We Should Abolish Income Tax

RockinRolla

Income Tax, like much of the badly thought out legislation brought forward by modern day governments, was initially "sold" to the public as a temporary tax, something that was needed simply to deal with a specific pressing problem—the financing of the Napoleonic Wars.

However, as governments over the years became accustomed to having the tax provide a useful revenue stream, all pretence at hypothecation vanished—the Income Tax became a part of our daily lives, which most people now accept unthinkingly.

At the end of the 18th century, Britain was facing a serious threat from French military forces under the control of Napoleon. In 1799, they introduced the first national Income Tax, as "a temporary measure" in order to fund those wars.

After the war, they got rid of it and it remained that way, largely unchanged, until the First World War. At the outbreak of hostilities, the standard rate of tax was still a modest 6% but, just 4 years later, this had risen to 30%. The modern Income Tax regime has altered little since.

Governments are horrifically inefficient at spending public money. It has been estimated that for every 1Euro in tax that you and I pay, only approximately 50% of it is returned to front-line services, once it has been through the bureaucracy of government. This means that if we were purchasing our child's healthcare direct, we would get twice as much value for money than our tax funded government achieves. Just look at the state of the HSE!

And the most worrying part of this is that the poorest in our society are the hardest hit. Not only would we slash public spending, but the abolition of personal Income Tax would be a lasting achievement; it would be a brave or foolhardy government indeed that would attempt to reintroduce it (Fianna Fail anyone? :rolleyes:). It is a policy which makes sound economic sense, would benefit everyone in our society—and in particular the poorest—and would help curb future government excesses both in spending and the amount of control that the State could exercise over us.
(This does not have to include the super wealthy of course.)

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

Poll options arent the best.

red menace

Income tax yields 12 to 13 billion a year, where would the money come from otherwise?

TheZohanS

You haven't thought this one through OP...

dlofnep

How do you propose the country operates without income tax? Am I missing something here?

dlofnep

PS: Options fail.

Fukuyama

Might actually have some merit...

Obviously we'd have to pay for our own education, healthcare, etc... etc... But at least you're not being robbed by a government.

Might create a few more jobs too...

RockinRolla

red menace wrote: »

Income tax yields 12 to 13 billion a year, where would the money come from otherwise?

According to government statistics in Britain (because we are a smaller nation), Income Tax raised £143bln in 2006/07, which accounted for approximately one quarter of their total government spending of £534bln (public sector current expenditure plus net investment).

However, consider this: in 2001/02, their equivalent government spending was £378bln. Were we to return to a similar level relevent to Irelands spending, we would have more than enough income from other sources to immediately abolish Income Tax. Just look at the new taxes they are going to make us pay....property tax and water charges?

Have the improvements to public services since 2002 really been worth 40% of everything that you've earned? Could you have got better value buying these services directly, leaving your family better off?

It's an example of how wasteful government spending truly is. Even after the abolition of Income Tax there would be money left over from other sources remaining—sufficient to also abolish other taxes and duties.

philologos

Everyone is going to want income tax to be gotten rid of. The fact of the matter is that this is never going to happen given that our taxes go to fund essential services or in the case of Ireland essential debt clearing.

kilburn

my god what a daft suggestion

red menace

RockinRolla wrote: »

According to government statistics in Britain (because we are a smaller nation), Income Tax raised £143bln in 2006/07, which accounted for approximately one quarter of their total government spending of £534bln (public sector current expenditure plus net investment).

However, consider this: in 2001/02, their equivalent government spending was £378bln. Were we to return to a similar level relevent to Irelands spending, we would have more than enough income from other sources to immediately abolish Income Tax. Just look at the new taxes they are going to make us pay....property tax and water charges?

Have the improvements to public services since 2002 really been worth 40% of everything that you've earned? Could you have got better value buying these services directly, leaving your family better off?

It's an example of how wasteful government spending truly is. Even after the abolition of Income Tax there would be money left over from other sources remaining—sufficient to also abolish other taxes and duties.

According to the Libertarian Party anyway

http://lpuk.org/pages/manifesto/economy/income-tax.php

Can the UK economy really be compared to ours?

red menace

What proportion of total income for Ireland is derived from Income Tax

RockinRolla

red menace wrote: »

According to the Libertarian Party anyway

http://lpuk.org/pages/manifesto/economy/income-tax.php

Can the UK economy really be compared to ours?

Of course I'm a Libertarian.

I don't hide the fact and that is the question of the poll. Would it be good for Ireland and would the majority agree to it.

Surely we are capable of finding better value for our money if we sought out our own health care providers and educational establishments without Government getting involved in the process.

irishguy

I think your question should be. Should we privatise the hell out of the public sector as they are so inefficient at delivering services, thus being able to reduce taxes? Then I would have to agree with you.

amen

State needs to raise income from somewhere.

A better option might be to just start with everyone above a certain income (maybe minimum wage income) paying 20% of tax on all income. No tax breaks, reliefs etc.

red menace

RockinRolla wrote: »

Of course I'm a Libertarian.

I don't hide the fact and that is the question of the poll. Would it be good for Ireland and would the majority agree to it.

Surely we are capable of finding better value for our money if we sought out our own health care providers and educational establishments without Government getting involved in the process.

I would vote yes when you prove a real alternative based on Irish statistics not copied and pasted from an English website

PeakOutput

if everyone accepted the principle that they have to pay for their own services(health care education etc) then it could absolutely work

the problem is most people on low to middle income think they are are paying for everything through their taxes and their taxes cover the things they need (health education for example) but they would quickly find out that that is not the case when they show up to a+e and have to pay the bill (anything remotely serious and they wont be able to afford it without a massive loan)

the fact is that through income tax the low to middle income earners are subsidised by the high earners and once that cold hard reality smacks them in the face they will realise what a bad idea it was to get rid of the income tax

high earners would obviously not have a problem with it as they would save a large chunk of money every month and could afford to send kids to college and pay for unexpected health care costs without going bankrupt

RockinRolla

irishguy wrote: »

I think your question should be. Should we privatise the hell out of the public sector as they are so inefficient at delivering services, thus being able to reduce taxes? Then I would have to agree with you.

I'm also in favour of privatising all public sectors.

I strongly feel individual companies and competition between them to get our money will deliver a better services for us, the paying consumers. Government are doing a ghastly job at it. Ive stated this numerous times and its a political belief of mine.

Privatise bus, rail, An Post, television and radio, schools and hospitals.

Mardy Bum

irishguy wrote: »

I think your question should be. Should we privatise the hell out of the public sector as they are so inefficient at delivering services, thus being able to reduce taxes? Then I would have to agree with you.

Most of the state bodies and semi state bodies have too high of start up costs and this would just transfer on to the consumer.

mikemac

Interesting thread, a terrible poll though.

mikemac

RockinRolla wrote: »

Privatise bus, rail, An Post, television and radio, schools and hospitals.

An Post is a commercial company and doesn't receive state funds

RockinRolla

red menace wrote: »

I would vote yes when you prove a real alternative based on Irish statistics not copied and pasted from an English website

Don't throw a hissy over particulars in a bid to make your opinion look anymore legitimate, for goodness sake. Thats what the point of this thread is - to find out how we feel, as a nation. I used the Libertarian website because Irelands version is not up to scratch.

Get over it and if youve nothing constructive to say, then leave the thread.

philologos

RockinRolla wrote: »

Privatise bus, rail, An Post, television and radio, schools and hospitals.

I couldn't imagine much worse. Businesses only care about profit. If it isn't in their interests to provide key and essential services they won't. That's problematic when those essential services are needed by so many. As such it is always better if the essentials are kept away from such vested interests.

The fact that you think that a corporate health system would be better for our State is scary to say the least.

dxhound2005

RockinRolla wrote: »

I'm also in favour of privatising all public sectors.

I strongly feel individual companies and competition between them to get our money will deliver a better services for us, the paying consumers. Government are doing a ghastly job at it. Ive stated this numerous times and its a political belief of mine.

Privatise bus, rail, An Post, television and radio, schools and hospitals.

You forgot about roads.

PeakOutput

Jakkass wrote: »

I couldn't imagine much worse. Businesses only care about profit. If it isn't in their interests to provide key and essential services they won't. That's problematic when those essential services are needed by so many. As such it is always better if the essentials are kept away from such vested interests.

The fact that you think that a corporate health system would be better for our State is scary to say the least.

while i dont agree with a privatised health service it would still be better then the one we have right now

ballsymchugh

north korea prides itself on being the only country in the world with no income tax.

but then again the country is falling apart. the roads in their showpiece capital are in bits. people are paid with food stamps.

maybe we should do what they do. forge US currency and become the world's biggest exporter of heroin. that'd work!

irishguy

Mardy Bum wrote: »

Most of the state bodies and semi state bodies have too high of start up costs and this would just transfer on to the consumer.

Its mostly the Semi state bodies that are costly to setup. In the case of utilities and transport where there are high entry costs we could sell the customer facing business and lease the network to private bodies.
We could offer subsidies on certain services, as companies wont want to provide services to very rural areas.

Most of the work of the civil service could be put out to tender as its mostly admin. A lot could be computerised/automated.

You could vastly reduce public employees, but keep a core of very talented and well paid people to manage/oversee.

red menace

RockinRolla wrote: »

Don't throw a hissy over particulars in a bid to make your opinion look anymore legitimate, for goodness sake. Thats what the point of this thread is - to find out how we feel, as a nation. I used the Libertarian website because Irelands version is not up to scratch.

Get over it and if youve nothing constructive to say, then leave the thread.

My apologies for derailing your thread with my questions and concerns.
I'm voting No is that the kind of thing you wanted?

landsleaving

PeakOutput wrote: »

while i dont agree with a privatised health service it would still be better then the one we have right now

For the people who can afford private health care, the system we have now is pretty good.

Privatising everything, and so abolishing income tax means anyone below a certain wage level would be hit incredibly hard by accidents, be unable to get a decent education, etc. So it would just mean that any equality, little as there may be, that exists in society, would be destroyed within a generation or two. With only the already wealthy having access to education, it would mean everyone else is basically completely unable to achieve anything in society, no matter how hard they work or how intelligent they are. Then if they have the misfortune to get injured while working whatever dangerous and demeaning jobs are left, they lose everything they've earned trying to pay for healthcare.

What if the army and gardai are privatised too? They'd just protect the interests of the rich. Any opposition would be put down and the poor would just be marginalised completely.

Business has the goal of profit, and nothing as essential to the function of society as education and health should fall into the hands of those who would extort people for these services.

What a horrible world you want to create. 'Liberty' to provide for yourself and not be subject to the whims of government can only work in an equal society, which doesn't, and probably never will, exist.

irishguy

PeakOutput wrote: »

while i dont agree with a privatised health service it would still be better then the one we have right now

Why dont you?

The medical card scheme could be used for poorer people, but harsh penalties should be introduced for people caught defrauding the system.

This is kind of what Fine Gael are proposing i.e. all hospitals will receive funds only for the patients they treat so the better hospitals will thrive. They should go a step further and sell the hospitals also.

landsleaving

irishguy wrote: »

This is kind of what Fine Gael are proposing i.e. all hospitals will receive funds only for the patients they treat so the better hospitals will thrive. They should go a step further and sell the hospitals also.

Not having heard anything about this maybe you can clarify, but would that not mean that hospitals in less populated areas would receive less funds or be closed? I can see the logic I suppose and the health services need reform, but hosptials need to be close enough to patients. Even if there aren't that many to treat. Anyway maybe our future (identical to the last) overlords have already figured this out, as I say, I hadn't heard about it, so just curious.

Maybe someone should tell Fine Gael that quantity does not equal quality :P

PeakOutput

irishguy wrote: »

Why dont you?

The medical card scheme could be used for poorer people, but harsh penalties should be introduced for people caught defrauding the system.

This is kind of what Fine Gael are proposing i.e. all hospitals will receive funds only for the patients they treat so the better hospitals will thrive. They should go a step further and sell the hospitals also.

it dosnt work in a country which such a spread out population as ours, dublin cork galway and limerick would have very good service with the rural areas left with nothing

i am center right so i am all for less goverment and taxes but i think health care and education are two things that should be mainly run / funded by the goverment

admiralofthefleet

TheZohan wrote: »

You haven't thought this one through OP...

took the words out of my mouth

PeakOutput

landsleaving wrote: »

For the people who can afford private health care, the system we have now is pretty good.

Privatising everything, and so abolishing income tax means anyone below a certain wage level would be hit incredibly hard by accidents, be unable to get a decent education, etc. So it would just mean that any equality, little as there may be, that exists in society, would be destroyed within a generation or two. With only the already wealthy having access to education, it would mean everyone else is basically completely unable to achieve anything in society, no matter how hard they work or how intelligent they are. Then if they have the misfortune to get injured while working whatever dangerous and demeaning jobs are left, they lose everything they've earned trying to pay for healthcare.

What if the army and gardai are privatised too? They'd just protect the interests of the rich. Any opposition would be put down and the poor would just be marginalised completely.

Business has the goal of profit, and nothing as essential to the function of society as education and health should fall into the hands of those who would extort people for these services.

What a horrible world you want to create. 'Liberty' to provide for yourself and not be subject to the whims of government can only work in an equal society, which doesn't, and probably never will, exist.

im going to assume none of that was aimed at me and you just happened to quote me by mistake at the start

RockinRolla

Jakkass wrote: »

I couldn't imagine much worse. Businesses only care about profit. If it isn't in their interests to provide key and essential services they won't. That's problematic when those essential services are needed by so many. As such it is always better if the essentials are kept away from such vested interests.

The fact that you think that a corporate health system would be better for our State is scary to say the least.

But its that greed in human nature that can make it work.

Governments are not businesses and do not operate on business principles. Not only do government-owned businesses distort markets, but the money tied up in government-owned businesses would be far more useful in the hands of the taxpayers to whom it actually belongs.

Privatising these sectors will deliver a better service for us all. For example, I am in South America at the moment. When I go to a bus station, there are literally dozens of companies battling it out for my money. Some are cheaper than others, some have better quality than others but what matters for us, the consumer, is pro-choice.

I will quote a piece I particularly like from the Libertarian principles.

While some people complain that the free market cannot work because people are selfish, that is exactly why the free market does work. In 1776 Adam Smith first explained the concept of the “invisible hand”, where the pursuit of self-interest leads to the public good. More than 200 years later the concept remains true and has been proven time and time again.

As long as there is the rule of law and a voluntary system, the profit-maximising behaviour of businesses will lead to the best outcomes. Intervening in the process to create different incentives will only distort the market and lead to a less efficient outcome. The worst form of interference is government ownership and control, which reduces the profit motive, but even subtle political manipulation can lead to a sub-optimal outcome.

philologos

irishguy wrote: »

This is kind of what Fine Gael are proposing i.e. all hospitals will receive funds only for the patients they treat so the better hospitals will thrive. They should go a step further and sell the hospitals also.

Better hospitals thrive? - Shouldn't all our hospitals "thrive" or meet good standards by which to deal with their patients?

A competitive hospital system would only make things worse. Rather all should reach the criterion required.

irishguy

landsleaving wrote: »

For the people who can afford private health care, the system we have now is pretty good.

Privatising everything, and so abolishing income tax means anyone below a certain wage level would be hit incredibly hard by accidents, be unable to get a decent education, etc. So it would just mean that any equality, little as there may be, that exists in society, would be destroyed within a generation or two. With only the already wealthy having access to education, it would mean everyone else is basically completely unable to achieve anything in society, no matter how hard they work or how intelligent they are. Then if they have the misfortune to get injured while working whatever dangerous and demeaning jobs are left, they lose everything they've earned trying to pay for healthcare.

What if the army and gardai are privatised too? They'd just protect the interests of the rich. Any opposition would be put down and the poor would just be marginalised completely.

Business has the goal of profit, and nothing as essential to the function of society as education and health should fall into the hands of those who would extort people for these services.

What a horrible world you want to create. 'Liberty' to provide for yourself and not be subject to the whims of government can only work in an equal society, which doesn't, and probably never will, exist.

Just because you priviatise them it doesnt have to favor the rich. As people who couldn't pay would be subsided by the tax payer, it just means different organisations compete to provide services. The Garda and Army would be very hard to privatize. I would vastly reduce the armed forces

landsleaving

irishguy wrote: »

Just because you priviatise them it doesnt have to favor the rich. As people who couldn't pay would be subsided by the tax payer, it just means different organisations compete to provide services. The Garda and Army would be very hard to privatize. I would vastly reduce the armed forces

But if there's no tax, what taxpayer? That was the OP's point. What you suggest I don't agree with, but I can see the argument for it.

AckwelFoley

Do i want to pay income tax? - No

Do i think we can run a sociery without paying it? No.

In the state of New Hampshire, there is no income tax and no VAT.

However, what happens is that you pay taxes elsewhere.


The simple bottom line is this - we all need to pay taxes, the level we pay may look more than elsewhere or less, but realistically we pay pretty much the same taxes as other modern western societies when you account for all the taxes across the board.

Mardy Bum

irishguy wrote: »

Why dont you?

The medical card scheme could be used for poorer people, but harsh penalties should be introduced for people caught defrauding the system.

This is kind of what Fine Gael are proposing i.e. all hospitals will receive funds only for the patients they treat so the better hospitals will thrive. They should go a step further and sell the hospitals also.

American health care system is not a model that should be replicated.

philologos

RockinRolla wrote: »

Governments are not businesses and do not operate on business principles. Not only do government-owned businesses distort markets, but the money tied up in government-owned businesses would be far more useful in the hands of the taxpayers to whom it actually belongs.

That's precisely my point. Governments don't operate on business principles. Business principles being get as much money out of the consumer in order to make a profit. If businesses do not deem it profitable to provide services, they won't and people will suffer as a result.

Even if the taxes aren't taken for these services. The taxpayers will have to pay that money anyway in order to get those services to them, perhaps more. Therefore saying that more money will be given to the taxpayer is fallacious at best.

RockinRolla wrote: »

Privatising these sectors will deliver a better service for us all. For example, I am in South America at the moment. When I go to a bus station, there are literally dozens of companies battling it out for my money. Some are cheaper than others, some have better quality than others but what matters for us, the consumer, is pro-choice.

Honestly I don't agree with you. As I've already explained, perhaps in urban areas businesses are best capable to distribute services, but in rural contexts businesses may decide that it is too much effort to provide this service or indeed that it mightn't be profitable for them to do so. Therefore they don't. In fact the rollout of broadband in this country is a perfect example of this.

In a more recent context in the UK there has been profiteering by oil companies given the cold weather. Heating oil costs have increased by 100% whereas in the same period the price of crude oil has risen only by 10%. Exploitation based on increased need is something that business will intuitively do to get more profits. When I hear stuff like businesses cutting their prices I sometimes ask to myself is this only because they have to given the economic crisis? Of course it is. If they could be getting much more they would be!

RockinRolla wrote: »

I will quote a piece I particularly like from the Libertarian principles.

You seem to support an extremely free market. Personally I believe that some regulation needs to occur. It is because of extreme free markets that we are in this economic crisis to begin with.

This is why I usually object to being called "right wing" on boards. I'm actually very much an economic centrist, socially quite conservative.

RockinRolla

irishguy wrote: »

Just because you priviatise them it doesnt have to favor the rich. As people who couldn't pay would be subsided by the tax payer, it just means different organisations compete to provide services. The Garda and Army would be very hard to privatize. I would vastly reduce the armed forces

+1.

For a country the size of Ireland and currently, still in the European Union, why should we need to spend taxpayers money on such a defensive source when a) we are a neutral country and b) we are already being defended by Europe.

Jakkass wrote: »

Better hospitals thrive? - Shouldn't all our hospitals "thrive" or meet good standards by which to deal with their patients?

I know you mean good and your addition to the debate is appreciated but come on, man...look at the HSE.

Surely, we would recieve better quality of healthcare if we purchased our own insurance...

dxhound2005

RockinRolla wrote: »

But its that greed in human nature that can make it work.

Governments are not businesses and do not operate on business principles. Not only do government-owned businesses distort markets, but the money tied up in government-owned businesses would be far more useful in the hands of the taxpayers to whom it actually belongs.

Privatising these sectors will deliver a better service for us all. For example, I am in South America at the moment. When I go to a bus station, there are literally dozens of companies battling it out for my money. Some are cheaper than others, some have better quality than others but what matters for us, the consumer, is pro-choice.

I will quote a piece I particularly like from the Libertarian principles.

Venezuela ?

philologos

RockinRolla wrote: »

know you mean good and your addition to the debate is appreciated but come on, man...look at the HSE.

Your logic: Because the HSE is bad, no state funded health service is good.

My logic: We need a health service which provides for all people equally, and fairly to an excellent standard. A privatised health service would discriminate based on wealth.

RockinRolla wrote: »

Surely, we would recieve better quality of healthcare if we purchased our own insurance...

Not at all. It discriminates against those who cannot afford to pay.

landsleaving

RockinRolla wrote: »

I know you mean good and your addition to the debate is appreciated but come on, man...look at the HSE.

Surely, we would recieve better quality of healthcare if we purchased our own insurance...

If everyone had insurance the healthcare system would be pretty much the same, it's only because people with insurance are the minority that they get quicker treatment and nicer beds. I'm loathe to say better treatment because I've always used free healthcare and am yet to be killed in surgery, which is pretty much how I gauge medical success :pac:

I'm not going to argue that the system needs reform, but that would probably be best implemented by re-directing public spending to address the issue. You are right to suggest that we need to sort it out, but I can't see how privatisation could ever aid that process.

Also, when have the free market ideals of Adam Smith actually been proven? They ineveitably lead to a crash and favour people who are already wealthy enough to give their children and people in their network financial, educational and social advantage.

strobe

I haven't paid tax in 8 years. Thanks for the hospitals suckers.

PeakOutput

Jakkass wrote: »

Your logic: Because the HSE is bad, no state funded health service is good.

My logic: We need a health service which provides for all people equally, and fairly to an excellent standard. A privatised health service would discriminate based on wealth.



Not at all. It discriminates against those who cannot afford to pay.

there are other solutions that do not include direct state funding of the health service that do not discriminate against anyone

a state health insurance company for example that provides free insurance to people under a certain income limit, subsidised insurance to people between certain limits and then anyone above that can afford their own private insurance

im not 100% sure on the idea but if there was a privatisation of the health service this would have the best of both worlds imo

philologos

RockinRolla wrote: »

But its that greed in human nature that can make it work.

I missed this point. Greed is a negative trait which involves getting as much out of people as possible while giving as little as possible. Greed never aims for quality, but for quantity in return. Greed doesn't want to do the best job, and greed doesn't encourage people to derive fulfilment from thei work. Self seeking, self interested, and wholly harmful for all involved. It's for this reason why I think essential services need to be heavily regulated, part-owned or fully owned by Government.

dlofnep

There is a reason why Libertarianism can never, and will never work. Society would be horrifically unequal.

If you're for high crime, homelessness, poor education access and poor healthcare - Vote for a Libertarian politician. (If you can find one)

landsleaving

dxhound2005 wrote: »

Venezuela ?

He's the capitalist Che Guevara, writing his motorcycle BMW diaries.

I will say OP, I think you're right about reducing our armed forces, I totally agree there

irishguy

Here are some details on there policy http://www.faircare.ie/

Ireland is a very small country and has a relatively high population density. People should realise that they dont need a hospital outside there house. A GP can deal with most issues and if its serious you can be taken to a hospital slightly further away. We should also have an air ambulance.

As for people in remote locations they will get lower levels of services, they really shouldnt have been allowed to build there in the first place.
This whole one off housing idea in Ireland is madness, how do you expect the same level of services if you live in the middle of the countryside.