We Should Abolish Income Tax

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.

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