, schools, grinds, accommodation and fees through college, a dob toward their first property, even equity investment for their first business, some can just join the family business - set for life so long as they don't f it up.

Who wouldn't do that for their kids if they could? But most can't come anywhere near matching that, and despite an improving education system, equality of opportunity is a myth. It's always been and is going to be like that to an extent, unless we turn communistic, but this extent is something entirely new (ok the landed gentry). It's not easy for the non upper classes to accept this lesser station in life, for them, their children, and grandchildren.

Privatisation is another issue. It seems the government is hell bent on asset stripping our country. We the people own vast land assets. Instead of simply transferring our land beside hospitals to private owners for example, why not issue a bond secured on that land (nice investment for our pension funds) and tender for the hospital building. The private operators can then rent the premises. This would yield a continuous income stream to OUR exchequer, funding education, pensions, infrastructure etc ad infinitum.

Rather than going into all the other issues, ultimately I'm at odds with the concept that the only viable future is ever fiercer competition, ever harder struggle to survive, ever growing concentration of wealth and power as Ireland mutates from one vote per person to one vote per euro. "But we have to, because of global competition!"

Yes, the problem is global. It's rip-off earth. The government plays a small part in exacerbating this global systemic problem only because we are a small nation. And the voters have demanded it! Until WE realise that global capitalism must be harnessed by the citizens of all nations, and not visa versa, the many will continue to wage economic war to further enrich the globetrotting few, while consuming and polluting our way to a climate backlash bringing billions of needless deaths.

So Mary, no. Thanks for all your effort on competition. Now commission a report on co-operation, think about the future of Ireland and the world, rename your party The Global Democrats, network abroad, and when you temper your policies with a plan for our democracies to harness the global wealthocracy, come back to me.