Would you support a significantly higher rate of income tax?

r0nanf

Very simple proposition really - would you support a significantly higher rate of income tax (lets say averaging out at 30% of gross income for the average worker) in return for a world class universal health and education system?

I would also propose a higher level again for earners over say €150k btw.

In return for a lower net income you would receive free healthcare including GP visits and free education (1-3rd level). Maybe 50% of the cost of 4th level to be subsidized too.

Everybody, rich and poor, receiving the same level of social support with no option to pay your way to the top of the waiting list or to pay to have your child put in a school with higher progression rates.

Lockstep

Yes, I would completely support such a proposal.

Soldie

No, I wouldn't.

John_Mc

I'd have no problem if I saw value for money. I'd rather leave the country than pay that rate if things were to stay as they are.

bladespin

Couldn't support it as a world class system would never happen here, they'd squander the extra on something silly.

I would support a third tax band for anyone on €60k or more per year.

spank_inferno

I would argue that no such thing is necessary as we are already taxed quite high already.

I am earning the industrial average, so I pay 20% income tax
On the remainder of my income I pay 21% vat on what I purchase to survive.
On certain items less, on certain more.

I'm taxed for the possession of a television, car, dog (lisence).
I paid thousands in tax to purchase my home
Small business owners are hosed by local authority rates.


At what point have I paid enough to expect good public services in return?

r0nanf

Soldie wrote: »

No, I wouldn't.

Reasons? The current system doesn't work, why not try something different.

wes

I would have no issue with paying a high tax rate if I got value for money. So in theory I would be for your idea.

However, I think the Irish government has been pretty useless at spending our money properly and I would have to see one hell of a change among most political parties to be convinced that higher taxes wouldn't be flushed down the toilet.

r0nanf

wes wrote: »

However, I think the Irish government has been pretty useless at spending our money properly and I would have to see one hell of a change among most political parties to be convinced that higher taxes wouldn't be flushed down the toilet.

Fact. This supposition is contingent on a different government

Dr Galen

no neither would i tbh. but not on idealogical grounds, more on the grounds that it simply wouldn't work out as you plan.

Your proposing something akin to the Social Democracy model used in places in Sweden and Denmark?

I just don't think such a model would work very well over here. You'd be asking people to leave behind decades of cronyism, nepotism and dodging the system in one way or another.

I also don't think that the rich need to have the same level of support as the poorer. Why does someone on 200k per annum need free 3rd level education for their kids? It's actually been shown that having free fee's in this country has not really affected the numbers of people from lower socio-economic groups attending 3rd level. In fact many degree's that are issued nowadays aren't worth the paper they are written on!

Primary and secondary education should most definitely be free, as they are now, but using that same setup for 3rd level wouldn't be beneficial in my view. Allowing universities etc to become more self sufficient with regard to funding would be a start, government sponsored business incubators, allowing Universities to commercialise and license technology that they develop would also be a major step to adequate funding.



I'd certainly love to see a better health system in this country, but to be fair, its not really cash that has been the issue there, its been the total mismanagement of resources, wastage and short sightedness. A clearout within the HSE as a whole would make much more difference than another billion euro being thrown at them.

Soldie

r0nanf wrote: »

Reasons? The current system doesn't work, why not try something different.

I see significant flaws in any system that offers 'free' anything, because there's no such thing - ultimately someone has to pay. What motivation do the lower-paid workers have for trying to better their situation if they're already getting 'free' healthcare and education at the expense of others? Likewise, what motivation do the higher-paid workers have for sticking around and paying punitive taxes? It'd just lead to a skilled-labour shortage like in Denmark, where income taxes of up to 63% in certain circumstances drive the successful abroad.

And if we want to try something different, perhaps we should lower taxes and privatise hospitals, giving people a competitive healthcare market which will drive prices down, and more disposable income. Right now we have a situation where we've vastly increased spending on health, but to no discernible benefit - what makes you think that providing even more funding will change anything?

wes

r0nanf wrote: »

Fact. This supposition is contingent on a different government

Fair enough then.

ateam

This might be off topic a bit, but if they broaden the tax base i.e. bring lower income people into the tax net..would there be an argument that the those who are lower paid will be better off on social welfare. Minimum wage is €8.65, over a week is €337.35..the dole is €204. Taxing the lower income people will disincentivise them to work when they can get the same sort of amount less all the hassel of work?

Unless they reduce social welfare, I don't think they should broaden the tax base.

r0nanf

Mystik Monkey wrote: »

I also don't think that the rich need to have the same level of support as the poorer. Why does someone on 200k per annum need free 3rd level education for their kids?

As previously mentioned I would advocate an even higher rate on high earners. I think giving 50% or higher of your earnings over €150k would be a fair trade for free education and health. I think that if someone who is wealthy pays enough tax that their contribution has been made, and ultimately then they have the same access to the same resources.

It's actually been shown that having free fee's in this country has not really affected the numbers of people from lower socio-economic groups attending 3rd level.

Although we hear that a lot it is far too early to tell that for sure. For instance in the first 10 years of free second level education the completion figures remained fairly similar, but the retention level is now 81%.

A clearout within the HSE as a whole would make much more difference than another billion euro being thrown at them.

Agreed, the whole system needs to be redrawn.

Pedro K

wes wrote: »

I would have no issue with paying a high tax rate if I got value for money. So in theory I would be for your idea.

However, I think the Irish government has been pretty useless at spending our money properly and I would have to see one hell of a change among most political parties to be convinced that higher taxes wouldn't be flushed down the toilet.

+1

A few people have said it.

I wouldn't pay that rate to this government because they would no doubt squander it on blow drys etc...

r0nanf

Soldie wrote: »

What motivation do the lower-paid workers have for trying to better their situation if they're already getting 'free' healthcare and education at the expense of others?

Plenty of motivation. Access to private rooms. Beds. Shorter waiting lists. My neighbour is dying because he has been waiting over a year for what was then a relatively routine operation.

Likewise, what motivation do the higher-paid workers have for sticking around and paying punitive taxes?

No private health care fees. No GP fees. No private education fees. The same arguement applies whether you are rich or poor, thats the point.

Dr Galen

r0nanf wrote: »

As previously mentioned I would advocate an even higher rate on high earners. I think giving 50% or higher of your earnings over €150k would be a fair trade for free education and health. I think that if someone who is wealthy pays enough tax that their contribution has been made, and ultimately then they have the same access to the same resources.

well i know that if i worked myself into a position that I was getting paid 150k then a) i wouldn't need to worry about free education and healthcare and b) I'd be pretty pissed off giving 50% of my cash out to pay for services that i didn't want or need in the first place.

A bit of research would tell you that the rich tax payers in this country already pay a disproportiate amount of tax when compared to the rest of the people in the tax net, so taxing them even further is hardly fair now is it?
Changing the tax system to include some of the 40% or so that pay no income tax at all would be a good idea, that situation is pretty much unheard of anywhere else. Re-drawing the rules on tax exile and tax loophole status would also be of benefit.

r0nanf

Mystik Monkey wrote: »

A bit of research would tell you that the rich tax payers in this country already pay a disproportiate amount of tax when compared to the rest of the people in the tax net, so taxing them even further is hardly fair now is it?

I've done my research thanks. The top 6% although providing about 50% of all income tax raised pay on average 27% of their earnings on income tax. That is not enough imho.

jimmmy

To answer the OP question , yes, as long as the govt did not blow it on giving themselves and their employees higher salaries and pensions ( They are aleready among the highest, if not the highest, in the whole world ).

The tax should be used to reduce our requirement for such massive borrowing eg only borrow 22 billion instead of 25 or 26 billion this year.

Soldie

r0nanf wrote: »

Plenty of motivation. Access to private rooms. Beds. Shorter waiting lists. My neighbour is dying because he has been waiting over a year for what was then a relatively routine operation.

Everybody, rich and poor, receiving the same level of social support with no option to pay your way to the top of the waiting list or to pay to have your child put in a school with higher progression rates.

Can you explain this discrepancy?

No private health care fees. No GP fees. No private education fees. The same arguement applies whether you are rich or poor, thats the point.

Yes, but those who make more money would be paying punitive taxes and getting less for their money than those paying nothing - as per your claim that those below a certain income would get 'free' GP visits, etc. Is that equitable? It promotes laziness because those who make less money are happy to avail of 'free' services at the expense of the rich, while those making more money are in a situation where they're paying punitive taxes to pay other people's way. I find that to be regressive.

r0nanf

Soldie wrote: »

Can you explain this discrepancy?

What discrepancy? Everybody gets the same facilities. I merely mentioned different examples as lower paid workers who already have access to free (albeit rubbish) healthcare could have access to better free healthcare. Such as private rooms as opposed to wards.

Yes, but those who make more money would be paying punitive taxes and getting less for their money than those paying nothing - as per your claim that those below a certain income would get 'free' GP visits, etc. Is that equitable? It promotes laziness because those who make less money are happy to avail of 'free' services at the expense of the rich, while those making more money are in a situation where they're paying punitive taxes to pay other people's way. I find that to be regressive.

Again I'm saying that everyone would have access to the same, free services.
To work the tax band would have to be widened too to include some lower paid workers, but again if you didn't have to pay for GP visits etc...

Dr Galen

r0nanf wrote: »

I've done my research thanks. The top 6% although providing about 50% of all income tax raised pay on average 27% of their earnings on income tax. That is not enough imho.

Ronanf that was not meant a snipey comment at you! but i can see how you could pick that up, so i apologise dude.

to address your point though, i agree that 27% tax on earnings is on the low side, but 50% is far too much. a happy medium should and could be reached. The fact is that if you over-tax the drivers of the ecomony, i.e the business people, the entrepreneurs etc they'll just up and leave

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

silverharp

r0nanf wrote: »

Very simple proposition really - would you support a significantly higher rate of income tax (lets say averaging out at 30% of gross income for the average worker) in return for a world class universal health and education system?

there is no cause and effect here , having higher taxes does not guarantee a better quality service. Also you always end up in a rationing system and artificial bottlenecks

r0nanf wrote: »

or to pay to have your child put in a school with higher progression rates.

we have a very bland primary and second level system as it is , educate together schools etc. should be encouraged and not stamped on to promote some "fairness" on paper which in reality doesnt exist.
Why arent you asking why everyone is shoehorned to follow one particular syllabus when again in reality it only suits 50% to 60% of kids?

Iwasfrozen

Most provinces in Canada have made private health insurance illegal, to make sure that everyone would have to use the state-provided system. However, long waiting lists mean that people who need urgent surgery often travel to the USA to have their operations performed quickly and privately. Many of them spend their life savings or sell their houses to get the medical care that they desperately need.

In Ireland, how would you make sure that someone with a serious condition, such as a brain tumor, had "no option to pay his way to the top"? Would you also prevent him from traveling to another country for the purpose of getting medical treatment?

Of course not, preventing people from getting threatment in another country would affect their Personal Freedom.
If a person can afford to then they should be allowed to get threatment whereever they want.

Bottle_of_Smoke

No, I wouldn't.

You can get health insurance that covers €30 out of the €50 you pay to the GP. If GPs were completely free everyone with a cold would be clogging up GP surgeries.

If people didn't drink so much, didn't smoke, exercised occasionally and ate properly they wouldn't be getting sick for the most part. Everyone knows this and I don't see why people who look after themselves should hand over extortionate rates of tax. And I'm someone who doesn't look after myself to any great extent in those categories.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Iwasfrozen

If that is so, then the OP's proposal that people should be denied access to private health care or prevented from putting their children in better schools also constitute restrictions on personal freedom?

Surely, if people can afford it, they should be allowed to send their children to any school they want?

As long as their paying the higher level of income tax does it really matter ?
Why would someone put themselves out of money by in inroling in a private school when theywill get an equaly good school for free ?
The choice will still be there but why would anyone choose it ?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

SeanW

OP, I think you've got it all wrong.

First off, I should explain that I'm approaching this from a position of left-leaning Libertarianism, so what I'm about to write is filtered throgh that perspective. I have no objection, in principle, to redistribution - within reason and limits that is - but there is fundamental problem with looking to the government to provide services. They literally have no incentive to do it right. It's not just our Zanu-FF mob, it's a fundamental worldwide problem with all government services.

Put yourself in the position of 4 different consumers, and see if this makes sense.

1. You are a consumer, with a limited pot of money, looking to obtain some product or service. You are fundamentally affected by this transaction, being both the paymaster and the end user, you need to obtain the best purchase and the least cost.
2. You're buying a gift for a friend - you are primarily worried about cost, quality too - you don't want to buy your friend something that's unsafe or junky (hopefully) but this is a secondary concern.
3. You are a trophy wife or kept man, your rich spouse has just lent you their credit card, and you need a new coat - in some cases, you will go entirely for fashion/quality and may not even look at the price tag.
4. You're in government, and are spending other peoples' money, on other people. Without insanely strong accountability regulations - like executing Ministers who screw up or bankrupting public service unions that hold the public services in a deadlock of ineffectiveness - you have absolutely no personal interest in the task, your decisions have no bearing on you personally, and no mistake you make can hurt you in any way.

You see the problem here? A "world class government service" is almost a contradiction in terms, an oxymoron, like "the tall midget" or "the rich homeless man" and is impossible in most cases.

A good example of this in the U.S. is the Walter Reed Army Medical Centre neglect scandal. If the Veterans Affairs simply paid the cost of medical care directly to those veterans, instead of filtering it through the military system, the vets would have been able to procure their own care and never had to suffer what they did.

What I would do instead, is fire the entire public service - all of it, save for the gardaí, army and firemen, and give people - particularly people on low incomes, vouchers to obtain services like health and education on a partially liberated market. (School voucher programs are an idea that do the rounds in the U.S. from time to time, but anti-religion activists and a host of groups with a vested interested in a public monopoly keep nixing it.)

Then publish "league tables" of schools exam results, doctor/hospital recovery rates, and other pertinent information to give prospective parents and patients an idea about what a particular service provider is "all about." This so that anyone, from the poorest to the richest can say of a non-functional service "screw you, I'm giving this money to an organisation that can do it properly" which a private system could provide.

Some things on the other hand, you have no choice but to wait for the government to provide a service - like the Driver Testing System - where we pay twice over the odds for a system that doesn't work and an entrenched trade union mafia that stands over this. New legislation punishing poor standards in remaining public services would be needed, for the limited things that couldn't be privatised.

Iwasfrozen

It's standard logic that wealthier people should pay more tax but should not be "allowed" to avail of better public services.

With the extra revenue increased Taxes will generate we will be able to incease the quality of Public Service Schools.

If public schools were just as good as private schools, then your argument would be perfectly valid. But you won't find many places where this is the case.

Why sould the child of a rich person recieve a better education than a child from an improverished area ?
Is good education a birth right ?
With our way there will be no Public or Private schools, no "good" or "Bad" schools, simply a free education for every child, even in 3rd level, paid for by an increase on Income Tax.