Top earners, means testing etc.. Justified?

Scofflaw

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

So? Is there such a society? No, there isn't, and nor would I support it - but this is a typical response in a libertarian argument. The European social democracies aren't completely redistributionist (or completely statist, come to that) - they balance the right to retain earnings with social redistribution.

Mind you, even in a completely redistributive society, there is social mobility - it just isn't based on money.

donegalfella wrote: »

For everyone, across the board.

At different rates and to different degrees.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

No, the problem isn't that they can't "drive BMWs and wear Gucci" - the problem is that they can't afford decent healthcare or education, can't afford to live outside high-crime areas, can't afford healthy food, don't have security, and know that they're at the bottom of the heap. If it wasn't hard being poor, people wouldn't try to climb out of it.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

It certainly makes it socially acceptable - and in this case, the majority of people find gross inequality immoral.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Oh yes.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

42% of educated people under 40 - sorry, just comparing like with like here - I doubt the Irish figure is that far off.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

While other redistributive societies went ahead quite happily. The problem was not that the government was allowed to borrow-tax-spend, but that they were bad at it.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

There's a reason we're not in the nineteenth century any more, and don't follow those policies. They worked for too small a number of people to be socially stable (except by virtue of a repressive state apparatus and the occasional use of the army against the populace), and trying to go back to them would simply invite the same outbreaks of social instability that took us from there to here.

Fortunately, I think enough people have learned from history to avoid the mistake you're proposing.

cordially,
Scofflaw

gurramok

irish_bob wrote: »

i dont believe that for a second unless when you speak of high earners , you mean tony o reilly or dermot desmond

Yes, anyone who can afford priority healthcare(not just millionaires) is not going to sit on a trolley in the Mater for 6 hrs awaiting treatment nor go on a long waiting list for a cancer screening.

Its common sense and they do not need a medical card.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

thebman

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

You make use of state provided facilities and infrastructure so you are obliged to pay taxes. You aren't giving them money but paying to maintain services.

So anything that enjoys a semblance of democratic consensus is socially acceptable? Such as stoning women to death in Iran for alleged infidelity?

Well yes as you can see stoning women to death is acceptable in society in Iran. If there were no government it would still be acceptable as the majority would do nothing to stop it.

As you can see, it is not acceptable in our society by the majority so we don't allow it.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Zynks

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

You might have to move into a big city in this case. I doubt there would be much infrastructure left in Donegal if the costs were to be paid solely by the users, specially in the country side. Unless there is some hidden wealth around there.

Zynks

Or you could also buy this: http://maisonbisson.com/blog/post/11541/sealand-for-sale-2/

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

thebman

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Well you get that money back in other ways by use of other services. In the end, it should balance itself out. I guess one logic would be that children are necessary for society to have a future so we support them and when you have your own children, you'll get those benefits too. If you choose not to have children then you will most likely have to make use of state facilities and the working people will have to pay for those at that time so you can consider your taxes paid to educate them as an investment.

My point is that the approval of the majority does not give a practice—whether it be stoning women or stealing people's private property—any de facto legitimacy.

It does within that society. If you are outside that society and disagree that is another issue. If you are within the system and disagree, you can try to persuade other people to your opinion and push for change.

donegalfella wrote: »

I don't support government ownership of infrastructure, full stop. If you were to drive on many of the roads in Donegal, you would be forced to conclude that even the dreaded private sector could do better.

No the private sector wouldn't bother with those roads since they couldn't make a profit off them and you'd be trying to get to the profitable areas by traveling over fields if you can make it. Hope you don't run into a collapsed bridge that wasn't profitable to replace.

RealityCheck

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

You must be joking. I mean if that was the case the majority of roads in Donegal and across the country would be closed. We have one of the highest proportion of roads per head of population in Europe, and most of them are poor back roads.

Zynks

thebman wrote: »

No the private sector wouldn't bother with those roads since they couldn't make a profit off them and you'd be trying to get to the profitable areas by traveling over fields if you can make it. Hope you don't run into a collapsed bridge that wasn't profitable to replace.

No, he couldn't. These fields are private property and he could get shot for trespassing

thebman

^^ lol, good point ^^

RealityCheck wrote: »

You must be joking. I mean if that was the case the majority of roads in Donegal and across the country would be closed. We have one of the highest proportion of roads per head of population in Europe, and most of them are poor back roads.

I'd like to add that the cost of maintaining these unprofitable roads in Donegal offsets at least some of the cost of paying for some kids education.

So overall while some people inevitably don't get everything back that they put in as no system is fair on everyone, most people in our society would agree that they are happy enough with this system as they aren't protesting for removal of government.

segaBOY wrote: »

I wish that was the case. If you look at the statistics high earners already shoulder most of the tax burden. "A little more" tends to be an awful lot more on the grand scheme of things while they are not entitled to any real benefits in return. I come from a higher middle income family-never received a grant in college, never got free health care, my father worked in excess of 85 hours a week and is left with a massive income tax bill for nothing extra in return.

I never got any of those things either. You'll find your father got more than you'd think out of the system if you analyse everything he got. Middle class and upper class areas are usually better maintained by the council than areas with primarily lower class people living in them.

It hardly seems fair that those who manage to succeed in an economy are made pay more than their fair share-the fact is the worse you do in Ireland the more hand outs you get and in my general "those who do well should get rewarded" logic such taxes stunt progression and morale of the most talented and hard working individuals in our society leading them to do less work or simply emigrate.

I agree with some level of a tiered tax system but it takes the biscuit in Ireland. I heard a trade unionist on the news after the budget say (Why couldn't we raise higher income levies to 6% for those on over €100k-that way we could keep the minimum wage earners out of the loop" a bit pathetic considering they are asked to pay around €7 a week in taxes as opposed to €30k + in taxes annually that the higher income earnr is levied with.

I don't disagree that the system is not perfect in Ireland. I think everyone should have make a contribution no matter how small. A small amount from many low earners can equal a significant tax intake and should be looked at.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

thebman

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

And if they require special needs education that you aren't able to provide?

I have no plans to have kids ever but I have no problems paying into a state funded education system for other kids as I can realise the importance of this for our economy and society.

You mean state facilities such as hospitals and the old-age pension? I don't ever plan to become dependent on the state for things like that. I am currently unemployed, and I have no intention of going on the dole, either.

You don't plan on it but it may happen and they will be there whether you want them to be or not. Welfare is also there should your savings eventually run out before you can find employment. The state gives you options, it you that are choosing not to avail of them at the moment because you have the means not to require them. There may be a time when that isn't the case and it is certainly the case for other families at the moment which is why it needs to exist IMO.

Actually, Ireland had quite a network of private toll roads between the early eighteenth century and mid-nineteenth century. You can even buy a book about them.

Yeah the costs have increased since then given the types of vehicles using the roads. I don't think they'd be maintainable by private enterprise throughout the country. You'd have people unable to afford to travel even for interviews for jobs because of the charges to get to the next town.

If we didn't have a state interfering in transportation, we would not have to pay VRT or car tax, and petrol would be approximately one-third of the price it is now. So we would have quite a bit of extra money for paying tolls and keeping up our roads.

Arguable really since you'd have more money, you'd be willing to part more so the car salesman would most likely just charge you the same price and make more profit.

Zynks

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Hmmm, so you have the right to come and go, provided you pay (?)...so if you are broke, you stay put?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

RealityCheck

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Well, I can. You are not going to get private enterprises to maintain many of the rural roads across this country. It is simply not economically viable for them to do so unless they are going to charge extremely high tolls.

Also, what you are suggesting would be an absolute nightmare to put in place. Exactly how do you put in place these many tolls?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Scofflaw

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

That's a humorous idea - local communities in poor rural areas are also most likely to have hard-to-maintain roads (bogland, mountain) with large distances between communities, while wealthy gated communities won't have to maintain anything except a bit of driveway. Wealthier communities would have good roads, attracting businesses and keeping the prosperous prosperous, while poor communities wouldn't.

As usual - the rich get richer, the poor get poorer. Still, after a while, nobody would be able to reach poor remote communities by road, so I suppose the problem would be tucked neatly out of sight, and I guess the wealthy business communities might pay to have good roads through poor areas sometimes, as long as there weren't too many access routes onto them.

bleh,
Scofflaw

thebman

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Those aren't problems with state education. Private education could do the same thing to get more people to go to their schools/colleges.

It is a problem of the system that needs to be tackled. I think it would be easier to tackle the problem in a public system than private because it isn't always practical to go to the best school that is 200 miles away anyway.

I don't have to avail of them because, unlike many other people, I didn't spend the boom years splurging on cars, holidays, home decor, etc. I have some savings, and I have zero consumer debt. I do all my shopping in the North, so as to avoid high prices and high VAT here. I am giving grinds to various students in my area and doing quite a nice barter trade in turf, potatoes, vegetables, fresh fish, etc., that is not taxable by the state. My cost of living is very manageable, so I think I'll be able to survive for a long time without state assistance.

That's great but they are still there for you if you need them. Your choice not to use them and find your own alternative. As you have said, your contributing less to tax anyway so you can't really complain about all the tax you pay since most of the tax you pay is going to fund the things you do still use like the roads and electricity network.

I don't see why private enterprise cannot maintain a stretch of road? And networks of toll roads—past and present—have never led to extortionate charges like the ones you're describing, so I don't see that it would happen now.

Because it isn't viable in many areas so they have the choice of high price and reasonable road or really crap road, low prices and possible law suits closing them down for their poor quality road damaging peoples cars.

Toll roads need an integrated system to function efficiently or you have to stop all the time to pay in cash (slows you down and burns a lot of fuel). Since there is no state in your system, there is no centralised system. You can't have an integrated ticketing system. Even if you could, since there is no state, prices for each toll wouldn't be displayed and since there is no justification for two roads to the same location, you'd end up with expensive monopolies all over the place with extortionate prices. The reason this didn't happy before is people didn't have to travel long distances all the time. Now you have to go miles to the nearest shop, post office, hospital etc... so the system won't work today even if it has worked in the past.

Society has changed substantially since then.

And what happens when someone else spots the generous profit margin in the car trade and sets up a dealership across town, selling cars at a cheaper price...?

Why would he sell them cheaper when he can make a massive profit off a few sales each day and do less work for the same money? That is the general attitude in this country especially. Hell when pub trade falls, they increase their prices to make up the difference not lower prices.

Anyway if he did that the expensive seller could just lower his prices temporarily, even sell at a loss to kill the cheaper seller off and then go back to charging high prices again since he'd have cushion of high profit margin. The ability to kill off the cheaper buyer would make everyone else think twice about trying the same trick.

RealityCheck

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

If that idea was to be a runner it would have to be subsidised.
You could also end up with a lot of corruption as Tom the chairman of the community council might decide that his dead end bog road is more important than more viable roads in the area. You would end up with lots of local disputes.
Also the local communities are more likely to get ripped off by private road contractors.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Scofflaw

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

It isn't a desirable result, but it's something that would not only happen under the system you propose, but be locked in. That makes yours the worse system when it works, when compared to when the other system doesn't.

donegalfella wrote: »

There's no basis for such scaremongering. Consider the analogous case of private road associations in Sweden:

Why can't such private road associations work in Ireland, given that they have been so successful elsewhere?

Well, look at the rest of the abstract:

This model is based on a well-structured institutional framework for private ownership of low-volume roads that includes a law on private roads and financial and technical incentives. The government provides legal and financial incentives for local property owners to associate and assume responsibility for their roads. The result is a private-public partnership in which government subsidizes road costs with grants from the budget. Increasing efficiency and effectiveness of public expenditures and working in partnership with the private sector are highly relevant goals in both developed and developing countries.

I don't have any problem at all with local communities assuming responsibility for the roads "based on a well-structured institutional framework for private ownership of low-volume roads that includes a law on private roads and financial and technical incentives" - but that's not what you have proposed. You have proposed a turnpike system of privatised roads - the Swedish success is irrelevant to your ideas, and addresses none of my objections to your ideas.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Scofflaw

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I can see that you see that - unfortunately I can't see any basis other than belief for your belief. That is the the problem I eventually find I have with all libertarians - they say "it will all work out beautifully, because we know that it will work out beautifully, and nobody can say it won't because it's never really been tried, but this looks a bit similar so we'll chalk it up as a success for the way we believe things will work".

Libertarians, in my experience, simply can't see that there's any gap between their theories and reality, which makes argument fruitless. Libertarian theories appear, by their nature, to be unfalsifiable.

cordially,
Scofflaw

RealityCheck

Scofflaw wrote: »

I can see that you see that - unfortunately I can't see any basis other than belief for your belief. That is the the problem I eventually find I have with all libertarians - they say "it will all work out beautifully, because we know that it will work out beautifully, and nobody can say it won't because it's never really been tried, but this looks a bit similar so we'll chalk it up as a success for the way we believe things will work".

Libertarians, in my experience, simply can't see that there's any gap between their theories and reality, which makes argument fruitless. Libertarian theories appear, by their nature, to be unfalsifiable.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Exactly. Many of the Privatisation notions are based upon pure theory. They are difficult to operate and manage in the real world. The potential for total failure is too high.

silverharp

RealityCheck wrote: »

Exactly. Many of the Privatisation notions are based upon pure theory. They are difficult to operate and manage in the real world. The potential for total failure is too high.

there is nothing wrong with failure , that is one of the principles of capitalism. if failure isnt a possibily you end up with stagnation and lack of innovation.

RealityCheck

silverharp wrote: »

there is nothing wrong with failure , that is one of the principles of capitalism. if failure isnt a possibily you end up with stagnation and lack of innovation.

Of course, thats the reason why all the dodgy banks across the globe were allowed fail :rolleyes: That is just more theory.
Your point about stagnation and lack of innovation is correct. That is why I think this recession/depression wont be ending in a hurry.