PDs tax cut plan

Akrasia

Angry Banana wrote:

Samb, those with investments (in general) already pay more than their fair share.

Just over 25,000 people, 0.6% of the population, pay 33% of the income tax yield.

income tax is only about half of the total tax yield, if you take into account the regressive taxes, that proportion of the total tax burdon would fall dramatically.

And you also have to consider what proportion of the wealth those people share. I don't have figures for ireland, but in america it goes something like this

Financial Wealth
Top 1 percent Next 19 percent Bottom 80 percent
1983 42.9% 48.4% 8.7%
1989 46.9% 46.5% 6.6%
1992 45.6% 46.7% 7.7%
1995 47.2% 45.9% 7.0%
1998 47.3% 43.6% 9.1%
2001 39.7% 51.5% 8.8%

If the top 1% can control such a huge proportion of the national wealth, then it's only fair that they should pay a big proportion of the tax burdon.

samb

Earthman wrote:

He'll be taxed at 20% on the capital gain on any of the shares when he sells them,thats an entirely different and inescapable tax-it's not that he is being taxed twice or anything via the companies alternative way of paying him.
?

Sorry I wasn't clear. He will have to pay 42% tax on the capital gains from the selling of the shares because it is considered a benefit-in-kind. That's what he thinks anyway, is he right? He is not complaining or anything, the share-option was arranged (share price fixed) last november and the shares have rocketed so he will he up a great deal either way.

Surely a high earner is usually spending more and therefore contributing more in VAT and more in stealth taxes to the exchequer than a low earner and ergo the "totally flat" principle is not the catch all disproportion you make it out to be.

As a proportion of income, I don't think so. Much of the high earners money will go into investments and enable them to earn more money easier. An unaviodable consequence of capitalism is that money makes money. So by taxing capital gains you are simply skewing the balance in favour of the person who is initially earning their money, rather than generating their income from prevously earned money.
The rich are taxed higher because it is so much easier to earn money if you are rich.

Just over 25,000 people, 0.6% of the population, pay 33% of the income tax yield.

This is fair because their ability to earn huge amounts of money is reliant on our economic system and government. If in business they benefit from an educated, healthy workforce. If speculators they earn their money threw the hardwork of others. Or by demand for housing (for example) from the general public.

Thats something I think that is lost often in the hurry to condemn people whose only crime is that they have perhaps worked hard to earn more money.

These super-rich MAY work hard and contribute greatly to society but to suggest that they deserve (for example) to be earning 20million is in my view crazy. A doctor may earn 150k a year and may work very hard saving many lives, do they not deserve millions because the lives they saved are priceless to the families. I have no problem with people earning lots of money and am supportive and happy that they can-but I would hope that they acknowledge that thier ability to earn this much money is based on the hardwork of the general population. And realise that they are not thousands of times more deserving than the said dedicated doctor.

Everyone has to start somewhere (unless you inherit a lot). so to tax work income at a similar level to capital gains (or as I said together) would reward the actual work and initial generation of wealth much more fairly. Then we would see people who work harder earn more money.

free1

The PDs obviously have difficulties with mathematics and logic because cutting tax in a time when public services are under-resourced, and claiming that Irish citizens are entitled to the best in public services makes no sense. Public services are under-resourced in at least the following areas;
-The Gardai
-The Fire Service (recently highlighted on the Last Word following the Sellafield drama)
-Healthcare (for instance Ireland has nine neurological specialists. Per capita this is the lowest in EU. If we were to increase the number of specialists to the next lowest on the list we would have sixteen)
-Education (insufficient education for disabled children)
The PDs are making promises to get them elected. The unfortunate thing is that if elected they will try and implement this, and it would be the worst decision the Irish electorate ever made.

http://freethepower.blogspot.com/

HelterSkelter

Cork wrote:

I think Mary Harney also spoke some sense with regards Health. You cannot simply throw money at a problem. It is about time - the taxpayers of this country got value out of public expenditure.

Oh yeah, well why then does she expect us to keep throwing money at it by increasing the statutory charge? I think it's gone up to €65 now.

Cork wrote:

It should mean modern and efficent work practices.

The PDs also called for tax cuts for low and middle income people.

This is to be welcomed.

Mary Harney is a joke. As far as I can see nothing has improved since the took up office. In fact it is worse now.

samb

samb wrote:

Sorry I wasn't clear. He will have to pay 42% tax on the capital gains from the selling of the shares because it is considered a benefit-in-kind. That's what he thinks anyway, is he right? He is not complaining or anything, the share-option was arranged (share price fixed) last november and the shares have rocketed so he will he up a great deal either way.

Yes benefit in kind,its treated the same way as cash payments.Years ago companies used use it as a pay no tax loophole.

As a proportion of income, I don't think so. Much of the high earners money will go into investments and enable them to earn more money easier. An unaviodable consequence of capitalism is that money makes money. So by taxing capital gains you are simply skewing the balance in favour of the person who is initially earning their money, rather than generating their income from prevously earned money.

I've no issue with taxing earned income earned by either high rollers or low rollers.
Where I would have an issue would be if one were to propose taking a lump sum off a high earner just because they are a high earner.
It should be in proportion to income.OK so a higher earner still has more money after the same percentage of their income is taken in tax as the lower income person-But thats because of how they earn it and the effort put into that earn.
By all means , introduce a further tax rate for very high earners, but carefully analyise the impact of it first.
Some rather zealous socialists would want to take half what a person earns above what would be taken under the existing regime for those on 80k or a 100k for instance(ie half that income could be gone anyway and they'd want to take another big chunk) without blinking an eyelid as to the effect of that on peoples drive.


I dont subscribe to the notion that high earners should be specially penalised ,tax should be and is charged at rates according to income.It's generally not a rich PAYE persons fault that a poor PAYE person earns less,its to do with the job.
In my opinion, to be tricking around with taxes in that manner is too close to communism than what is good for society.
Funnily enough,while I'm of that view,I'm socialist enough in my outlook on how a government should intervene to help those who are legitimately in a poverty trap.I'd just try to do it in a way that doesnt make life so cosy for those people that they lack the incentive to drive foward on their own.

This is fair because their ability to earn huge amounts of money is reliant on our economic system and government. If in business they benefit from an educated, healthy workforce. If speculators they earn their money threw the hardwork of others. Or by demand for housing (for example) from the general public.

That ability is open to all depending on the drive they have.
Offhand I can think of two instances , one a teacher (who is in the buiding game as a small trader in his spare time) and another who is a welder by trade.
Both actually have 3 houses (I kid you not).
Both work extremely hard and I've no doubt both will do well if they sell their houses(one of them in Dublin has doubled in value,the owner having renovated it himself)

Now why penalise them just because, they took risks compared to someone prepared to have it easier.I'd think penalising them would be inherently unfair.

These super-rich MAY work hard and contribute greatly to society but to suggest that they deserve (for example) to be earning 20million is in my view crazy.

Well I'd say the €20 million person is a rare example-but yes if that person was clever enough to have amassed that return on his labour,and paid his taxes,then good luck to them.

A doctor may earn 150k a year and may work very hard saving many lives, do they not deserve millions because the lives they saved are priceless to the families.

I'd imagine there are many very wealthy GP's with their own practices and specialists even more wealthy (having slogged the slavish hours at the start of their careers) and good luck to them too.

I have no problem with people earning lots of money and am supportive and happy that they can-but I would hope that they acknowledge that thier ability to earn this much money is based on the hardwork of the general population. And realise that they are not thousands of times more deserving than the said dedicated doctor.

Well as per my last point,I'd be minded that the examples I gave shouldnt be penalised.It's incentive killing and that wouldnt be good for man or beast never mind entrepreneurship in my opinion.

That said I do see what you are getting at,I'm just looking at it from the other side of the fence.
It's never easy to strike a perfect balance, at the risk of killing incentive.

Everyone has to start somewhere (unless you inherit a lot). so to tax work income at a similar level to capital gains (or as I said together) would reward the actual work and initial generation of wealth much more fairly. Then we would see people who work harder earn more money.

Earlier in this thread,I was asked how low I would like to see tax going and I sort of answered not much lower than at present.
Like all things business, the Economy is no different, theres a marginal rate of return on tax cuts I think beyond which they would do more harm than good.
That rate varies depending on the state of the economy ie if we are in a boom or a downturn.
Striking the balance,I'd rather leave to the experts to spend time on.But sometimes they can be as useless at getting it right as the next person.

fly_agaric

Earthman wrote:

I'm not saying that you shouldnt have higher rates for higher income,I'm saying you shouldnt set out to blatantly take more off a high earner or invent a new ridiculously high rate for them.
That goes against the principle of incentive in my opinion.

I'd agree. As has been pointed out, the way wealth is distributed in most countries means that under this type of system, the wealthy will generate a disproportionate amount of the tax-take.

Earthman wrote:

Surely a high earner is usually spending more and therefore contributing more in VAT and more in stealth taxes to the exchequer than a low earner and ergo the "totally flat" principle is not the catch all disproportion you make it out to be.

Buying a boat, running an expensive car and replacing it regularly or buying a very large house with all the attendant running bills is a lifestyle choice for the people who can afford it. They don't buy these things - they don't pay the extra VAT to the govt. The basics cost a similar amount for everyone in the economy.

You aren't trying to suggest that the wealthy should also get some kind of VAT rebate to balance thing out because they bear the buden of buying so much stuff, are you?

I don't know what sort of twisted mind would cast about for evidence to support the idea that VAT and taxes of that nature are unfair to rich people.

Earthman wrote:

I doubt that those who propose it would be so quick to dilute what they expect off the state in favour of the richer people who contribute more in money terms to it.

Yes, the fact that the very wealthy don't rely on the state as much as joe-citizen is often used as yet another bogus argument for reducing their tax-burden further.

Earthman wrote:

Thats something I think that is lost often in the hurry to condemn people whose only crime is that they have perhaps worked hard to earn more money.

I am not condemning them.

I just don't like how an effort at a redistributive tax system is often spun in one way or another as being "unfair" to those on high incomes (the rest of society is thus implied to be a bunch of worthless leeches compared to these wonderful top-earners).

mickcarroll10

free1 wrote:

The PDs obviously have difficulties with mathematics and logic because cutting tax in a time when public services are under-resourced, and claiming that Irish citizens are entitled to the best in public services makes no sense. Public services are under-resourced in at least the following areas;
-The Gardai
-The Fire Service (recently highlighted on the Last Word following the Sellafield drama)
-Healthcare (for instance Ireland has nine neurological specialists. Per capita this is the lowest in EU. If we were to increase the number of specialists to the next lowest on the list we would have sixteen)
-Education (insufficient education for disabled children)
The PDs are making promises to get them elected. The unfortunate thing is that if elected they will try and implement this, and it would be the worst decision the Irish electorate ever made.

http://freethepower.blogspot.com/

Again trying the pass opinoins as facts,which public services are under funded? The gardai have record resources.

Healthcare has increased dramatically over the last number of years.

The number of specialists is not about money a lot has to do with capping of consultants by themselves.

fly_agaric

fly_agaric wrote:

I just don't like how an effort at a redistributive tax system is often spun in one way or another as being "unfair" to those on high incomes (the rest of society is thus implied to be a bunch of worthless leeches compared to these wonderful top-earners).

Well spin is spin and facts are facts.I look at the thing as I said, that oppurtunity is there to be grasped and some by their abilities are better able to grasp it than others.
Theres no need to categorise all as either worthless leeches or millionaire fat cats.Some of the former can work harder at what they are good at and earn a pittance compared to some of the latter who find it a lot easier to earn a lot more at whatever it is that they are particularally good at.

You aren't trying to suggest that the wealthy should also get some kind of VAT rebate to balance thing out because they bear the buden of buying so much stuff, are you?

Nah
I was just making a point in answer to the point that the tax was unfair.
Richer people spend more on discretionary goods, so by and large they contribute more in Vat than poorer people.
Thats not a comment on which of them is making a better contribution, it's just a statement of fact.Both are paying VAT relative to earnings.
The fact that one is more wealthy than the other is not something to resent when looking at that.It's an unnecessary over generalisation in my opinion as like I said earlier, they usually didnt get to a position of being a high earner (as a PAYE payer) without taking advantage of opportunities and using their abilities-everybody has a different level of them.

Time Magazine

Right this is veering a little off-topic, and maybe it deserves to be on humanities or something, but I'll put it here anyway. Samb and Akrasia have raised the issue of progressive tax systems and regressive VAT and what not. I'll raise a few questions for ye; and I challenge you to really think about them.

What makes a tax system progressive or regressive is not the amount of tax pays. With basic analysis, tax rates of 10% up to €30,000, 30% up to €50,000 and 50% over €50,000 appears very progressive. This is probably true, but in certain cases in can of course be pure bullsh*t. For example, if all tax revenue leaned toward the wealthy and there was ineffective (or no) re-distribution of wealth down the ladder one cannot claim that system is equitable or regressive.

Conversely, if you taxed all income less than €25,000 at 60% and anything above at €20,000 the system appears regressive. But what if all revenue goes to the working- and middle-classes? That would be an equitable tax system, and progressive by my definition.

My definition of the progressivity of the tax system is the "incidence ex post"; namely the amount you pay minus the amount you receive. It is perfectly reasonable, therefore, in certain circumstance, to claim that a tax band of 10% for the wealthy could actually be fairer than at 42%.

Now that, by all means, is pushing it. Most government spending, such as on defence, is equally applicable to all. However an equally fair argument on the contrary is that high taxes on the wealthy result in them working less than they would and thus losing revenue. In pure economics terms, this is defined and the income elasticity of labour. We tax high marginal earnings more than lower income because the rich need it less. But for an efficient and fair tax system we must also consider that if they need it less, they'll be less likely to do it. Thus, in those terms of raising revenue, it would make more sense to actually have lower taxes for high earners and higher ones on low earners. But, as mentioned above, if this fairly re-distributed, it can be very fair.

Percentage rates do not pay for free health care, public transport or a fire service; real cash does. If lower percentage rates yield more revenue, why not? Who cares about what the percentage rates are?

Thus you cannot say to me that the Irish tax system is regressive. VAT is not regressive. Necessary items (which constitute a higher proportion of low earners' incomes) are for the most part VAT-free; thus the actual amount of VAT paid over income is fair. The only problem is that rich people import more than poor people, and don't pay Irish VAT on that - but we can't really change that.

Less than 1% of the population pay 33% of the income tax. That's phenomenal. Fair play to the government for that. In Taxation and Democracy by Sven Steinmo (c. 1991), the Swedish author opens by explaining that Sweden have a regressive tax system from the perspective of percentage points. Sweden, which I might add have a GNP of 10% less than ours, are used as the shining light of an equitable system.

Are the tax cuts proposed by the PD's so bad? High earners obviously don't mind them. If they result in a higher tax yield (which I accept will not be immediate - the labour market is 'sticky'), should it not be desire of Labour et al as well?

free1

mickcarroll10 wrote:

Again trying the pass opinoins as facts,which public services are under funded? The gardai have record resources.

Healthcare has increased dramatically over the last number of years.

The number of specialists is not about money a lot has to do with capping of consultants by themselves.

You and I are making different comparisons. You are comparing with the past. I prefer to look at what should be achieved given the prosperity of the country. Ireland has one of the lowest tax-takes in Europe. And if you listen to the experts in these fields rather than the rhetoric of the PDs, you would realise that these areas of public service are under resourced. The Gardai are grossly under resourced, and lack for a lot more than what a reserve force will bring.
And simple accounting indicates you cant reduce tax continuously as the PDs suggest and still spend adequately on the maintenance of public services

Time Magazine

fly_agaric wrote:

I don't know what sort of twisted mind would cast about for evidence to support the idea that VAT and taxes of that nature are unfair to rich people.

Just a thought experiment.

We both earn €10 an hour. I work a 35 hour week, resulting in a yearly wage of €18,200. You work 64 hours a week, resulting in a yearly wage of €33,280. Should you really have to subside me by paying a higher tax rate? Do you not contribute more, and deserve your money at least as much money as I do?

Delboy05

so you think ireland is a low tax country and that we should stop cutting taxes!!!! From today's irish times, part of an article by Marc Coleman, the papers financial correspondent:

And there is much evidence that as far as the total burden is concerned, Ireland is no longer a "low-tax" economy. When expressed as a ratio of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) - the value of goods and services produced within the State - our tax burden is just 29.7 per cent and this apparently compares well with an OECD average of 36.3 per cent.
But about 20 per cent of Ireland's GDP is generated by multinationals and Gross National Product (GNP) - the value of goods and services produced by Irish-owned entities - is consequently much lower than GDP relative to most OECD countries. For this reason, GNP is a far more relevant denominator than GDP when measuring Ireland's tax burden. As a share of GNP that burden is 35 per cent.
And there are further reasons why even this number may understate the tax burden. Our population is younger than the OECD average. This means that our health spending and pensions spending should be lower, other things being equal. The fact that it isn't means that we are overspending elsewhere.
Two years ago, an analysis of health and education spending in the OECD club of countries, conducted by expert fiscal economists, suggested that our health and education services may be among the least efficient in the OECD.
Now if public spending is as efficient as it can be, then there is a case for holding tax levels where they are, if not increasing them, to fund increased public services. But, if not, hard-earned taxpayers' money is being wasted on public sector inefficiency. If you can't get a bucket to stop leaking, you might as well salvage some of the water.

http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/finance/2006/0428/2077735087BWECONOMICS.html

HelterSkelter

Angry Banana wrote:

Just a thought experiment.

We both earn €10 an hour. I work a 35 hour week, resulting in a yearly wage of €18,200. You work 64 hours a week, resulting in a yearly wage of €33,280. Should you really have to subside me by paying a higher tax rate? Do you not contribute more, and deserve your money at least as much money as I do?

Another way to look at it, we both work a 35 hour week. Imagine I get paid €30 an hour, you get €10 an hour. My yearly salary is €54,600, yours is €18,200. Do you think you should have to pay exactly the same charges as me for healthcare, services, etc?

HelterSkelter

HelterSkelter wrote:

Another way to look at it, we both work a 35 hour week. Imagine I get paid €30 an hour, you get €10 an hour. My yearly salary is €54,600, yours is €18,200. Do you think you should have to pay exactly the same charges as me for healthcare, services, etc?

I think those kind of questions are academic really as you have to factor in what the person is doing during those 35 hours.
One job is more valuable than the other.The higher wage there would be paying more tax and have more after tax income.

I could be wrong but doesnt PRSI and Income tax all go into the collective kitty?

And has anyone got the sums here as to whether more than the total take in PRSI is ploughed into health and soc welfare?
You'd need to analysise all that to conclude anything.
It could be(and I havent analyised the figures) that the health service is financed by straight income tax aswell and ergo then a person paying a lot of tax is contributing much more to it.

Time Magazine

HelterSkelter wrote:

Another way to look at it, we both work a 35 hour week. Imagine I get paid €30 an hour, you get €10 an hour. My yearly salary is €54,600, yours is €18,200. Do you think you should have to pay exactly the same charges as me for healthcare, services, etc?

Healthcare no, and thus medical cards (I'm not advocating the government, but rather the ideal). Services, in general, yes. Firstly, they're already paying more in tax rates. Secondly, if everything was balanced like that, there's no point in earning more money at all.

If you're naturally a quick runner and you win a race it's fair game. If you're naturally talented, gain a Masters' in economics and earn €55,000 a year compared to an average guy working in Xtra-vision earning a third of that for the same hours it's not fair game?

There are major socio-economic background access issues, but should the workding-class-do-good boy have the still suffer the additional repayment?

Victor

samb wrote:

Sorry I wasn't clear. He will have to pay 42% tax on the capital gains from the selling of the shares because it is considered a benefit-in-kind. That's what he thinks anyway, is he right? He is not complaining or anything, the share-option was arranged (share price fixed) last november and the shares have rocketed so he will he up a great deal either way.

Depending on how the deal was structure, e.g. a SAYE scheme, he may end up paying very little tax.

Also BIK is inequitable as you are paying tax on the net amount, not the gross.

Delboy05 wrote:

But for their size, and the fact they've been in the last few govt's, has any other party of their size ever punched so far above their weight?

South Kerry Independent Alliance?

Earthman wrote:

I could be wrong but doesnt PRSI and Income tax all go into the collective kitty?

PRSI goes on social welfare and the training fund. The health levy direct to the HSE. Motor tax to the Local Government Fund and refuse / bag levies to the Environment Fund. Everything else goes in the kitty.

Zaphod

Delboy05 wrote:

so you think ireland is a low tax country and that we should stop cutting taxes!!!! From today's irish times, part of an article by Marc Coleman, the papers financial correspondent:

And there is much evidence that as far as the total burden is concerned, Ireland is no longer a "low-tax" economy. When expressed as a ratio of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) - the value of goods and services produced within the State - our tax burden is just 29.7 per cent and this apparently compares well with an OECD average of 36.3 per cent.

It's a pity you didn't quote the entire article given its relevance to this thread. Coleman was arguing that direct taxes on income for Ireland are among the lowest in the OECD while taxes on consumption are relatively high. So rather than the proposed PD option of lowering the income tax rates, he preferred a cut in indirect taxes which would both help to lower the cost of living and reduce the demand for wage increases. And as a previous poster has mentioned, VAT is a flat tax which impacts more on lower income earners than on higher income earners.

"Irish corporation tax rates (1st/16) and personal taxes (1st/15) are low relative to other countries benchmarked. Ireland collects a relatively high share of tax revenue from indirect sources (2nd/8) and a relatively low share from property (6th lowest from 15)."
http://www.forfas.ie/ncc/reports/ncc_annual_05/ch04/ch04_01.html

Cork

People on 20K should not pay income tax - The PDs have hit the nail on the head.

In Ireland - we continue taxing Labour as opposed to consumption taxes and property.

To bring down house prices - a tax on additional second propertys would be an idea.
To cut ancahol consumption - reduce taxes on soft drinks and increase taxes on spirits etc.

Consumption taxes is the way to go.

The PDs deserve much credit on this one.

fly_agaric

Angry Banana wrote:

Just a thought experiment.

We both earn €10 an hour. I work a 35 hour week, resulting in a yearly wage of €18,200. You work 64 hours a week, resulting in a yearly wage of €33,280. Should you really have to subside me by paying a higher tax rate? Do you not contribute more, and deserve your money at least as much money as I do?

What has that got to do with VAT which is taxation based on how much you spend - not how much you earn?

I just thought that arguing that VAT hurts wealthy people more seems totally perverse (to me).

The wealthy person works hard to gain the good of being able to accrue more stuff and then because they choose to use their money in this way they end up paying more VAT to the govt.

Saying VAT is unfair to them seems to be implying they should gain on the double (buy more stuff and have their extra VAT offset)...its crazy IMO.

What you said about how the money collected is then actually spend by govt. is very important.

Anyway, I'll stop now. People always seem to disagree how much the wealthy own to the state and the rest of society (and whether what they owe [if anything] should be given as a voluntary or collected as an enforced contribution) and how much the state owes them for the money they spread around the economy.

Zaphod

Cork wrote:

In Ireland - we continue taxing Labour as opposed to consumption taxes and property.

So the National Competitiveness Council and the OECD are both wrong?

Labour: Effective Income Tax Rate (% of Gross Labour Costs), 2004

VAT: Value Added Tax Rate, 2003



Taxes on property are relatively low but the last time a government (FF/Labour) introduced a property-based tax, it proved so unpopular that it's unlikely a similar tax will be reintroduced.

Victor wrote:

South Kerry Independent Alliance?

No TDs have been elected from SKIA - only councillors. Healy Rae runs under the same 'Independent Fianna Fáil' banner as the Blaneys.

samb

Cork wrote:

To bring down house prices - a tax on additional second propertys would be an idea.
To cut ancahol consumption - reduce taxes on soft drinks and increase taxes on spirits etc.

Consumption taxes is the way to go.

The PDs deserve much credit on this one.

I agree with many of the 'steath' taxes on consumption espeically with regard petrol, waste, etc..and water soon because of the Water framework Directive.
That said, I think that the present government would like every service to pay for itself for no good reason. If find it incredibly annoying that we must pay to park at a hospital when visiting a loved one, or go for a pee at a train station, or pay so much for a passport, or get a copy of our leaving certificate results.
I understand that each of the above examples may require some payment to discourage over use. Or for example people parking at hospitals to go into town. In Kilkenny the hospital is not near the centre and I thought to myself, why are they trying to discourage me from visiting my sick dad. I just find it annoying and illogical.:(

RainyDay

samb wrote:

My dad recently got a really generous share-option, presumably as a reward for this hard work etc. His gains from this however must be taxed as income 42%. I find it strange that because he did not buy these shares in the normal way that he must be taxed extra.

Are you proposing that companies who provide share-options as part of the overall salary package should be able to avoid income tax? This is completely unworkable, as companies would simply switch more & more of their payments to options in order to avoid tax. His options are income, so they should be taxes just like any other income.

Widgeon

Akrasia wrote:

The PDs are full of hot air ad they rarely achieve anything.

I agree totally. Mary Harney is a disaster as Minister for Health.

The problems with the Health Service are more deep rooted than she can even imagine. She believes that centralisation of decision making and privatisation are the answers. She would rather blame nurses than look at the part politicians and decision makers have played in this.
I believe the Consultants contracts and work practices, poor management of the services, over centralisation are fundamental causes of the problems.
There is a closed shop within the medical profession with limited College places. There is unwillingness to recognise qualifications from other countries.

Some suggest that people are at fault for the crisis in the A & E departments of hospitals by going there in the first place. Most GP's now work during normal working hours. I have to take time off work to see my GP. Where does one go if there is no GP available?
The people waiting on trolleys are not there because they are not sick. Only the sick people get trolleys.

Widgeon

Widgeon wrote:

Most GP's now work during normal working hours. I have to take time off work to see my GP. Where does one go if there is no GP available?
The people waiting on trolleys are not there because they are not sick. Only the sick people get trolleys.

Of course your GP tries to work normal hours.
You will find though that you should always be able to find a GP at a designated health centre out of office hours.
I've one available 24 hours locally for example
The Nurse usually rings back and determines whats going on and decides whether a doctor needs to come out to you or whether you can go to the health centre.
It's the doctor that decides if you need an ambulance or have to go to A&E

Of course most people still think they know better and just go clog up A&E anyway or simply dont know about the service.
Mind you all GP's that I know of have the caredoc number or equivalent for their area on their answering machine and ask that you ring it.
Again most people just dont :rolleyes:

fly_agaric

Earthman wrote:

You will find though that you should always be able to find a GP at a designated health centre out of office hours.
I've one available 24 hours locally for example

offtopic (am I ever on topic??)...
As with much else in Ireland, it depends strongly on where you live. There was a big article about the availability of GP's out-of-hours in the Weekend section of the IT yesterday.

Cork

Widgeon wrote:

I agree totally. Mary Harney is a disaster as Minister for Health.

Give the lady a chance. She cannot reform the inefficencys and poor work practices in the system in a brief period. Change in any organisation takes time.

Reform of the system was needed years ago.

I think Mary Harney is the Best Minister For Health that this country has had in some time.

That said - patients and tax payers deserve better than the current system.

Triple Health spend and get people on trollys?

You get nurses and consultants then looking for more beds.

The health system is full of vested interests.

Even looking at the MRSA - how much of this has to do with money and how much has to do with bad work practices?

In the health system - Patients should come first - not consultants or nurses.

samb

RainyDay wrote:

Are you proposing that companies who provide share-options as part of the overall salary package should be able to avoid income tax? This is completely unworkable, as companies would simply switch more & more of their payments to options in order to avoid tax. His options are income, so they should be taxes just like any other income.

You are right, but I wasn't suggesting that. I was suggesting that perhaps capital gains income and regular job income could be taxed together. This way the % could come down for job income tax, but would be up for capital gains. It would mean that workers would get taxed for thier work at the same level as investers. You could probably then reduce the level to maybe 35%.

Cork

Is there anything in this country taxed more than labour?

When you add PRSI + Tax.

Perhaps cars - VRT+VAT.

Capital Gains and Coperation Tax is at lower rates.

Still in Ireland - You have to pay taxes at low levels of income.

Fair Play to the PDs - <20k - Nobody should have to pay tax.

IF you are wealthy you have scope to invest in tax avoidence schemes - but if you are earning < 20K - you don't have the same choices.

The Revenue seem not even to answer telephone calls after a certain point in the day.

Victor

samb wrote:

I understand that each of the above examples may require some payment to discourage over use. Or for example people parking at hospitals to go into town. In Kilkenny the hospital is not near the centre and I thought to myself, why are they trying to discourage me from visiting my sick dad. I just find it annoying and illogical.:(

Its simple demand management. Should the hospital be spending money on providing care or car parks?

Cork wrote:

Give the lady a chance. She cannot reform the inefficencys and poor work practices in the system in a brief period. Change in any organisation takes time.

Um, shes been in government for 9 years now.

Oh and tell me why the government hired 14,000 extra people in the run up to the last election?

LostinBlanch

democrates wrote:

Must be a bug in my wordcount code, tried to analyse Berties speech but all I got was:
eh - buffer overflow

I haven't read through the rest of the posts after yours but shouldn't you have used the spellcheck?

Bluffer overflow?