The reality of cutbacks.

murphaph

Godge wrote: »

To answer your question about Dublin and Donegal, the answer has to be yes, people in Dublin should get a better service than Donegal. Why? Because the cost of providing a public service to the most densely populated part of the country is much cheaper than providing a public service to the least densely populated part of the country.

Apply the logic of equal public services to another country, say Australia. Should the same level of public services be available in the outback as in the city of Melbourne. Should we have a full services hospital every 200 miles in the outback? The reasonable answer is no, those who choose to live in the outback have to pay a price in terms of accessibility and availability of public services.

The same logic applies, albeit to a lesser and more nuanced extent in Ireland. If you live outside of a major city - Dublin, Cork or Belfast - you have to expect that you will receive some degree of lesser public service. This may simply be that you have to travel to Dublin for some medical procedures, it may be that you don't have a local university, or it may be that some type of service is not accessible at all. If such rules were not applied our unsustainable public services would be even more costly.

This is all completely correct, however the man is being denied the better treatment available in Dublin, even though he appears willing to travel for it. He is not complaining that it is not provided in Donegal, rather that because he lives there, he is no longer eligible to receive this form of treatment.

The HSE, rather than reduce its internal expenditures be making redundant admin staff redundant and/or amalgamating admin departments and then making the excess redundant, has chosen to save money by eliminating this man's treatment based on his address.

I am fully in favour of centres of excellence and so on and a smaller role for regional and local hospitals, closing nonsensical ones completely, but I can see that in this case it's different. The patient is not having his service relocated. He's having it removed to save money, primarily because the HSE never made the tough decisions to make that organisation more streamlined, as was expected with the merger of the health boards.

Head The Wall

liammur wrote: »

+1

Agreed and it shows up their intelligence to post something about me being bitter and another one about me paying very little tax. I moved to a country where I am paying three times as much tax as I was in Ireland and I have no problem in doing so as I can see that there are decent services in return.

If they can't see the connection between Irish paying very little tax and the crap services received well that says it all

Tipp Man

Head The Wall wrote: »

Agreed and it shows up their intelligence to post something about me being bitter and another one about me paying very little tax. I moved to a country where I am paying three times as much tax as I was in Ireland and I have no problem in doing so as I can see that there are decent services in return.

If they can't see the connection between Irish paying very little tax and the crap services received well that says it all

WTF??

What you mean is that the majority of Irish are paying very little tax and some are paying a huge amount of tax??? My GF paid 52% on her bonus only last month

what you will see in UK is low to medium income people pay a lot more tax than here where they pay damn all

In this country we have too few people paying too much of the income tax

Head The Wall

I think you will find that around 4 - 5% of people in Ireland pay around 60% of the income tax. Provide some figures to back up your claim

antoobrien

Tipp Man wrote: »

what you will see in UK is low to medium income people pay a lot more tax than here where they pay damn all

In this country we have too few people paying too much of the income tax

Head The Wall wrote: »

I think you will find that around 4 - 5% of people in Ireland pay around 60% of the income tax. Provide some figures to back up your claim

I think you should go back and read the post again HTW, Tipp Man is more or less agreeing with you.

Edit: the 2010 income tax statistics are available on the revenue webnsite

Tipp Man

Head The Wall wrote: »

I think you will find that around 4 - 5% of people in Ireland pay around 60% of the income tax. Provide some figures to back up your claim

ah thats what i am saying

woodoo

Godge wrote: »

To answer your question about Dublin and Donegal, the answer has to be yes, people in Dublin should get a better service than Donegal. Why? Because the cost of providing a public service to the most densely populated part of the country is much cheaper than providing a public service to the least densely populated part of the country.

Apply the logic of equal public services to another country, say Australia. Should the same level of public services be available in the outback as in the city of Melbourne. Should we have a full services hospital every 200 miles in the outback? The reasonable answer is no, those who choose to live in the outback have to pay a price in terms of accessibility and availability of public services.

The same logic applies, albeit to a lesser and more nuanced extent in Ireland. If you live outside of a major city - Dublin, Cork or Belfast - you have to expect that you will receive some degree of lesser public service. This may simply be that you have to travel to Dublin for some medical procedures, it may be that you don't have a local university, or it may be that some type of service is not accessible at all. If such rules were not applied our unsustainable public services would be even more costly.

This doesn't deal with the fact that he is not allowed to receive the service in Dublin either. That is unfair. All out taxes go to central government.

woodoo

Head The Wall wrote: »

Agreed and it shows up their intelligence to post something about me being bitter and another one about me paying very little tax. I moved to a country where I am paying three times as much tax as I was in Ireland and I have no problem in doing so as I can see that there are decent services in return.

If they can't see the connection between Irish paying very little tax and the crap services received well that says it all

3 times a pittance = very damn little.

You have no business commenting on Ireland anymore you don't live here or pay any taxes.

sarumite

woodoo wrote: »

3 times a pittance = very damn little.

You have no business commenting on Ireland anymore you don't live here or pay any taxes.

S/He is Irish. S/he probably has family and friends in this country and may look to come back someday. Not everyone is lucky enough to have found stable employment in Ireland and many have been forced to emigrate. To have someone lucky enough to not have to go through such an unfortunate experience telling someone else what business they have or have not is more than just a little bit obnoxious imo.

murphaph

woodoo wrote: »

3 times a pittance = very damn little.

You have no business commenting on Ireland anymore you don't live here or pay any taxes.

Would you prefer that all unemployed just sit on their holes in Ireland crippling the system even further? If anything economic emigrants should have more of a say in how their country is run. It's bad enough they get no vote-you want to deny them even the right to express themselves on a bloody Internet forum!

woodoo

sarumite wrote: »

S/He is Irish. S/he probably has family and friends in this country and may look to come back someday. Not everyone is lucky enough to have found stable employment in Ireland and many have been forced to emigrate. To have someone lucky enough to not have to go through such an unfortunate experience telling someone else what business they have or have not is more than just a little bit obnoxious imo.

You might need to go back over this thread and have a look at the vitriol in his posts directed at me, initially simply for being a public servant. I feel sorry for people who have had to leave. But i don't feel particularly sorry for him. I've been on the receiving end of his bile before.

Tipp Man

murphaph wrote: »

Would you prefer that all unemployed just sit on their holes in Ireland crippling the system even further? If anything economic emigrants should have more of a say in how their country is run. It's bad enough they get no vote-you want to deny them even the right to express themselves on a bloody Internet forum!

I don't see why emigrants should get a vote in their original country.

The government is elected to run the country for the people in it, not the people who aren't in it. If that was not the case then emigrants could vote for parties/policies which are completly at odds with what the people living in the country want/need.

Its easy to vote for raised taxes, cuts in spending etc etc when one doesn't have to bear the brunt of the choices

johnnyskeleton

Noreen1 wrote: »

You appear to think that this unfortunate gentleman had no need to go to Dublin for treatment in the first place?

The reality is that he required a treatment that was - and is - not available in his local area.

there is treatment fo him locally, just not this specific treatment

So, the question is - are people in Dublin entitled to a better service than those in Donegal?

Since the service has not been removed from those who live in the Dublin area, and the service is not available in Donegal then equality of treatment should be the issue.

So the service should be available to those who live outside the hospital catchement area (probably more cost effective, though extremely inconvenient in terms of discomfort while travelling) - or provided in Letterkenny or Sligo hospital.

Unless, of course, you believe inequality is acceptable, based on where you live?

I would be in favour of such a system, where each area has high/low taxes and high/low levels of services available. It would also be in accordance with what the state is saying about the proceeds of the household charge.

maninasia

Tipp Man wrote: »

I don't see why emigrants should get a vote in their original country.

The government is elected to run the country for the people in it, not the people who aren't in it. If that was not the case then emigrants could vote for parties/policies which are completly at odds with what the people living in the country want/need.

Its easy to vote for raised taxes, cuts in spending etc etc when one doesn't have to bear the brunt of the choices

Most countries are moving towards giving their emigrants the right to vote.
What makes Ireland special, it's excellent economic performance?
Irish people abroad are still Irish. Or is the diaspora out of fashion when it is needed most?

Tipp Man

maninasia wrote: »

Most countries are moving towards giving their emigrants the right to vote.
What makes Ireland special, it's excellent economic performance?
Irish people abroad are still Irish. Or is the diaspora out of fashion when it is needed most?

So the only justification is that everybody else is thinking about it - not sure if sheep or lemmings springs to mind

I never said Irish people abroad weren't Irish - however having people in Oz or NZ or USA or anywhere have a say in the level of taxes i should be paying or the level of funding that can be given to my kids school is completely immoral

And no need for this diaspora crap - l lived abroad for years, my sister has been in states for 30 odd years and all bar 1 of my uncles and aunts are abroad

maninasia

If most other countries are doing it you'd have to ask why Ireland has a problem with it, plus some public servants serving overseas have the right to vote, so why not all natural born citizens?

The point about paying taxation is an old one, if you want to fixate on that you will have to ask all the people on social welfare and pensioners and school kids and students are they contributing too?
Should people on social welfare get a say on how schools are run, after all they are contributing to the public purse?
How about public servants who get gold plated pensions compared to private workers, yet private workers bring in most of the revenue for government?
How about the fact that a politician in one district tries to get more than his fair share of resources at the expense of other districts, and can do that by entering in a coalition with the government?
How about most schools in the country were controlled by religious orders until recently, and that religion is a big part of Irish schooling, no matter if you are an atheist or not.
How about politicians who pull in multiple pensions?
How about politicians who have been found to be corrupt but no justice is served and they still maintain their lavish pensions?
It seems there's a lot to be concerned about if we are talking about what is immoral or not.

I'm no fan of the diaspora term, but to disenfrachise millions of Irish because of the fact that Ireland is not able to maintain a stable economy, I think there is something wrong there. This is creating an imbalance and unfairness in the equal voting rights.
Younger citizens, due to their economic circumstances, lose their right to political participation. Older workers, pensioners and public servants due to their better guarantees from the state maintain their political participation priviledges.

There are many nuances for voting from overseas, just like there are many nuances to giving the vote to somebody of a certain age, or to a public worker, or to a criminal, or to a pensioner or to a naturalised citizen or a resident.

You could design a survey that would show if citizens have an up to date understanding of the concerns and issues for the election. Then if they pass it they get to vote. That make a threshold for people who are truly interested. Apply that to EVERY voter.

golfwallah

maninasia wrote: »

Most countries are moving towards giving their emigrants the right to vote.
What makes Ireland special, it's excellent economic performance?
Irish people abroad are still Irish. Or is the diaspora out of fashion when it is needed most?

Giving the right to vote to Irish people living abroad is not as straightforward as it looks and brings out a lot of issues such as the relationship between taxation and representation and, possibly, if this right should apply only to Ireland or should it have a cross-EU dimension.

There are examples from other countries, notably the USA. US citizens abroad have the right to vote in Presidential Elections but are also required to file US tax returns and pay US taxes.

The principle of “no taxation without representation” is strongly implanted in the minds of US citizens as a result of the American War of Independence. But the right of US citizens abroad to vote is limited to Presidential elections.

But there is no United States of Europe – the EU has gradually been evolving towards integration but is a long way from the US model of political and economic union.

One side effect of the current economic crisis and cross-EU financial bailouts may be that the full meaning of the relationship between taxation and representation will begin to gain more currency in the public consciousness. There is nothing like money to focus the minds of voters.

Going back to the US experience, they had a financial crisis in 1841, during which which 8 states and 1 territory defaulted. The defaulting states (7 negotiated arrangements with their bondholders and eventually repaid most of their debts) were eventually able to borrow again from the markets – but only after they had changed their laws and constitutions to safeguard creditors.

This experience eventually helped pave the way towards a stronger union.

The forthcoming referendum on the Fiscal Compact will bring these issues more sharply into focus over the coming months.

Only time will tell if we in the EU will follow a similar path to stronger financial and political union.

maninasia

This is a global trend , with large numbers of developing AND developed countries giving their overseas citizens the right to vote.

Ireland is very unusual with regards a country with a history of emigration as India, South Africa, the Phillipines, the US, the UK, Brazil etc. all allow their overseas citizens to participate in elections. Many others are in the process of changing the law in this regard, notable examples being Malaysia and Pakistan.

They recognise that keeping overseas citizens engaged is a positive.

The issue of whether you should tax overseas citizens is a taxation issue, not directly related to voting rights. It has some correlation but it should not be the primary factor, as can easily be seen by the huge numbers of residents in Ireland (both Irish and foreign nationals) who do not currently contribute any taxes.

Tipp Man

maninasia wrote: »

If most other countries are doing it you'd have to ask why Ireland has a problem with it, plus some public servants serving overseas have the right to vote, so why not all natural born citizens?

The point about paying taxation is an old one, if you want to fixate on that you will have to ask all the people on social welfare and pensioners and school kids and students are they contributing too?
Should people on social welfare get a say on how schools are run, after all they are contributing to the public purse?
How about public servants who get gold plated pensions compared to private workers, yet private workers bring in most of the revenue for government?
How about the fact that a politician in one district tries to get more than his fair share of resources at the expense of other districts, and can do that by entering in a coalition with the government?
How about most schools in the country were controlled by religious orders until recently, and that religion is a big part of Irish schooling, no matter if you are an atheist or not.
How about politicians who pull in multiple pensions?
How about politicians who have been found to be corrupt but no justice is served and they still maintain their lavish pensions?
It seems there's a lot to be concerned about if we are talking about what is immoral or not.

I'm no fan of the diaspora term, but to disenfrachise millions of Irish because of the fact that Ireland is not able to maintain a stable economy, I think there is something wrong there. This is creating an imbalance and unfairness in the equal voting rights.
Younger citizens, due to their economic circumstances, lose their right to political participation. Older workers, pensioners and public servants due to their better guarantees from the state maintain their political participation priviledges.

There are many nuances for voting from overseas, just like there are many nuances to giving the vote to somebody of a certain age, or to a public worker, or to a criminal, or to a pensioner or to a naturalised citizen or a resident.

You could design a survey that would show if citizens have an up to date understanding of the concerns and issues for the election. Then if they pass it they get to vote. That make a threshold for people who are truly interested. Apply that to EVERY voter.

Once again you haven't made a justification for doing it.

Everybody resident in Ireland contributes to Ireland, VAT for starters is another large income source for starters, people on welfare, pensions etc pay that. The people that you mentioned are also heavily affected by government expenditure cuts - so is it right for somebody in USA to demand that the OAP for example is cut??

As mentioned above the USA allow emigrants to vote - but it comes at the cost of being tax compliant in USA. Is that how you want Irish emigrants to be? If so they our tax returns might see a bit of an increase

Tipp Man

maninasia wrote: »

This is a global trend , with large numbers of developing AND developed countries giving their overseas citizens the right to vote.

Ireland is very unusual with regards a country with a history of emigration as India, South Africa, the Phillipines, the US, the UK, Brazil etc. all allow their overseas citizens to participate in elections. Many others are in the process of changing the law in this regard, notable examples being Malaysia and Pakistan.

They recognise that keeping overseas citizens engaged is a positive.

The issue of whether you should tax overseas citizens is a taxation issue, not directly related to voting rights. It has some correlation but it should not be the primary factor, as can easily be seen by the huge numbers of residents in Ireland (both Irish and foreign nationals) who do not currently contribute any taxes.

Yet again your only arguement is others are doing it we should be also.

So should an Irish person living in USA be allowed to vote for TD's and in US elections??

maninasia

Have you moved away from the moral bit now?

Paying VAT is weak way to contribute tax when your income as a public servant is generated from private sector taxation and activities, or the income of a person on social welfare. Emigrants who return on visits also pay VAT.

Also we are not the US but Ireland and there are forty countries with forty different ways to handle overseas voting systems.

maninasia

Tipp Man wrote: »

Yet again your only arguement is others are doing it we should be also.

So should an Irish person living in USA be allowed to vote for TD's and in US elections??

Yes they could vote in both jurisdictions, why not? Citizenship and residency may have differing priviledges and differing levels of electoral participation.

The British are able to vote from overseas in parliamentary and European elections.
http://www.aboutmyvote.co.uk/register_to_vote/british_citizens_living_abroad.aspx


You ignored my points about
- the HUGE numbers of residents in Ireland who can vote but don't contribute to net taxes
- conflicts of interest between different groups and different districts (this will always occur!)
- the unfairness of the current system where young people have no choice but to emigrate, whereas older people with established careers, social welfare recipients, pensioners and civil servants maintain their rights due to economic circumstances and the protection of the state

Tipp Man

maninasia wrote: »

Have you moved away from the moral bit now?

Paying VAT is weak way to contribute tax when your income as a public servant is generated from private sector taxation and activities, or the income of a person on social welfare. Emigrants to return on visits also pay VAT.

Also we are not the US but Ireland and there are forty countries with forty different ways to handle overseas voting systems.

No I still maintain that it is morally wrong

Regardless of whether you see VAT as a weak form of tax contribution - it is still a tax contributed.

So do you think it is right for an Irish person in USA to vote in both US and Irish elections? If so how do you justify it?

Tipp Man

maninasia wrote: »

Yes they could vote in both jurisdictions, why not? Citizenship and residency may have differing priviledges and differing levels of electoral participation.

The British are able to vote from overseas in parliamentary and European elections.
http://www.aboutmyvote.co.uk/register_to_vote/british_citizens_living_abroad.aspx

Who cares what the British or any other country do

Look by voting from abroad you are implementing policies upon people which have zero effect on yourself. That is completly wrong in my opinion

Actions without consequences is what it is - any that is no way to run a country

maninasia

I justify it as a right of citizenship and as a former resident of Ireland.

antoobrien

When did this turn into a foreign voting thread?

Mods can we split out the voting discussion/move it into another thread (I think there have been a few).

maninasia

Tipp Man wrote: »

Who cares what the British or any other country do

Look by voting from abroad you are implementing policies upon people which have zero effect on yourself. That is completly wrong in my opinion

Actions without consequences is what it is - any that is no way to run a country

All actions have consequences, both good and bad. Emigrants are affected by the consequences of elections

-their family is affected in Ireland
-their job prospects and hopes of returning are affected
-their rights as natural born citizens of Ireland are affected
-their image and reputation overseas are affected
-their property and assets in Ireland are affected
-their rights in foreign countries are also affected, as these are often granted by bilateral agreements
-their service levels from the Irish government is affected e.g. consul services/passports/citizenship rights of their kin and family

Tipp Man

maninasia wrote: »

I justify it as a right of citizenship and as a former resident of Ireland.

Well you hit the nail on the head there - former resident

So by your logic you could vote for an Irish party, get it elected, see it implement a 100% tax over 30k for example while you live a nice comfortable lifestyle (in Asia i assume) paying maybe 40% tax

And you think that is right??

maninasia

Tipp Man wrote: »

Well you hit the nail on the head there - former resident

So by your logic you could vote for an Irish party, get it elected, see it implement a 100% tax over 30k for example while you live a nice comfortable lifestyle (in Asia i assume) paying maybe 40% tax

And you think that is right??

That's not going to happen, it's a dumb example, apart from the fact that it's likely only a few % of the total electorate will be overseas voters. Keep ignoring my points please.

Tipp Man

maninasia wrote: »

All actions have consequences, both good and bad. Emigrants are affected by the consequences of elections

-their family is affected in Ireland
-their job prospects and hopes of returning are affected
-their rights as natural born citizens of Ireland are affected
-their image and reputation overseas are affected
-their property and assets in Ireland are affected
-their rights in foreign countries are also affected, as these are often granted by bilateral agreements
-their service levels from the Irish government is affected e.g. consul services/passports/citizenship rights of their kin and family

Those are some straws that your grasping at

maninasia

Keep waving your hands saying it's immoral.

I will S P E L L it out for you.

The electorate is not a homogenous mass. Each voter has their own particular set of concerns and agenda. Mostly they want what is best for them and their family. It is called a democracy. Nobody is ever completely satisfied, but through a process of localised and national (and hopefully international voting) a compromise is reached so all citizens can aim for prosperity and happiness.

Tipp Man

maninasia wrote: »

That's not going to happen, it's a dumb example, apart from the fact that it's likely only a few % of the total electorate will be overseas voters. Keep ignoring my points please.

It's an extreme example not a dumb 1

The way this country's finances are at the moment - either huge tax increases and/or huge spending cuts are going to happen so as an Irish person living abroad tell me how your income or the services you receive will be effected?? Tell me how you could justify voting in a government which will implement these huge tax increases/cuts when they will have no impact on your life - but a huge one on mine

antoobrien

Tipp Man wrote: »

Well you hit the nail on the head there - former resident

I'll gladly vote for a 100% tax rate on former residents or diaspora that want a vote here but won't want to live with the consequences.

Tipp Man

maninasia wrote: »

Keep waving your hands saying it's immoral.

I will S P E L L it out for you.

The electorate is not a homogenous mass. Each voter has their own particular set of concerns and agenda. Mostly they want what is best for them and their family. It is called a democracy. Nobody is ever completely satisfied, but through a process of localised and national (and hopefully international voting) a compromise is reached so all citizens can aim for prosperity and happiness.

You need to improve your S P E L L I N G then because the above post does nothing to justify your viewpoint

maninasia

Finally a real question.

I have given you many examples above already how they will affect me and my family. Please read them again.

As a concrete example with regards to budget cuts, this is affecting the level of service Irish citizens are getting overseas. Passport processing times have increased markedly resulting in major disruption to work and travel plans, it can be hard to access staff, many economically important countries in Asia now have no consulate, trade office or embassy whatsoever. There is little support for cultural and trade activities. We are left to fend for ourselves as best as we can. If there is a war or an epidemic or any type of disaster, we must rely on our resources, our host nations or beg other Western countries consulates for help.

Now if we owned property in Ireland we will be affected by property taxes. There is also an extra tax applied to non residents. Taxes on capital gains and stocks and pensions would also be a concern for many. Economic mismanagement has led to many Irish stockholders being completely wiped out. In my case there is no bilateral agreement for public pensions between the country I live in and Ireland. But in other countries they have a bilateral agreement. This is a huge concern to me and there is absolutely nothing I can do about it voting wise.

Our families left in Ireland are affected, our elderly parents, nursing home care etc.

But it is more than an economic argument , it is the lack of ability to keep some type of involvement in the land of your origin that bugs many people.

Tipp Man

maninasia wrote: »

Finally a real question.

I have given you many examples above already how they will affect me and my family. Please read them again.

As a concrete example with regards to budget cuts, this is affecting the level of service Irish citizens are getting overseas. Passport processing times have increased markedly resulting in major disruption to work and travel plans, it can be hard to access staff, many economically important countries in Asia now have no consulate, trade office or embassy whatsoever. There is little support for cultural and trade activities. We are left to fend for ourselves as best as we can. If there is a war or an epidemic or any type of disaster, we must rely on our resources, our host nations or beg other Western countries consulates for help.

Now if we owned property in Ireland we will be affected by property taxes. There is also an extra tax applied to non residents. Taxes on capital gains and stocks and pensions would also be a concern for many.

Our families left in Ireland are affected, our elderly parents, nursing home care etc.

But it is more than an economic argument , it is the lack of ability to keep some type of involvement in the land of your origin that bugs many people.

Your family that remain in Ireland have voting rights so they have the power to determine their own future, their own government and the policies that the government implements - regardless of whether you get to vote or not. The family in Ireland thing is a complete non starter for your argument

maninasia

Imagine my family is my school age kids but I must work overseas to support them?

Tipp Man

maninasia wrote: »

Imagine my family is my school age kids but I must work overseas to support them?

Well you simply remain an Irish tax resident then

Brussels Sprout

Tipp Man wrote: »

Regardless of whether you see VAT as a weak form of tax contribution - it is still a tax contributed.

If a young person is getting all of their income from social welfare it doesn't matter how much VAT they pay, they are still taking more money than they are paying.

A first generation emigrant on the other hand is neutral.

No harm in encouraging people to keep ties with the country by offering them a vote. Keep it restricted to first generation emigrants who are now resident elsewhere. Put in a stipulation that they have to travel to the nearest embassy or consulate to vote. The majority won't be bothered.

It's not like Sinn Fein are going to start winning landslide elections because the 80 million or so diaspora are all going to start voting.

View

Tipp Man wrote: »

Well you simply remain an Irish tax resident then

Unless you qualify as a "Cross Border Worker", you will not be an Irish tax resident for very long after you leave as you will usually be tax resident wherever you move to fairly quickly.

You will however still be liable, should you be a home owner in Ireland, for the Household charge and also the higher Non-Principal Primary Residence tax - so you will be taxed but have no say in the representation that decides to levy those taxes on you and spend the resulting monies.

creedp

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

No harm in encouraging people to keep ties with the country by offering them a vote. Keep it restricted to first generation emigrants who are now resident elsewhere. Put in a stipulation that they have to travel to the nearest embassy or consulate to vote. The majority won't be bothered.

I like the view that the Irish Govt have to get off their butts and fix the Irish economy quickly so that I and my family can return and enjoy a decent standard of living. Problem is the current residents will have to endure a lot of pain before this will happen.

murphaph

Tipp Man wrote: »

I don't see why emigrants should get a vote in their original country.

The government is elected to run the country for the people in it, not the people who aren't in it. If that was not the case then emigrants could vote for parties/policies which are completly at odds with what the people living in the country want/need.

Its easy to vote for raised taxes, cuts in spending etc etc when one doesn't have to bear the brunt of the choices

What about the needs and wants of people forced to leave Ireland through the cack-handed administration of the country by a government elected by people living in it?

Ireland is fairly unique here. Most western countries allow their citizens to vote, at least for a period of time, after leaving their homeland.

As I said before, would you rather an unemployed civil engineer sat at home claiming several thousand Euro a year in benefits, keeping the right to vote or would you rather he left Ireland, was not a drain on the system and still retained the vote? Which is better for Ireland long term? People who have been directly affected to the extent of having to leave the aul' sod will likely have a much less parochial view and elect politicians in the national interest.

Noreen1

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

there is treatment fo him locally, just not this specific treatment

The treatment available locally is obviously inadequate - otherwise he would not have received treatment in Dublin.
Hence, you are being deliberately obtuse.
No-one, suffering chronic pain, will choose the discomfort, inconvenience, and expense of travelling to Dublin if there is an adequate treatment available locally.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I would be in favour of such a system, where each area has high/low taxes and high/low levels of services available. It would also be in accordance with what the state is saying about the proceeds of the household charge.

I wonder if you've thought this through?

For example, how many people work in Dublin, who return to their home Counties at the weekend?
These people contribute to the economy, both in Dublin, and their home Counties.
Their taxes are paid, and are distributed by the exchequer.

A system such as you propose would ensure that Dublin would get a very large proportion of the available tax take, to the detriment of every other County.
Do you really think that the 75% of people who live outside of Dublin would vote in any Government who proposed such a system?
Do you think people would accept, in many cases, a low level of services for their spouses/partners/children/parents, who do not live in Dublin, but are dependent on a decent level of services, which their family members taxes contribute to?

Whatever happened to the state cherishing all its citizens equally?
What you propose is blatantly discriminatory - just as what this poor man is suffering is as a result of blatant discrimination........

murphaph

View wrote: »

Unless you qualify as a "Cross Border Worker", you will not be an Irish tax resident for very long after you leave as you will usually be tax resident wherever you move to fairly quickly.

You will however still be liable, should you be a home owner in Ireland, for the Household charge and also the higher Non-Principal Primary Residence tax - so you will be taxed but have no say in the representation that decides to levy those taxes on you and spend the resulting monies.

This sums my position up. Cannot be tax resident in Ireland (would love to be-I'd pay lower taxes than here in Germany) but I do pay the household charge, NPPR, PRTB, insurance levy (my house insurance) and last by by no means least: INCOME TAX on the rental income itself, with LOWER TAX CREDITS (no PAYE credit available to me) than a person who is tax resident there.

I STILL HAVE NO VOTE IN IRELAND, yet someone who has never worked a day in their lives to contribute to my country and sits at home watching Jeremy Kyle all day is considered more worthy of political representation in the Dail than I.

A Dub in Glasgo

So you are an absentee landlord

I have given up on the emigrant voting argusment. Anyhow, the treatment of this patient is nothing short of scandalous. The HSE should be hanging their heads in shame to choose this course of action over cutting the fat

Tipp Man

murphaph wrote: »

This sums my position up. Cannot be tax resident in Ireland (would love to be-I'd pay lower taxes than here in Germany) but I do pay the household charge, NPPR, PRTB, insurance levy (my house insurance) and last by by no means least: INCOME TAX on the rental income itself, with LOWER TAX CREDITS (no PAYE credit available to me) than a person who is tax resident there.

I STILL HAVE NO VOTE IN IRELAND, yet someone who has never worked a day in their lives to contribute to my country and sits at home watching Jeremy Kyle all day is considered more worthy of political representation in the Dail than I.

So what?? People pay taxes worldwide nowadays as their investment portfolios become much more diversified and cover a much larger geographical area. That's why we have double tax agreements.

Should people get to vote in every country they own a house or investment in?

pog it

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

You'll get the exact same emotional arguments about any of the above.

1. If you cut children's allowance, won't somebody please think of the children etc.

2. If you cut welfare what about the most poor and vulernable.

3. If you cut public sector pay they're probably not going to do the work anyway, and as I have set out above in a fair bit of detail, this will not help this particular man, and could actually make matters worse for him.

4. Which pensions?

5. 3rd rate of tax? Presumably at the top end? The problem with this is that eventually you could have 90-100% tax at the top end to pay for all sorts of great medical, educational and welfare entitlements for people at the other end, becuase "People should not be left in pain" or people should not be left uneducated, or people should not get welfare entitlements.

Put another way, my foot has been a bit sore for the last few weeks. Probably sprained a muscle. In the real world, I limped along, got a bit of cream for it and considered insoles for my shoes and now its pretty much fine. However, in your world I should have been rushed to hospital, given hourly massages, physio, painkillers, the works, new shoes, someone to cover me in work (so I don't lose out on earnings), a wheelchair to rock around in and free taxis for long distance all because "People should not be left in pain". Now, my foot pain is not as serious as the pain caused by cancer, but if we are dealing with absolutes then this is the logical conclusion of what you are saying.

A little realism is required when you are debating health services. People should be given a reasonable level of pain relief if available is a more appropriate method of dealing with it.

As much sympathy as I have for someone in his situation, when dealing with the politics of it we have to be more detached.

PS jobs must be cut. There are 428,000 people working in the PS. I know of one guy who works in a county council in the environmental dept on 60k + a year, this guy goes to work at 10am and is home by 4.30pm, with hour for lunch, and breaks. Routinely, him and his colleagues, skimp off on a Friday for a fishing excursion, with rights to the river thanks to another colleague in same dept who pushed him ahead of the queue for fishing licence for fishing rights there. This guy has a basic degree and no further qualifications, he gets expenses for phone and travel, and this widely out of touch pay for what he does, and he feels smug and successful at the same time. This is endemic in the public sector and really it is up to people in the private sector to start shouting that it's no longer acceptable.

maninasia

Tippman now seems to think paying tax is not so important, it seems he has had a change of heart.

Tipp Man

maninasia wrote: »

Tippman now seems to think paying tax is not so important, it seems he has had a change of heart.

Look i pay tax in the UK, I don't expect to have a vote there because i am not living there and i am NOT a tax resident either

Despite Muraph, or anybody else for that matter, paying some tax in Ireland he (or anybody in a similar situation) is also NOT an Irish tax resident (based on the little info that is on here)

So you can pay tax and not be a tax resident

creedp

pog it wrote: »

PS jobs must be cut. There are 428,000 people working in the PS. I know of one guy who works in a county council in the environmental dept on 60k + a year, this guy goes to work at 10am and is home by 4.30pm, with hour for lunch, and breaks. Routinely, him and his colleagues, skimp off on a Friday for a fishing excursion, with rights to the river thanks to another colleague in same dept who pushed him ahead of the queue for fishing licence for fishing rights there. This guy has a basic degree and no further qualifications, he gets expenses for phone and travel, and this widely out of touch pay for what he does, and he feels smug and successful at the same time. This is endemic in the public sector and really it is up to people in the private sector to start shouting that it's no longer acceptable.

So what you are saying is that a large proportion if not all the PS are like this and its up to the private sector to sort it out by baying for pay cuts for all. i ahd a builder in recently who couldn'yt cost a job and so went bust - so obviously all builders are financially incompetent; despite many attempts I can't get my bank to update my details - so all banking staff are administratively incompetent; my mechanic made a hash of a job recently - so all mechanics are incompetent; my next dor neighbour has a 12 plate Audi A6 and an 11 plate ix35 - so undoubtedly all private sector workers are loaded ..........