Is Mary Coughlan too lightweight for Tainiste?

nesf

Gandalf23 wrote: »

VAT is a regressive tax for exactly the same reason as you say a TV license is "horribly disproportionate" ... i.e. you pay the same amount of VAT on an iPod whether you earn 20K or 200K a year.

I don't think that's the correct way of looking at it. Taxation should be judged in terms of a proportion of the citizen's income when it comes to whether it is proportionate or not. A tax that is a flat levy unrelated to income like the TV licence is grossly disproportionate specifically because it captures a greater percentage of the income of lower income households. Consumption taxes like VAT can only capture income from what is spent meaning that proportionality is preserved. Lower income people spend less on luxuries like iPods and more on essentials like food and electricity as a percentage of their income so they end up paying a smaller proportion of their income as VAT as would someone on 200K a year. This is by definition proportionate! Our VAT system could definitely do with an overhaul, there are some very odd things considered to be "luxury items" but overall it's a far fairer tax than a flat levy like a TV licence.

They are most certainly very different things with one being far more unfair than the other. It's equivalent to the difference of a flat €200 euro tax being applied to everyone and a 0.1% levy being applied. In the latter case both rich and poor pay the same percentage levy but proportionality is preserved since the absolute amount payed depends on your income. Disproportionate taxes are the ones that don't do this, like the TV licence. You could argue that the 0.1% levy is unfair or a bad idea if you believe the poor should pay no tax but it is proportionate.

Gandalf23

nesf wrote: »

A tax that is a flat levy unrelated to income like the TV licence is grossly disproportionate specifically because it captures a greater percentage of the income of lower income households.

VAT is a "flat levy unrelated to income" too. VAT captures a greater % of the income of lower income percentage households too.

Same thing.

nesf wrote: »

Lower income people spend less on luxuries like iPods and more on essentials like food and electricity as a percentage of their income so they end up paying a smaller proportion of their income as VAT as would someone on 200K a year.

This is the exact same argument for a TV license.

nesf wrote: »

Our VAT system ... is ... a far fairer tax than a flat levy like a TV licence.

Its the same thing.

The nature of a regressive tax is that people pay the same amount irrespective of the income they have. Someone earning 200k pays the same TV license as someone earning 20k. Someone earning 200k pays the same VAT on an iPod as someone earning 20K.

BOTH VAT and TV licenses are the same type of regressive tax. Here is a link to explain... look at the "criticisms" section.

nesf wrote: »

They are most certainly very different things with one being far more unfair than the other.

No. They are the same for the reasons given above.

i.e. Someone earning 200k pays the same TV license as someone earning 20k. Someone earning 200k pays the same VAT on an iPod as someone earning 20K.

nesf wrote: »

It's equivalent to the difference of a flat €200 euro tax being applied to everyone and a 0.1% levy being applied. In the latter case both rich and poor pay the same percentage levy but proportionality is preserved since the absolute amount payed depends on your income. Disproportionate taxes are the ones that don't do this, like the TV licence. You could argue that the 0.1% levy is unfair or a bad idea if you believe the poor should pay no tax but it is proportionate.

By your own definition then VAT must be what you call a "disproportionate tax".

You have made the argument about TV licenses ... the same applies to VAT. Both are regressive taxes that have no relationship to income.

I'm happy to provide additional links if required.

I hope this clarifies things. To put it simply again ... the nature of a regressive tax is that people pay the same amount irrespective of the income they have. Someone earning 200k pays the same TV license as someone earning 20k. Someone earning 200k pays the same VAT on an iPod as someone earning 20K.

I'm happy to let you have the last word. I'm also happy to let people reading this decide who is right

nesf

Gandalf23 wrote: »

BOTH VAT and TV licenses are the same type of regressive tax. Here is a link to explain... look at the "criticisms" section.

From the criticisms section:

The tax rate itself is proportional with higher income people paying more tax but at the same rate as they consume more.

Which is exactly what I've been saying that VAT is proportionate (I never claimed that it wasn't potentially regressive which is a separate issue!). In Ireland, unlike some other countries, we have a 0% rate on essentials like food which changes things!

Specifically from the wiki page on regressive taxes the issue is:

A value-added tax or other sales tax on food and other essentials such as clothing, transport, and residential rents can be regressive. Since the income elasticity of demand of food is usually less than 1 (see Engel's law), it tends to take up a higher percentage of the budget of a person or family with a lower income.

I've been going on about this for quite some time at this point. If we had a VAT tax on food (and only food) then it would be regressive because food forms a much bigger proportion of the spending by a low income household, but we have the opposite situation because food (well most food) has a 0% rate here.

VAT can be regressive in some implementations but ours is a lot better than most since it has a 0% or reduced rate on many of these essentials with inelastic products (versus our sin taxes which impose high levels of taxation on some of these products and which are regressive).

Gandalf23 wrote: »

I'm happy to let you have the last word. I'm also happy to let people reading this decide who is right

Ditto, I think we just have to agree to disagree on this one.

turgon

ninty9er wrote: »

Mine has been 30/35 isn't a big class and never has been. I have always held that opinion.

Tell me ninty9er, are you a teacher? Cause you dont have a clue.

I find that comment particularly insulting. Its insulting because three years ago I had to see my father go through a midlife crisis because he had been dumped with a class of 33, with 8 nutjobs, and couldnt get any help. He lasted 6 months with them before being forcefed a sick leave of absence, the other 3 months were taken up by 5 different teachers rotating on a weekly basis. No support in the school, and with such a huge class you cant concentrate on a problem.

The ferocity of the issue can only be highlghted by the fact that this man, who took 3 months off sick, never even took a day off for any of his kids being born, and on the day I was born he still went to a school concert event he was organizing that night.

In my opinion, your out of your depth.

97i9y3941

think the gov and the builders have to answer to that too,alot of houses where built during the boom but feck all was done about building schools,some where built but in areas with low populations

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

97i9y3941

rte has an unfair advantage over tv3 since it has its income from tv licence and advertiseing,you even pay sky for giving you rte :S

jmayo

Gandalf23 wrote: »

That is incorrect.

FF and the Greens HAVE CHOSEN not to reduce class sizes. Its NOT that they "cant" reduce class sizes ... they could if they wanted to. Instead they have CHOSEN to target the poor, the young and the old.

Interesting that your opinion that 30/35 in a class "isn't a big class". This seems to clash with almost every other informed opinion and research study I can find on class sizes. I'd be very interested in why your opinion is the exact opposite of all the expert reports on this matter.

Gandalf, didn't you know he spoke to some friends that are trainee teachers :rolleyes:
It is all about teacher motivation, not class sizes or resources.

nesf, fair enough no name calling of supporters on here.
But I do think in general we are far too lenient on particular parties and their excusers.
That is what I would call them, because no matter what they come out making excuses for the inexcusable.
You don't go against your own "family" is a bad motto to adopt in a society.
That motto is being adopted by those who know murders living in their midst.

In most other countries the government and their lackies would have been tarred and feathered at this stage for their complete incompetence and arrogance.
It is one thing to be incompetent and blow loads of money, but the incompetence they govern over results in peoples lives been taken.

At the very least they would be unemployed in most western democracies.

Fred83 wrote: »

rte has an unfair advantage over tv3 since it has its income from tv licence and advertiseing,you even pay sky for giving you rte :S

Oh dear God TV3 should pay us money to watch it, it is trully terrible.
Why bother with it since it has exact same programs as UTV/ITV.
At least RTE have some decent broadcasters and no I don't mean the ones with the high salaries.

The whole idea of licensing is to pay for state public broadcasting and no we can't do like BBC and ban advertising, since we do not have the numebrs similar to UK.

nesf

jmayo wrote: »

But I do think in general we are far too lenient on particular parties and their excusers.
That is what I would call them, because no matter what they come out making excuses for the inexcusable.
You don't go against your own "family" is a bad motto to adopt in a society.
That motto is being adopted by those who know murders living in their midst.

But that is something for you to argue against rather than something that I or the other mods should hand out bans/infractions for. The same rules will apply when FG/Lab manage to get into power, so it is fair I believe.

jmayo wrote: »

At the very least they would be unemployed in most western democracies.

Ted Stevens and Italian politicians spring to mind. Not that I think that we should emulate them or anything.

jmayo

nesf wrote: »

But that is something for you to argue against rather than something that I or the other mods should hand out bans/infractions for. The same rules will apply when FG/Lab manage to get into power, so it is fair I believe.

Ted Stevens and Italian politicians spring to mind. Not that I think that we should emulate them or anything.

Fair enough you don't want the forum degenerating into a name calling fest.
Although there is one poster form Soth West, but I won't go there
Maybe I am just getting to be a grumpy angry old man

I think we should emulate the Scandanavian countries, even our nearest neighbours or our Australasian cousins when it comes to general political ethics.
Italian politics seems though to be guide for some of our own and that is where lots of our problems originate.

BTW do you mean Ted sTevens Alaska ?
You know that Sarah Palin raised the bar in Alaskan politics so you can see how low things are :rolleyes:

nesf

jmayo wrote: »

Italian politics seems though to be guide for some of our own and that is where lots of our problems originate.

We've nothing close to as bad as Italian politics or corruption, thankfully.

jmayo wrote: »

BTW do you mean Ted sTevens Alaska ?
You know that Sarah Palin raised the bar in Alaskan politics so you can see how low things are :rolleyes:

Well, the guy was convicted on corruption charges, way worse than mere accusations or rumours. If you ever wanted to see people voting for a party blind to wrongdoings of a candidate he's a very good example. It's one thing to vote for a candidate for a party where the party (but not the candidate) has had issues with corruption but to vote for a guy who has been convicted on corruption charges is *special*.

ninty9er

I've posted references backing up the class sizes comments so I would ask others to refrain from telling me that I'm out of my depth.

I've done my own research on the matter. Enough to know there isn't anywhere near consensus on the issue academically. If you can't accept that, I suggest you expand your reading.

Gnadalf, Get over yourself and I stand by the comments. It is human nature to be bitter, but to forgive is something you cannot know until you experience an act that requires forgiveness. It is my opinion that a family member may be morally wrong in what they have done, someone would have to be a morally bankrupt parasite to turn their back on a family member on the basis of one incident. People like the Keanes, Ryans, Collopys and Dundons in MY city (which I would suggest people get some real experience of before posting generalised drivel about it all over the internet) exist because people have turned their backs on them and refused to tell them they were wrong the first time they did something wrong.

I'm glad I get so far under your skin that I'm still the celebrity of your sig:rolleyes:

cbreeze

Mary Coughlan should be Taoiseach. She speaks better English than the Clem.