Renua

jjmcclure

Gringo180 wrote: »

Estonia's average monthly wage is 600 euro compared to Irelands 1700 euro. The gap between high earners and low earners in Estonia is much smaller than it is in Ireland.

Junior IT workers in Estonia are paid 3 times the average wage.

Senior Managers are paid €6500 to €7500 per month gross. Directors even more.

It could be argued the gap in Estonia is wider.

S.O

jjmcclure wrote: »

Well try working the hours those of us who work in multinational companies work. Many of us are working 50 to 60 hours per week. In addition we are always expected to be available via phone and email. That's what is expected and in fact needed if you want to get ahead. OR try working the hours a small business owner works! 40 hours a week, get a grip mate its not 1950!!!

If you want to work your life away doing 50 to 60 hours a week that is your choice, a lot of others would much prefer to work a moderate 40 hour week so they can have time for a personal life outside of work, Im a believer in the motto you should work to live not live to work, its funny you bring up a small business owner- a guy who owns and runs a bar in town who works 6 nights a week, lets just call him ( John ) John could well afford to have extra part time bar staff on some nights of the week so he wouldn,t be working 6 nights of the week but he chooses not to , Id guess John could be classed as a workaholic , well his workaholic lifestyle has cost him in some areas of his personal life, his long term partner left him over the way he chooses to put work ahead of everything else, when John is older he might think different and look back and say to himself I worked most of my life away, the way Lucinda said you can always work more hours on radio came across as someone looks at things wearing rose tinted glasses living a sheltered life.

jjmcclure

S.O wrote: »

If you want to work your life away doing 50 to 60 hours a week that is your choice, a lot of others would much prefer to work a moderate 40 hour week so they can have time for a personal life outside of work, Im a believer in the motto you should work to live not live to work, its funny you bring up a small business owner- a guy who owns and runs a bar in town who works 6 nights a week, lets just call him ( John ) John could well afford to have extra part time bar staff on some nights of the week so he wouldn,t be working 6 nights of the week but he chooses not to , Id guess John could be classed as a workaholic , well his workaholic lifestyle has cost him in some areas of his personal life, his long term partner left him over the way he chooses to put work ahead of everything else, when John is older he might think different and look back and say to himself I worked most of my life away, the way Lucinda said you can always work more hours on radio came across as someone looks at things wearing rose tinted glasses living a sheltered life.

See my previous post about me not asking you to pay for my lifestyle choice etc...

As for John, good work ethic.. putting in the hours to make his business a success and not banking on someone else to do it for him! That's the spirit.

Idbatterim

If you want to work your life away doing 50 to 60 hours a week that is your choice,

yeah it is a choice, would the state not be better off making it more worth your while to take on extra hours? Giving those parasites over 50% of YOUR income, is a joke, why would you bother? Would say E40 in the hundred, not be enough? Its lose / lose, a lot of people wont bother and our spend spend spend government, have less money available than they could have...

S.O

Idbatterim wrote: »

yeah it is a choice, would the state not be better off making it more worth your while to take on extra hours? Giving those parasites over 50% of YOUR income, is a joke, why would you bother? Would say E40 in the hundred, not be enough? Its lose / lose, a lot of people wont bother and our spend spend spend government, have less money available than they could have...

As I said in my post its about mottos, which Motto do you beleive in - ( A ) you should work to live ? or ( B ) you should live to work ?

Idbatterim

As I said in my post its about mottos, which Motto do you beleive in - ( A ) you should work to live ? or ( B ) you should live to work ?

I believe in working to live BUT the marginal rate is off the wall and anti enterprise and employment.

jjmcclure

S.O wrote: »

As I said in my post its about mottos, which Motto do you beleive in - ( A ) you should work to live ? or ( B ) you should live to work ?

You should have the choice to decide. I work to live, live at a certain standard. But if you decide to do 40 hours, take it easy etc. That's up to you. I shouldn't pay for your decisions. I don't want you to pay for mine.

Eric Cartman

HivemindXX wrote: »

Why stop at a flat tax? How is it fair that someone on 100k would pay 20k (for which they get almost nothing right Cartman?) when some slacker who only earns 20k (because they are too lazy to earn more, amiright?) only has to pay 4k?

A flat tax should mean a flat tax. My calculations indicate that everyone should just pay 10k no matter how much they earn. Any shortfall would be made up by eliminating waste and by how much our economy would improve as a result of this.

to be fair id be pretty happy with just 10k per person hah ,but obviously anyone can see how that is unworkable.

Zillah wrote: »

You sound like someone locked you in a cabin and screamed right wing cliches at you for a week.

Oh boo hoo, the poor people earning six figures are upset they pay more tax than the people who make their coffee and empty their bins :(:( How ever will this injustice be righted? I hear some people on the dole have televisions and refrigerators.

It is fair for people on high salaries to pay disproportionately larger income taxes because the minimum cost of living is fixed, so you get take home pay disproportionately higher than people on lower salaries compared to how much you need to spend to have a good quality of life. A tax hike for a poor person means they lose most or all of their disposable income; a tax hike for a rich person means their disposable income takes a small hair cut.

You want more in your pocket, I get it, it's very human; but if you put any effort into looking at the big picture you'll understand why a progressive system is more fair.

And all of that aside, even if we agreed for the sake of argument that people on the dole are all drug-addicted scroungers, and the people on minimum wage are unmotivated losers who should just work harder - what do you think is the pragmatic way to run things? Cut off the dole and leave their children trapped in poverty, to create a bigger cycle of addiction and homelessness? What's your vision of the future - do you really think forcing the unemployed to live from meal to meal is going to make society better? Do you really think working people on the minimum wage to the bone is going to improve life for anyone?

Or is it, that you just don't care? You want more in your pocket and poor people can just be a slave race for all you care? I think that probably is it for a lot of people, in which case you and Renua and go shag the horse you rode in on.

I expect everyone to work for what they have. Social welfare is a necessary evil but that doesn't mean it should be as it is now. How about we start making social welfare what its supposed to be : a tool for providing food, clothes, shelter and support for people in need, instead of a 'do whatever you like with our money' free-for-all that just gets abused.

everyone has to pay tax, you need a tax to make an economy run, but saying that taking 20% off somebody on less than 40k is fair , yet taking less than 50% off every cent over that is terrible makes no sense.

what is everyones damn problem with people succeeding, why is it that treating everyone equally or just simply not raping the rich financially is 'evil' or 'right wing'

Zillah

Eric Cartman wrote: »

I expect everyone to work for what they have. Social welfare is a necessary evil but that doesn't mean it should be as it is now. How about we start making social welfare what its supposed to be : a tool for providing food, clothes, shelter and support for people in need, instead of a 'do whatever you like with our money' free-for-all that just gets abused.

The vast majority of people on social welfare are not there long term, would love to work, are trying to find work, and contrary to a bizarrely popular belief, do not have large amounts of spare money.

what is everyones damn problem with people succeeding, why is it that treating everyone equally or just simply not raping the rich financially is 'evil' or 'right wing'

There's nothing wrong with succeeding. It's just that if you are financially successful you are in a position to be able to pay more tax than all of the people who are not as successful.

It's also a question of sheer practicality. We can't have a society of nothing but doctors, lawyers, CEOs and architects. Someone needs to serve you your coffee and someone needs to collect your bins, and we're only willing to pay them so much, and expecting them to pay the same tax as someone on, say, six figures+ is cruel and impossible. They already struggle to pay their way, putting a large tax burden on them makes it so that they're practically feudal serfs. Making you pay a larger tax burden it just a bit annoying for you.

Have you ever been poor?
Have you ever worked a nasty service job?

You seem to have a massive lack of empathy. Your crying about the successful being punished has far less effect on me than the poor waiter getting abused by people daily, or the mother having to explain to her children why their christmas presents are so much worse than your children's.

And on the topic of treating people equally: it's all a matter of perspective. If putting a tax on someone earning minimum wage means they lose 75% of their disposable income, treating you equally would be putting a tax on you that makes you lose 75% of your disposable income. I don't want to do that, but it illustrates my point that some of you guys seem to be ignoring the relationship between take home pay and the cost of living.

Eric Cartman

Zillah wrote: »

The vast majority of people on social welfare are not there long term, would love to work, are trying to find work, and contrary to a bizarrely popular belief, do not have large amounts of spare money.



There's nothing wrong with succeeding. It's just that if you are financially successful you are in a position to be able to pay more tax than all of the people who are not as successful.

It's also a question of sheer practicality. We can't have a society of nothing but doctors, lawyers, CEOs and architects. Someone needs to serve you your coffee and someone needs to collect your bins, and we're only willing to pay them so much, and expecting them to pay the same tax as someone on, say, six figures+ is cruel and impossible. They already struggle to pay their way, putting a large tax burden on them makes it so that they're practically feudal serfs. Making you pay a larger tax burden it just a bit annoying for you.

Have you ever been poor?
Have you ever worked a nasty service job?

You seem to have a massive lack of empathy. Your crying about the successful being punished has far less effect on me than the poor waiter getting abused by people daily, or the mother having to explain to her children why their christmas presents are so much worse than your children's.

And on the topic of treating people equally: it's all a matter of perspective. If putting a tax on someone earning minimum wage means they lose 75% of their disposable income, treating you equally would be putting a tax on you that makes you lose 75% of your disposable income. I don't want to do that, but it illustrates my point that some of you guys seem to be ignoring the relationship between take home pay and the cost of living.

this is a matter or perspective, you look at it as the poor getting a discounted tax rate because they can't afford the one the rich 'deserve' to be paying.

I look at it as the rich getting the same tax rate as the poor because they don't deserve to be punished.

If we cut spending we could survive on a lower tax take , cutting taxes makes employing people cheaper which creates more jobs which solves the unemployment problem by itself. I want taxes cut for everyone , unburdening the rich and poor alike, letting the rich keep more money does not mean the poor have to suffer. We also have to remember the fringe benefits that the tax paying working class/ lower middle get that are not accessible to the rich , like medical cards in certain cases, college grants, means tested benefits, public hospitals, public schools etc…

Zillah

Eric Cartman wrote: »

If we cut spending we could survive on a lower tax take , cutting taxes makes employing people cheaper which creates more jobs which solves the unemployment problem by itself. I want taxes cut for everyone , unburdening the rich and poor alike, letting the rich keep more money does not mean the poor have to suffer. We also have to remember the fringe benefits that the tax paying working class/ lower middle get that are not accessible to the rich , like medical cards in certain cases, college grants, means tested benefits, public hospitals, public schools etc…

It's a nice idea - one that gets repeated again and again - but it simply doesn't work in practice. A few examples mentioned here.

Bill Clinton’s tax hike was followed by a huge economic boom, the George W. Bush tax cuts by a weak recovery that ended in financial collapse. The tax increase of 2013 and the coming of Obamacare in 2014 were associated with the best job growth since the 1990s. Jerry Brown’s tax-raising, environmentally conscious California is growing fast; Sam Brownback’s tax- and spending-slashing Kansas isn’t.

The government always spends money that it taxes from the populace, which stimulates the economy. Rich people getting tax breaks tend to just stockpile their wealth, and use it for high frequency trading, which does nothing more than make the market increasingly volatile; or locked away in safe investments, where it barely interacts with the economy at all.

There's no easy way to cut spending. The unemployed are always a soft target, and we just disagree over how miserable their lives should be. Other than that...healthcare? Education? Pensions? It has to come from somewhere and I'd rather rich people pay more and get to replace their BMW less frequently than making poor people pay more and not afford a car at all, or a house at all, or have to move back in with their parents.

It's not about punishing rich people; we're not evil, no one has a chip on their shoulder here.

(EDIT: Really good article on tax vs growth here: http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2015/07/28-state-income-tax-cuts-bad-idea-gale

The states have no good reasons to believe that tax cuts will bring the desired manna. Yet they continue to erode their tax bases in the name of business growth during an era in which few states can afford to cut critical services ranging from education to infrastructure repair. Some ideas live on and on, no matter how much evidence accumulates against them

healthy_cynic

il be voting for renua , i think the flat tax idea is a terrific one , i say that safe in the knowledge however that it will not be implemented , politicans hate the idea of simplifying the tax code as they cannot make themselves look good ( or progressive ) with a simplified system

it shows renua have fresh ideas however

desertcircus

There's a very simple reason why it makes sense to charge wealthier people higher rates of tax than poorer: it's because doing so is more economically productive. People lower down the food chain who get a tax cut use that money to improve their education, save for a rainy day or simply eat better (all of which reduce the cost to the state or providing for them long-term). People at the top of the ladder tend to spend far more on positional goods like property and cars, where a huge proportion of the value is tied up in how many people it puts you ahead of. A flat tax would mean less money spent on education, fewer people successfully saving to buy their own houses, and most of the increased income at the top used to bid up prices on houses in Killiney and Clontarf. A flat tax is simply bad economics.

Eric Cartman

I think its funny that any generalisation of the poor smoking , drinking or being scroungers instantly gets shouted down and said "theres no evidence of that" despite the fact its very visible , yet comments of "all the rich just stockpile wealth" or "the rich dont spend money in the local economy" is completely fine despite there being almost no visible evidence to that effect.

Buying cars and high end goods keep so many manufacturing and primary sector jobs afloat that taxing the rich to a higher level just really ends up hurting the poor , if you stopped burdoning the rich and corporations with higher tax rates youd soon find there would be a lot more jobs which remove people out of the welfare net rather than this groupthink that welfare has to be protected at all costs

healthy_cynic

Eric Cartman wrote: »

I think its funny that any generalisation of the poor smoking , drinking or being scroungers instantly gets shouted down and said "theres no evidence of that" despite the fact its very visible , yet comments of "all the rich just stockpile wealth" or "the rich dont spend money in the local economy" is completely fine despite there being almost no visible evidence to that effect.

Buying cars and high end goods keep so many manufacturing and primary sector jobs afloat that taxing the rich to a higher level just really ends up hurting the poor , if you stopped burdoning the rich and corporations with higher tax rates youd soon find there would be a lot more jobs which remove people out of the welfare net rather than this groupthink that welfare has to be protected at all costs

while in favour of a flat tax , its been shown that in the past decade , corporations were more likely to engage in stock buy backs than in investing in their employees

if a flat tax is to be brought in at 23% , it should include corporations , otherwise it has no legitimacy

K-9

Buying cars isn't that much benefit though, buying houses is more beneficial and look how that worked out. Really all you are creating is more car dealers and stuff, there's not much added benefit really as it's mostly imports.

Eric Cartman

K-9 wrote: »

Buying cars isn't that much benefit though, buying houses is more beneficial and look how that worked out. Really all you are creating is more car dealers and stuff, there's not much added benefit really as it's mostly imports.

But everything is imported , fuel, cigarettes, most of our alcohol , and the cheaper things get the more likely they are to be imports , more disposable income allows people to shop locally instead of in import/discount supermarkets , allows people to buy more expensive cars built in the EU instead of asia, allows people to buy higher priced locally produced clothing, craft beers, soaps, gifts , homewares.

For Forks Sake

Rifter wrote: »

*Reduction in vat on certain goods and services(Milk, eggs, bread etc etc)

How much lower than the current 0% rate would you be planning on going ?

K-9

Eric Cartman wrote: »

But everything is imported , fuel, cigarettes, most of our alcohol , and the cheaper things get the more likely they are to be imports , more disposable income allows people to shop locally instead of in import/discount supermarkets , allows people to buy more expensive cars built in the EU instead of asia, allows people to buy higher priced locally produced clothing, craft beers, soaps, gifts , homewares.

Didn't say there was no benefit. Its like the credit bubble, except Government are giving out the cash to spend on services.

The corporation tax rules are the attraction here, not the rate.

Zillah

Eric Cartman wrote: »

if you stopped burdoning the rich and corporations with higher tax rates youd soon find there would be a lot more jobs which remove people out of the welfare net rather than this groupthink that welfare has to be protected at all costs

Did you read the link I posted above? This doesn't work. It is a fantasy. Please stop repeating it. I would be with you 100% if it worked. Who doesn't like the idea of lower taxes and a better economy? People keep trying it and it doesn't work - it is basically an urban legend that gets repeated all the time to try and justify the rich and powerful paying less taxes.

Weirdly enough, the best way to help the poor is to cut taxes on the poor.

Eric Cartman

Zillah wrote: »

Did you read the link I posted above? This doesn't work. It is a fantasy. Please stop repeating it. I would be with you 100% if it worked. Who doesn't like the idea of lower taxes and a better economy? People keep trying it and it doesn't work - it is basically an urban legend that gets repeated all the time to try and justify the rich and powerful paying less taxes.

Weirdly enough, the best way to help the poor is to cut taxes on the poor.

Well then we just need to redefine where the border is for rich and poor, its currently 32k a year, personally i think it should be 250k a year, and if you abolished USC and some other bits to bring the marginal to 40% that would be of benefit , this business of 51% is a disgrace, if 0% taxation is the free market and 100% taxation is slavery i would say that nobody in good conscience could support a tax over 50%

Skylinehead

Eric Cartman wrote: »

But everything is imported , fuel, cigarettes, most of our alcohol , and the cheaper things get the more likely they are to be imports , more disposable income allows people to shop locally instead of in import/discount supermarkets , allows people to buy more expensive cars built in the EU instead of asia, allows people to buy higher priced locally produced clothing, craft beers, soaps, gifts , homewares.

What "Asian" cars are you thinking here? The likes of Nissan, Hyundai, Toyota, Honda cars for sale in Europe are generally manufactured in Europe.

Zillah

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Well then we just need to redefine where the border is for rich and poor, its currently 32k a year, personally i think it should be 250k a year, and if you abolished USC and some other bits to bring the marginal to 40% that would be of benefit , this business of 51% is a disgrace, if 0% taxation is the free market and 100% taxation is slavery i would say that nobody in good conscience could support a tax over 50%

Did you read the link about how lowering taxes does not boost the economy or create jobs?

Sam Russell

Rifter wrote: »

I would agree that our tax and social welfare system needs a massive overhaul off the top of my head,

*Changes in the tax brackets (properly costed, not a fook the poor and uneducated sweeping axe cut)

I don't agree that there should be a flat rate as it doesn't take into account the realities of the world we live in! If everyone had a Degree/Masters/PhD exactly how would the country run!
*Reform of Social Welfare payments, for instance child benefit
There should be a cut off to the amount of children it's paid out for AND an upper income threshold!
*I do like the motor tax/full tax proposal
*Reduction in vat on certain goods and services(Milk, eggs, bread etc etc)
*Increase in vat on certain goods and services (High end goods e.g. designer products/items)

Flat tax:

This would only work if there was an agressive wealth tax. Keeping the money should be subject to tax to compensate for it not being taxed as income.

Money is like manure - spread it around and it does a lot of good but keep it in a pile and it smells.



Motor Tax:

Current motor tax is calculted in two ways depending on when the car was registered or manufactured.

Pre Jul 2008
It is based on HP or cc of the engine. For example a petrol engined 2 litre car pays €710 per year and does about 10 litres per 100km. So average distance per year is 15,000 km (10,000 miles) which uses 1500 litres. So the same tax would be 710/1500 = 47c per litre tax to get the same return. For a diesel engine, it would be about half this figure because diesels do about twice the distance for the same volume of fuel.

Post Jul 2008, it would be less but not hugely so.

Reduction in vat on certain goods and services(Milk, eggs, bread etc etc)

There is no vat on milk, eggs, or bread. Vat is only on 'luxury' goods like cakes and biscuits. There used to be a 35% VAT on 'luxuries' but that was abolished many years ago.

gandalf

Sam Russell wrote: »

Motor Tax:

Current motor tax is calculted in two ways depending on when the car was registered or manufactured.

Pre Jul 2008
It is based on HP or cc of the engine. For example a petrol engined 2 litre car pays €710 per year and does about 10 litres per 100km. So average distance per year is 15,000 km (10,000 miles) which uses 1500 litres. So the same tax would be 710/1500 = 47c per litre tax to get the same return. For a diesel engine, it would be about half this figure because diesels do about twice the distance for the same volume of fuel.

Post Jul 2008, it would be less but not hugely so.

2 things according to Renua's figures (tbh I don't know where they plucked them from) the admin cost for the current regime is 40% of what is collected. If that's true then there will be a major cost saving as the vast majority of the cost would no longer be warranted under a simplified system. I would hope that the surplus staff that are no longer needed be made redundant and not shifted into non-existent jobs as has happen when previous "reforms" or amalgamations have happened in the PS.

Secondly a 2 litre post 2008 car may only have a tax rate of €225 depending on it's emissions and not €710 and as the car fleet is updated this will become the norm.

Sam Russell

Maybe after VW remove their defeat device, the road tax on a 2 litre diesel registered post 2008 might be €710.

jjmcclure

Zillah wrote: »

Did you read the link I posted above? This doesn't work. It is a fantasy. Please stop repeating it. I would be with you 100% if it worked. Who doesn't like the idea of lower taxes and a better economy? People keep trying it and it doesn't work - it is basically an urban legend that gets repeated all the time to try and justify the rich and powerful paying less taxes.

Weirdly enough, the best way to help the poor is to cut taxes on the poor.

Sorry. It does and can work and there are examples of it working well and to the benefit of all social classes. At the risk of repeating myself, ESTONIA!

The Black Oil

Trying to get onto their website to check their policies...

Unauthorized

This server could not verify that you are authorized to access the document requested. Either you supplied the wrong credentials (e.g., bad password), or your browser doesn't understand how to supply the credentials required.

sunshine and showers

I can't hack their "freedom of conscience" on social issues policy. I'm sorry, that's not how party politics works. I'm going to need to know how your party (and you) will vote on certain things before I vote for you. If you agree with what I think but a load of your colleagues don't, I don't want to be supporting your party and boosting your numbers. I need concrete answers. I need a full social policy outline.

I'm not voting for you to have a wee think about it and pick a side if/when the topic comes up. I need forewarning. If I'm voting for you, I want you to have the same general opinions as me, seeing as I'm voting for you to represent me and my preference. It's representative democracy, not you-can-do-what-you-like-when-elected democracy. (I know, I know, I'm living in fantasy land! :P)

323

HivemindXX wrote: »

Why stop at a flat tax? How is it fair that someone on 100k would pay 20k (for which they get almost nothing right Cartman?) when some slacker who only earns 20k (because they are too lazy to earn more, amiright?) only has to pay 4k?

A flat tax should mean a flat tax. My calculations indicate that everyone should just pay 10k no matter how much they earn. Any shortfall would be made up by eliminating waste and by how much our economy would improve as a result of this.

Now we're talking.

BoJack Horseman

sunshine and showers wrote: »

I can't hack their "freedom of conscience" on social issues policy.

Its a misnomer as well in that politics in Ireland is mortally terrified of social issues.

A truly 'social issue' vote may occur once or at most twice in a term.

FF ran for 3 terms without doing so once.

jjmcclure

Poor Pierce Doherty. I'm watching the VB show. Anyone wanr to make a donation to send him to Cuba or Moscow? One way of course.

323

jjmcclure wrote: »

Sorry. It does and can work and there are examples of it working well and to the benefit of all social classes. At the risk of repeating myself, ESTONIA!

+1

Its only one of the 40 odd countries where it has been proven to work globally. I visit Slovakia a bit, came up in conversation a few times, they and their government also seem very happy with their Flat Tax system, 19% I believe.
Their aim according to the Slovakian Ministry of Finance at the time was to create a tax system that was "light, nondistortive, simple and transparent."
To improve the business climate in Slovakia while improving "tax fairness by taxing all types and all amounts of income equally."

As with Estonia and many others. It has worked.

I think Renua's Flat Tax proposal is a fantastic idea. If it can work in a former Communist country, I believe it can work in Ireland and would do exactly what they say:

1. Reward Work
2. Create Employment
3. Take people out of the welfare/poverty trap
4. Make Ireland an attractive place to work

Like many others, I become totally disillusioned with all politics when still at school. In the 80's. The tit for tat, elections every few months period made it blatantly obvious that voting for FF, FG, Labour or a coalition of one or other was a bit like the Einstein cliche about Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

This is the first time I have seen any political party in Ireland with fresh ideas and the balls to talk about them.
I've never voted in a general election in Ireland. Honestly never thought I would.

I'll vote for them. (Assuming they have a candidate in my constituency)

Geuze

Chris_Heilong wrote: »

At the moment Ireland is taxing 52% including social charges of peoples earnings if they are earning over 42000 euro a year, this is the highest tax bracket here, in the UK you would have to be making over 100k a year to be on the highest tax bracket, the Irish government is raking in the tax.

Yes, the top MTR of 51% does start very early.

However, ATR are low for many people, and so the Govt does not "rake in tax".

BoJack Horseman

323 wrote: »

2. Create Employment
3. Take people out of the welfare/poverty trap
4. Make Ireland an attractive place to work

2: How exactly?
The status quo has not proven to be an impediment to job creation (1,000+ jobs per week).

3: How does raising income taxes on the lowest earning do anything other than create a greater welfare trap!

4: Again, how?
The status quo has not proven to be an impediment to attracting immigrant labour.... On the contrary, Ireland has no issue whatsoever importing workers.


And above all else, Sister Lucinda couldn't explain how their projected €7.5bn contraction in government revenue will be covered or what budgets will be slashed to compensate.
(As an example, Renua's shortfall equates to 90% of education expenditure).

For someone who admittedly takes her instruction from God, Lucinda's lack of detail is alarming.

desertcircus

323 wrote: »

I think Renua's Flat Tax proposal is a fantastic idea. If it can work in a former Communist country, I believe it can work in Ireland and would do exactly what they say:

1. Reward Work
2. Create Employment
3. Take people out of the welfare/poverty trap
4. Make Ireland an attractive place to work

In order:

1. By definition, a flat tax means some people are worse off than they were before. By dint of the fact that you're significantly reducing the tax bill of the very wealthy, you're also increasing the tax bill of everyone else, which comprises a pretty hefty majority if your sums are in any way accurate and properly costed. To phrase it a simpler way: you're doing the exact opposite of rewarding work for most of the working population.

2. If you have actual research showing this - genuine, peer-reviewed research - then please share it with us. Otherwise it's just a bald assertion delivered without evidence, and if you can claim it without evidence I can dismiss it without evidence.

3. See point one: you're increasing the tax bill for the majority of the population. This would worsen the poverty trap by increasing tax bills and reducing take-home pay for people on the poverty line. It would take superhuman levels of doublethink to come to the opposite conclusion.

4. It might make Ireland an attractive place to work for a small minority of high earners. Equally, the reduced tax bills for high earners might just see the price of top-end houses inflate, the charges for private schools to shoot up, and for all that increased income to be eaten by matching price increases for products consumed by high earners - more or less exactly what happened in the US following Bush 43's tax reduction for high earners.

So, in short: a flat tax provides none of the benefits being touted.

The Randy Riverbeast

At what point of gross salary does a person benefit from the 23% flat tax? The tax bands could do with a bit of work but 23% of minimum wage doesnt leave much.

BoJack Horseman

The Randy Riverbeast wrote: »

At what point of gross salary does a person benefit from the 23% flat tax? The tax bands could do with a bit of work but 23% of minimum wage doesnt leave much.

According to a previous post of a tweet, anyone up to nearly €50k would be paying more..

jank

Gringo180 wrote: »

Nothing in return? Anybody earning anywhere near 100k a year has got more than enough in return. They have a great job that pays well and have been educated to get themselves there by the same infastructure that they now pay tax into. This tax system will only impoverish people on low incomes and create unemployment.

You are away with the fairies if you think the majority of welfare recipients spend 200 quid a week drinking and smoking there lives away. Quiet a generalisation if I say so myself.

Say what? Why would this specific enterprise friendly tax plan create unemployment, if anything it would increase employment.

Regarding the plan, I like. They could do well in the next election with the coping classes.

Gringo180

jank wrote: »

Say what? Why would this specific enterprise friendly tax plan create unemployment, if anything it would increase employment.

You answered your own question. Why can't it be employer friendly instead of enterprise friendly? Do you honestly think people will be motivated to work 40 hours a week on minimum wage clearing a pathetic €275. I wouldn't get up out of bed for that.

A flat tax rate only benefits the well off in society and hurts the people on the breadline. We already have a huge gap between the rich and poor in society as it is.

jank

Zillah wrote: »

Did you read the link I posted above? This doesn't work. It is a fantasy. Please stop repeating it. I would be with you 100% if it worked. Who doesn't like the idea of lower taxes and a better economy? People keep trying it and it doesn't work - it is basically an urban legend that gets repeated all the time to try and justify the rich and powerful paying less taxes.

Weirdly enough, the best way to help the poor is to cut taxes on the poor.

Doesn't Hong Kong and Singapore have a flat tax regime? They definitely have a low tax regime and they are both offer the best quality of live among their neighbours.

jank

sunshine and showers wrote: »

I can't hack their "freedom of conscience" on social issues policy. I'm sorry, that's not how party politics works. I'm going to need to know how your party (and you) will vote on certain things before I vote for you. If you agree with what I think but a load of your colleagues don't, I don't want to be supporting your party and boosting your numbers. I need concrete answers. I need a full social policy outline.

I'm not voting for you to have a wee think about it and pick a side if/when the topic comes up. I need forewarning. If I'm voting for you, I want you to have the same general opinions as me, seeing as I'm voting for you to represent me and my preference. It's representative democracy, not you-can-do-what-you-like-when-elected democracy. (I know, I know, I'm living in fantasy land! :P)

So, when people complain about the rigid whip system we have in Ireland, Renua propose that for difficult matters of legislation regarding social issues they offer that their TD's have a conscious vote. Yet, people complain about that as well.
Cant win tbh. Ultimate Irish cynicism displayed right there.

By the way a conscious vote is part of the course here in Australia. It can be done and its one of the reasons why I would vote for a Renua TD. They are not as conservative as you think. They backed Gay marriage and had a Gay candidate in the Carlow/KK by-election who polled quite well.

Gringo180

jank wrote: »

Doesn't Hong Kong and Singapore have a flat tax regime? They definitely have a low tax regime and they are both offer the best quality of live among their neighbours.

Around 20% of the population in Hong Kong live in poverty. Poverty in Singapore grew from 13% in 2002 to 28% as of 2013.

Its 8.2% in Ireland.

323

jank wrote: »

Say what? Why would this specific enterprise friendly tax plan create unemployment, if anything it would increase employment.

Regarding the plan, I like. They could do well in the next election with the coping classes.

"AN ARTFUL taxman, according to Jean-Baptiste Colbert, treasurer to Louis XIV, so plucks the goose as to obtain the most feathers for the least hissing."

But as can be seen from this thread (Karl Marx would be proud), by and large, most of the hissing is from those that already pay very little or no tax.

Unfortunately, the coping class, (mid-career employees, self-employed and small business) who pay most of the tax's in Ireland pretty much go unheard. Think your right, jank. Renua will appeal to many of these who seem to be looked on as nothing more than a cash cow by the present government.

BoJack Horseman

323 wrote: »

Renua will appeal to many of these who seem to be looked on as nothing more than a cash cow

Fun fact....

60% of workers earn below the average industrial wage.
So, as previously mentioned, Renua's "plan" will hurt those earning less than 50k, which amounts the vast bulk of workers.

So, under Renua, the pressed middle will not only have to pay more, but will get less for their money as Lucinda had no answer as to how the €7.5bn tax shortfall will be covered.

323 wrote: »

1. Reward Work
2. Create Employment
3. Take people out of the welfare/poverty trap
4. Make Ireland an attractive place to work

Still waiting for the above to be backed up.

alcaline

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Fun fact....

60% of workers earn below the average industrial wage.
.

Whats the average wage €33,000?
The high earners must be making a fortune to bring it up to €32,000

walshyn93

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Fun fact....

60% of workers earn below the average industrial wage.
So, as previously mentioned, Renua's "plan" will hurt those earning less than 50k, which amounts the vast bulk of workers.

So, under Renua, the pressed middle will not only have to pay more, but will get less for their money as Lucinda had no answer as to how the €7.5bn tax shortfall will be covered.


Still waiting for the above to be backed up.

I think they're all pretty self explanatory but I'll humour you.

People would be more likely to take jobs in ireland in industries such as financial services and medicine. High paying industries. We'd be taking talented high earners from abroad as opposed to exporting doctors and nurses to Canada and Aus because of a crap salary scheme and punishing taxes. Currently we import unskilled workers and drive the cost of labour down to the detriment of our indigenous working class.

The obvious argument for creating employment is more spending in the economy. Now at this point I always hear the argument about marginal propensity to consume. But consume what? It takes a certain amount of people to staff a tesco or penneys. The marginal propensity to increase staff within the industries in which low income earners spend their money is quite low. Less well off people shop at massive stores which hire far fewer staff per euro spent in store than the smaller coffee shops and local supermarkets in which the more well off spend their money. The argument about propensity to consume is a false economy that benefits the behemoths at the expense of smaller competitors.

As for taking people out of the poverty trap. I wouldn't support this flat tax unless it was accompanied by a negative income tax for low earners and a cutting of services. In other words I wouldn't support it unless it was part of a plan to make everyone more self sufficient productive and well off.

Incidentally the main reason we have such dominance of large companies is because of the huge spending power that low income people have. This has negative consequence right throughout the supply chain all the way back to farmers who are getting hammered by unequal producer supplier power relationships.

BoJack Horseman

walshyn93 wrote: »

People would be more likely to take jobs in ireland in industries such as financial services and medicine.

You need to prove that the status quo is inhibiting foreign (and domestic) workers from taking up these roles in Ireland, citing income tax rates as the reason.
Otherwise, you are making an assumption.... something Lucinda did a lot last week.

We'd be taking talented high earners from abroad

Ireland already does.

as opposed to exporting doctors and nurses to Canada and Aus because of a crap salary scheme and punishing taxes.

Nowt to do with the lack of positions due to the PS recruitment embargo?

Currently we import unskilled workers and drive the cost of labour down to the detriment of our indigenous working class.

And increasing taxes for low-income workers improves this how?
Similarly, what has this got to do with a 40% reduction in PAYE rates for higher income workers?

And what of the deficit?

MRnotlob606

Not a hope in hell I'll vote for them. Bunch of free market fundamentalists.

walshyn93

You need to prove that the status quo is inhibiting foreign (and domestic) workers from taking up these roles in Ireland, citing income tax rates as the reason.
Otherwise, you are making an assumption.... something Lucinda did a lot last week.

Here's proof that our tax system is causing a brain drain.

http://www.independent.ie/business/jobs/bruton-wants-30pc-emigrant-tax-to-lure-highly-skilled-back-to-ireland-31580155.html

You can dismiss it as assumptions if you want. Basic assumptions have to be made for any economic strategy to exist. One of them is that people move when they can have a better quality of life elsewhere and haven't got deep roots. Or when their skills are more fairly compensated elsewhere.

Ireland doesn't take nearly as many high earners as it does low earners. Even proportionally speaking.

What embargo? Have you been paying attention? The PS has been hiring for quite a while, but even our private sector can't compete with the private sectors of the UK, Aus, USA, Canada and it could if we stopped taxing the middle class so much. Is that too much of an assumption to make?

As your last two points, I've already mentioned that I wouldn't support this unless it was accompanied by a negative income tax for low income workers so that they could afford to pay for services like healthcare and education themselves. So your accusations that I support an eat the poor tax strategy are way off.

For the deficit, cutting public services and using the money saved to fund a negative income tax would leave workers with enough to pay for healthcare. The reduced need for a social safety net means less of a burden on the DoSP and the DoH, our two biggest money holes.