We Should Abolish Income Tax

RockinRolla

landsleaving wrote: »

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.

Great debate we have here - keep it up.

In my view by cutting back the proportion of health care funded directly by government and re-aligning incentives, enormous savings can be made by reducing the waste and excessive costs of a public system. At the same time, relaxation of regulatory controls will allow new organisations providing health services to emerge that will help to limit costs while improving quality.

There is so much waste at the moment when our money is in Government hands. Would you not care to provide your family with your own personal choice of healthcare instead of giving Fianna Fail your money and trusting them with the lives of your loved-ones?

People should be encouraged to hold their healthcare provider to account and, if found wanting, have the freedom to take their business elsewhere. This cannot be done while the state is the monopoly provider who takes payment, commissions, runs and administers that monopoly. Obviously we cannot envisage a mass sell-off of state assets, but a switch to independent not-for-profit and private entities competing openly. The poor would be looked after in a capacity.

philologos

irishguy wrote: »

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.

This sounds like a facetious comment to those who of necessity need to get to a hospital with urgency. If the distance between where you are and your nearest hospital is the difference between life and death, surely you would take it a good deal more seriously.

landsleaving

irishguy wrote: »

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.

Why should we have to be forced into suburban sprawl though, and agricultural workers have to be isloated, they need space to grow crops and raise animals, an incredibly important element of society. These people also have a higher likelihood of accidents that require emergency medical attention. Your argument makes sense, but people can't just be forced to live and work in the same conditions so a few less hospitals are needed. They could always just reduce the size of the hospitals and relocate some staff.

landsleaving

RockinRolla wrote: »

Great debate we have here - keep it up.

In my view by cutting back the proportion of health care funded directly by government and re-aligning incentives, enormous savings can be made by reducing the waste and excessive costs of a public system. At the same time, relaxation of regulatory controls will allow new organisations providing health services to emerge that will help to limit costs while improving quality.

There is so much waste at the moment when our money is in Government hands. Would you not care to provide your family with your own personal choice of healthcare instead of giving Fianna Fail your money and trusting them with the lives of your loved-ones?

People should be encouraged to hold their healthcare provider to account and, if found wanting, have the freedom to take their business elsewhere. This cannot be done while the state is the monopoly provider who takes payment, commissions, runs and administers that monopoly. Obviously we cannot envisage a mass sell-off of state assets, but a switch to independent not-for-profit and private entities competing openly. The poor would be looked after in a capacity.

I absolutely and totally agree that the healthcare system is in dire state, there's no argument there, and I get your points, but these not-for-profit companies would make a tremendous loss, it's unsustainable. And if greed is the great motivating factor, who would go not-for-profit?

I do understand the idea of a free market, that once there's demand there will be prices to match that maximise sales to as many poeple as possible, but that only works for luxuries really. Not everyone can afford to buy x product at x price, but most people can, shall we say. This works fine for a tv or other commodity, but putting a price on a human life is a bizarre concpet. There will be people who simply can't afford it, and even if they are a small minority, they shouldn't have to suffer simply because they don't have enough money to buy their health.

What about the elderly, who need more care than anyone, and have small pensions? What about the cancer patient who's loan runs out during treatment, or who loses his job through illness? It makes no sense to me in reality. It's theoretically sound, but in my mind, based on a very idealised worldview.

irishguy

Again we live in a small country, unless your living on an island your never more than 50 Miles from a hospital. If we had a proper air ambulance you could be airlifted and be in a hospital in <30mins.

Look at Canada, Australia USA you could be living hundreds of miles from a hospital.

Why should we have to be forced into suburban sprawl though, and agricultural workers have to be isloated, they need space to grow crops and raise animals, an incredibly important element of society. These people also have a higher likelihood of accidents that require emergency medical attention. Your argument makes sense, but people can't just be forced to live and work in the same conditions so a few less hospitals are needed. They could always just reduce the size of the hospitals and relocate some staff.

People should be living in cities/towns/villages where proper services can be provided. If everyone decided to buy an acre of land and build a house there would be no countryside left for everyone to enjoy. As for farmer yes they could live on the land, but there isnt that many of them these days.

Also farmer's could be served by the air ambulance if they are in remote locations.

RockinRolla

landsleaving wrote: »

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

I'm not a cold hard capitalist - I believe in some other principles, for example, welfare, but ONLY to those in need of it.

An end to state funding of lifestyle choices is a must. People dependent on the state shall not normally get additional housing or cash provision if they expand their family either through birth or the accumulation of additional dependants for whatever reason. Although this may seem harsh, there is an injustice in entitlements that accumulate, forcing tax payers like you and I to dish out money (which would normally go to our own children) in a bid to fund those who haven't and have no intention of working a day in their lives. This is wrong!

In addition, the poor wouldn't be taxed with the srapped Income Tax. People who are healthy and capable should as far as possible provide for their own material needs through personal effort, thrift and financial independence. Where people are genuinely unable to provide for themselves they should be supported primarily through Government subsidies (those who really need it - alas, I'm not in favour of complete destruction) and secondly, through social institutions such as family, friends, their local community, religious groups and private charities.

irishguy

landsleaving wrote: »

I absolutely and totally agree that the healthcare system is in dire state, there's no argument there, and I get your points, but these not-for-profit companies would make a tremendous loss, it's unsustainable. And if greed is the great motivating factor, who would go not-for-profit?

I do understand the idea of a free market, that once there's demand there will be prices to match that maximise sales to as many poeple as possible, but that only works for luxuries really. Not everyone can afford to buy x product at x price, but most people can, shall we say. This works fine for a tv or other commodity, but putting a price on a human life is a bizarre concpet. There will be people who simply can't afford it, and even if they are a small minority, they shouldn't have to suffer simply because they don't have enough money to buy their health.

What about the elderly, who need more care than anyone, and have small pensions? What about the cancer patient who's loan runs out during treatment, or who loses his job through illness? It makes no sense to me in reality. It's theoretically sound, but in my mind, based on a very idealised worldview.

I think your missing the point. Those who cant afford to pay will be covered by the taxpayer (Slightly different to what the OP is proposing) its just the services will be delivered by private companies.

philologos

RockinRolla wrote: »

I'm not a cold hard capitalist - I believe in some other principles, for example, welfare, but ONLY to those in need of it.

Again how does privatising the health service bode with welfare?

RockinRolla wrote: »

An end to state funding of lifestyle choices is a must. People dependent on the state shall not normally get additional housing or cash provision if they expand their family either through birth or the accumulation of additional dependants for whatever reason. Although this may seem harsh, there is an injustice in entitlements that accumulate, forcing tax payers like you and I to dish out money (which would normally go to our own children) in a bid to fund those who haven't and have no intention of working a day in their lives. This is wrong!

People should be punished for being pregnant? Are you serious?

RockinRolla wrote: »

In addition, the poor wouldn't be taxed with the srapped Income Tax. People who are healthy and capable should as far as possible provide for their own material needs through personal effort, thrift and financial independence. Where people are genuinely unable to provide for themselves they should be supported primarily through Government subsidies (those who really need it - alas, I'm not in favour of complete destruction) and secondly, through social institutions such as family, friends, their local community, religious groups and private charities.

Not being taxed isn't the issue for the poor. How do you think we could even fund any form of welfare in the absence of income tax? What taxes will need to rise to fund the shortfall?

Not being rude here OP, but it doesn't seem as if you've thought this through.

Earthhorse

No.

If anything, income taxes should be increased and discretionary taxes (e.g. on spending) should be reduced). People will always need to earn a living, they won't always spend their money, they may choose to save it instead. Income tax is a reliable source of income and should be used as the base from which Government prudently plans its finances.

As for the debate about privatising healthcare, I see no evidence that suggests the free market is better for the poor, the average household or even the rich (no matter waht system you are under the rich will always do well for themselves).

tommyhaas

I dont pay tax on my income so effectively my cost of living would increase substantially without any increase in my pay, leaving me a lot poorer. Fcuk that

mickdw

I believe we should consider getting rid of income tax.
This would be achieved in the following ways:

A reduction in state services/public sector workers.
Increase in cunsumer taxes.

Now obviously these changes wouldnt result in any great change to standard of living however, I see great benefit due to massive reduction of the black economy. Everyone would be paying their fair share, regardless of how income was obtained. If a major social welfare crackdown accompanied this change, a system where EVERYONE worked for the dole be it community work or whatever, I think we would have a very fair society with nobody getting money for nothing and everyone paying tax.

dlofnep

mickdw wrote: »

I believe we should consider getting rid of income tax.
This would be achieved in the following ways:

A reduction in state services/public sector workers.
Increase in cunsumer taxes.

Now obviously these changes wouldnt result in any great change to standard of living however, I see great benefit due to massive reduction of the black economy. Everyone would be paying their fair share, regardless of how income was obtained. If a major social welfare crackdown accompanied this change, a system where EVERYONE worked for the dole be it community work or whatever, I think we would have a very fair society with nobody getting money for nothing and everyone paying tax.

If everyone worked for their dole - It wouldn't be "dole", it would be a job.

And no - It wouldn't be a fair society.

Dr. No

Holy Jebus some posters here must have been asleep for the past few years. Calling for less regulation when already lax regulation was a major cause for our current fiscal problems. What makes you think that the private sector can do a more efficient job than the public sector. Just look at the rail service in the UK, it's a joke. I travel up and down the UK by train frequently and I can tell you I have never once been on time, always late. Crappy service and fares are going UP.

Lockstep

RockinRolla wrote: »

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.


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.)

First of all, abolishing income tax won't help the poorest in society. They don't pay income tax anyway due to tax credits.

Secondly, your claims on the history of taxation are bogus.

After the war, they got rid of it and it remained that way

Wrong, it was brought in permanently by Peel in 1842. Well before WWI. In addition, the reason it was brought in by Peel was that Britain was reducing its tarriffs so the government needed new forms of revenue.


You also quoted Libertarian principles which reference Adam Smith; you do realize he felt that taxation should be linked to ability to pay (in his 4 Tenets of Taxation; "It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more in proportion.")

It would be almost impossible to run a State without income tax without rapidly raising indirect taxation which is why previous governments relied heavily on things like tariffs and indirect taxation like sales tax.

RockinRolla wrote: »

+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.

Seriously? We have a tiny armed forces and spend less than 1% of GDP on it.

You're ignoring:
1) We're not actually neutral. This is a longstanding assumption. "Heavily biased military non-intervention" is a much better way of putting it.
2) You're ignoring that Ireland has, and has had, a strong internal stability threat from the likes of dissident republicanism.

You've put forward a lot of theory and statements, without saying *how* abolishing income tax would really help.
My thoughts on the matter are summed up by a Conservative of all people:

Robert Lock wrote:

"And is society really wrong to protect people against the negative consequences of some of their free choices? While it is obviously fair to let people enjoy the benefits of their wise choices and suffer the costs of their stupid ones, decent societies set limits on both these outcomes. People are allowed to become millionaires, but they are taxed. They are allowed to go broke, but they are not then forced to starve. They are deprived of the most extreme benefits of freedom in order to spare us the most extreme costs. The libertopian alternative would be perhaps a more glittering society, but also a crueler one."

irishguy wrote: »

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.

What a gross oversimplification and a sterling example of Dublino-centrism.
Try telling that to the men and women of Donegal who have to take 6 hour bus journey to get their breast cancer treatment in Galway.
You don't seem to realize that there are a myriad of jobs that couldn't practically be done in urban/suburban areas; farming, fishing, tourism, green technology etc, along with the services needed to cater for rural areas; post offices, pubs, shops and so on.

Dumbest fuking thread ever. Anyone who thinks that income tax should be abolished but still drives on pubic roads is a self serving prick who suffers from a severe case of entitlement.

amacachi

The problem has little to do with systems of the state but more to do with the Irish psyche. Scandinavian-style socialism works because the states are very democratic and the citizens feel a sense of civic responsibility. I don't like socialism as a principle but neither it nor libertarianism will work well for somewhere as self-centred as Ireland.

dlofnep

Deleted User wrote: »

Dumbest fuking thread ever. Anyone who thinks that income tax should be abolished but still drives on pubic roads is a self serving prick who suffers from a severe case of entitlement.

hear hear.