Simple ways gov could save money

Kat1170

Godge wrote: »

So let me get this right.

The single male banker on the fat salary who can afford to change his car every year for the latest €60k efficient model and only drives to and from work (buses are for little people and taxis at the weekend) pays very little motor tax.

On the other hand, the widowed mother of five, driving a 20-year old inefficient banger of a mini-bus pays a fortune in motor tax.

Am I getting that right?

Sure that's the way it is now

brianwalshcork

Godge wrote: »

So let me get this right.

The single male banker on the fat salary who can afford to change his car every year for the latest €60k efficient model and only drives to and from work (buses are for little people and taxis at the weekend) pays very little motor tax.

On the other hand, the widowed mother of five, driving a 20-year old inefficient banger of a mini-bus pays a fortune in motor tax.

Am I getting that right?

Chances are she's already paying more than him under the current system.

Speedwell

Kat1170 wrote: »

Sure that's the way it is now

With the insurance companies refusing to even insure older cars, it's even worse than that.

AndyBoBandy

Godge wrote: »

So let me get this right.

The single male banker on the fat salary who can afford to change his car every year for the latest €60k efficient model and only drives to and from work (buses are for little people and taxis at the weekend) pays very little motor tax.

On the other hand, the widowed mother of five, driving a 20-year old inefficient banger of a mini-bus pays a fortune in motor tax.

Am I getting that right?

good point.

Maybe different rates would be applied to different cars/vehicle types at the pump?
As you pull up at the pump, the pump reads the chip in your car (incidentally the same chip mentioned above thats read at border crossings & ferry terminals), and applies the rate of tax applicable to your particular vehicle (on top of the current price of fuel + VAT).
This same system could be also applied to commercial vehicles and VAT, which they claim back, maybe it's just not taken from them in the first place? (means cheaper initial outlay in fuel costs for a business, which can't be bad?)

EndaHonesty

AndyBoBandy wrote: »

They don't have to administer/issue tax disc's anymore, the motor tax office becomes redundant.

your motor tax is loaded onto your fuel at the pump.

if you drive an economical car (or even just drive economically), you buy less fuel - pay less tax.
if you drive a 4.0 Jag/Range Rover (like a tool, or even just normally), you use a lot more fuel, you pay a lot more tax.

Do you not think there is enough tax on fuel already?

draiochtanois

This post has been deleted.

AndyBoBandy

EndaHonesty wrote: »

Do you not think there is enough tax on fuel already?

There is,
This will be motor tax (a tax we all currently pay) paid at the fuel pump on a pay as you drive basis, and not paid by the current method of paying a lump sum every 3/6/9/12 months.

EndaHonesty

AndyBoBandy wrote: »

There is,
This will be motor tax (a tax we all currently pay) paid at the fuel pump on a pay as you drive basis, and not paid by the current method of paying a lump sum every 3/6/9/12 months.

So you're advocating more tax on fuel? A product that is already taxed at around 200%?

AndyBoBandy

EndaHonesty wrote: »

So you're advocating more tax on fuel? A product that is already taxed at around 200%?

I don't think you've fully read or understand my post/idea.

we already pay motor tax. we would stop paying it in its current form. and instead start paying in a new way (motor tax levy on fuel).

I pay €710 a year to tax my car. I would stop paying this lump sum every year, and instead pay it as a levy on the fuel I buy. Ideally (for the Government) this levy would add up to €710 per year. If however I chose to drive a lot more, I would pay more. If I drove a lot less, I would pay a lot less.

Its essentially a pay as you drive version of motor tax.

EndaHonesty

AndyBoBandy wrote: »

I don't think you've fully read or understand my post/idea.

we already pay motor tax. we would stop paying in the current way. and start paying in the new way (on fuel).

I pay €710 a year to tax my car. I would stop paying this lump sum every year, and instead pay it as a levy on the fuel I buy. Ideally (for the Government) this levy would add up to €710 per year. If however I chose to drive a lot more, I would pay more. If I drove a lot less, I would pay a lot less.

Its essentially a pay as you drive version of motor tax.

I understand your idea. It's silly, advocating MORE tax on a product which is already overtaxed.

Why not demand more efficiency? Or demand lower taxes? Instead of doing the politician's jobs for them and giving them the idea that MORE taxes are somehow ok!

draiochtanois

This post has been deleted.

AndyBoBandy

EndaHonesty wrote: »

I understand your idea.

Clearly, you don't.

EndaHonesty wrote: »

I understand your idea. It's silly, advocating MORE tax on a product is already overtaxed.

more tax on 1 product, but another tax disappears. you do get the bit where we stop paying motor tax in its current form.

the motor tax office is no longer required, the printing & posting of tax discs is no longer required. its a simple way the government could save money.

Pat Mustard

Oireachtas envelopes.

These are abused by TDs and Senators sending Christmas cards, at the expense of the taxpayer.

Get rid of Oireachtas envelopes and make the TD/Senators accountable for postage costs, like every other expense.

EndaHonesty

AndyBoBandy wrote: »

Clearly, you don't.




more tax on 1 product, but another tax disappears. you do get the bit where we stop paying motor tax in its current form.

the motor tax office is no longer required, the printing & posting of tax discs is no longer required. its a simple way the government could save money.

Listen don't flatter yourself, your idea is neither new nor clever. It's dumb.

There's already too much tax on fuel, there's already too much tax on everything.
People need to start demanding better, more efficient use of the existing tax take, not doing the politician's jobs for them.

screamer

Id make having private health insurance and medical cards mutually exclusive.
Also limit the number of gp visits covered on medical cards annually or else charge 10 euro per visit to cut down on the number of unnecessary trips.
Introduce a no contribution no pay out rule for social welfare too.

barneystinson

Speedwell wrote: »

Speaking as a database professional, one simple way for the government to save money is to clean up their data... remove duplicates, consolidate records, manage errors, modernize obsolete processes, more effectively manage access, reconsider interface design.

All of those things would be cheap, would they? Are database professionals cheap to hire?!?

cruizer101

EndaHonesty wrote: »

Listen don't flatter yourself, your idea is neither new nor clever. It's dumb.

There's already too much tax on fuel, there's already too much tax on everything.
People need to start demanding better, more efficient use of the existing tax take, not doing the politician's jobs for them.

Thread title is 'Simple ways gov could save money'. what is proposed is to move one tax to another place, which will give the government the same amount of money, will result in some people paying a bit more some a bit less, AND importantly to thread title will save money.

As much as you may not like the idea it is a simple way the gov could save moeny, as per thread title

EndaHonesty

cruizer101 wrote: »

Thread title is 'Simple ways gov could save money'. what is proposed is to move one tax to another place, which will give the government the same amount of money, will result in some people paying a bit more some a bit less, AND importantly to thread title will save money.

As much as you may not like the idea it is a simple way the gov could save moeny, as per thread title

:rolleyes: this is a discussion forum...

Godge

draiochtanois wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

OK. It seems I misunderstood. Thought he was getting rid of VRT as well.

Sam Russell

screamer wrote: »

Id make having private health insurance and medical cards mutually exclusive.

That is possible but I doubt it would save much. Very few of the uder 70s would have both, and the latest cut the MC to the over 70s earning much, so not many have both, and only have it to make certain they have cover and it would be cruel to take the card off them as they no doubt make great sacrifices to have both.

Also limit the number of gp visits covered on medical cards annually or else charge 10 euro per visit to cut down on the number of unnecessary trips.

First part - what happens if all the visits are used up and then a serious matter turns up? What about sickly children? How do chidhood cancers work?

Introduce a no contribution no pay out rule for social welfare too.

Another one that hurts hard cases.

Tackling social welfare is a hard one as one would assume that social welfare is for the weakest in society - but of course it is also for the feckless and the spongers. It is telling the difference between the worthy and the not so worthy there is the problem. Even the Victorians had trouble with that one.

Red Kev

Sign on once a week, not once a month. It will stop the tourist unemployed. My brother currently works in the UK on a site with about 150 other Irish. About 50 of them feck off every 4th Wednesday to sign on.

Planes are booked months in advance so it doesn't cost a lot. There's a couple of Polish and Lithuanian lads doing it as well!

If you live more than 10 miles from a signing on office you only sign on once every three months. That needs to stop as well.

All payments in the Post Office as well, there's still a good few getting it in the bank.


Max pension for TD's of €50K, for Ministers €60K, if you get a European pension on top of that then you forfeit your Irish one.

Speedwell

Sure, the powerful have got us "little people" all turning on each other. We're proposing being harsh on the needy because we all know, or have been, needy people. But as the Panama papers show, we don't know **** about the millions and billions wasted and stolen at the top. How many people could that feed and house?

OU812

They could stop getting taxis. Mate of mine is a taxi driver & a regular job for him is DoF in government buildings to an office in Mount street. Usually a 20 minute wait at the DoF, then round to Mount Street, wait of anything between 10 minutes and an hour & then back to DoF... all on the meter. The office on Mount St is no more than a ten minute walk away. If there's several of these types of jobs going on every day, then that's hundreds of thousands a year in expenditure

Geuze

Red Kev wrote: »

Max pension for TD's of €50K, for Ministers €60K, if you get a European pension on top of that then you forfeit your Irish one.

TDs earn 87k, so the max pension is 43.5k.

maryishere

Red Kev wrote: »

Sign on once a week, not once a month. It will stop the tourist unemployed. My brother currently works in the UK on a site with about 150 other Irish. About 50 of them feck off every 4th Wednesday to sign on.

Planes are booked months in advance so it doesn't cost a lot. There's a couple of Polish and Lithuanian lads doing it as well!

If you live more than 10 miles from a signing on office you only sign on once every three months. That needs to stop as well.

All payments in the Post Office as well, there's still a good few getting it in the bank.

Well said. And it has been claimed sometimes that there is sometimes fraud across the border with N. Ireland too. Would not surprise me.

GaryTLynch

A pretty broad and simple statement here, but a no brainer as far as I can see: Eliminate TD 'expenses'. They're paid more than enough. They should cover their own miscellaneous day to day costs like the rest of us. It's never going to happen, I know, but that's my two cents.

afatbollix

Deedsie wrote: »

Coming at it from a different angle but I think the government could make better use of RTÉ television. They could broadcast free ad campaigns to encourage and educate people how to recycle, compost and dispose of their waste properly. Why people shouldn't litter etc.

They could broadcast ads on how to drive, cycle and walk with due care and consideration for other road users. I know they do this already a little but I think the should increase it and film the same accident scenario from different type of road users perspective

I just think the government use RTÉ as a public service for informing people of more basic issues that could improve all of our day to day lives.

Maybe we should just send everyone back to school to teach them how to put cardboard in a recycling bin. :rolleyes:

Also who would pay for it? Camera men have to be paid. The arts budget has been cut already by someone above so you have no money to play with.

doc11

Godge wrote: »

So let me get this right.

The single male banker on the fat salary who can afford to change his car every year for the latest €60k efficient model and only drives to and from work (buses are for little people and taxis at the weekend) pays very little motor tax.

On the other hand, the widowed mother of five, driving a 20-year old inefficient banger of a mini-bus pays a fortune in motor tax.

Am I getting that right?

The idea is actually worse then that essentially under the pay as you go plan. The rich banker in Dublin can use public transport/taxis to work and use his trophy car at the weekend pays less tax while the rural motorist who'd be poorer, have greater need, travel greater distance, have little public transport and drive older car would pay more.

machiavellianme

mfceiling wrote: »

Put road tax on to fuel.

No more tax offices. No more discs. No more checkpoints for it. The more you drive the more you pay. Everyone pays...no loopholes.

My poor lawnmower won't thank you for this!

machiavellianme

onrail wrote: »

Easy one to start - peg Public Sector salaries to those private sector.

In my line of work (Engineering) public sector are paid 10-20% more than equivalent roles in the private sector... and have a much less stressful time of it.

Even if pay levels were similar, I'm confident that 90% of those in the private sector would jump at the chance to take a public job!

Not sure what sort of engineering you are involved in but as a semi state employee working in eng, I can tell you that this is false. People are leaving the company in their droves for the private sector. My team is 33 per cent smaller since Christmas and more are due to leave in the next month.

AndyBoBandy

machiavellianme wrote: »

My poor lawnmower won't thank you for this!

It has a motor. It pays motor tax.

machiavellianme

AndyBoBandy wrote: »

It has a motor. It pays motor tax.

Your washing machine and tumble dryer have motors. Should they pay motor tax too?
What about your shower pump? or your central heating system?

Fr Tod Umptious

Red Kev wrote: »

Sign on once a week, not once a month. It will stop the tourist unemployed. My brother currently works in the UK on a site with about 150 other Irish. About 50 of them feck off every 4th Wednesday to sign on.

Planes are booked months in advance so it doesn't cost a lot. There's a couple of Polish and Lithuanian lads doing it as well!

If you live more than 10 miles from a signing on office you only sign on once every three months. That needs to stop as well.

All payments in the Post Office as well, there's still a good few getting it in the bank.


Max pension for TD's of €50K, for Ministers €60K, if you get a European pension on top of that then you forfeit your Irish one.

But wouldn't signing on once a week mean more staff and overheads to process the payments, both front and back office, which would cost more ?

Surely the move to the current system was to save money in the first place.

Susandublin

mfceiling wrote: »

Put road tax on to fuel.

No more tax offices. No more discs. No more checkpoints for it. The more you drive the more you pay. Everyone pays...no loopholes.

People would go up North for petrol but a good idea if they did the same too.

Save most by having performance appraisals in public sector - bottom 10% get removed annually. Some of the carry on in my place is crazy - if people knew the half of it there would be uproar!

Fr Tod Umptious

GaryTLynch wrote: »

A pretty broad and simple statement here, but a no brainer as far as I can see: Eliminate TD 'expenses'. They're paid more than enough. They should cover their own miscellaneous day to day costs like the rest of us. It's never going to happen, I know, but that's my two cents.

So TDs from furthest away locations should be penalised ?

Why don't you just cut the salaries based on location.

Dublin TDs are paid less cos they incur less cost in traveling to Dail Eireann.

And pay Kerry or Donegal TDs more as their cost is higher.

Speedwell

Susandublin wrote: »

People would go up North for petrol but a good idea if they did the same too.

Save most by having performance appraisals in public sector - bottom 10% get removed annually. Some of the carry on in my place is crazy - if people knew the half of it there would be uproar!

I can agree with removing the bottom ten percent for a few years, no longer. And that only in principle. I worked for an international company that did this. It was bad for morale and team spirit, it was bad for projects, it was more expensive to hire and train than to retain, good people in the industry didn't want to work for us, and on top of that the whole paradigm was soundly debunked when a number of studies came out proving it didn't have a significant net positive effect on measures of productivity, work satisfaction, or the bottom line.

Knowing what we know about the public sector, what are the odds that such an ongoing policy would be applied effectively or fairly? How many decent, caring people do you want to see kicked to the curb before the whole public sector becomes nothing but a sales department?

AndyBoBandy

machiavellianme wrote: »

Your washing machine and tumble dryer have motors. Should they pay motor tax too?
What about your shower pump? or your central heating system?

No because they are not internal combustion motors.

AndyBoBandy

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Dublin TDs are paid less cos they incur less cost in traveling to Dail Eireann

Try telling that to Ivor Callely

Fr Tod Umptious

Speedwell wrote: »

I can agree with removing the bottom ten percent for a few years, no longer. And that only in principle. I worked for an international company that did this. It was bad for morale and team spirit, it was bad for projects, it was more expensive to hire and train than to retain, good people in the industry didn't want to work for us, and on top of that the whole paradigm was soundly debunked when a number of studies came out proving it didn't have a significant net positive effect on measures of productivity, work satisfaction, or the bottom line.

Knowing what we know about the public sector, what are the odds that such an ongoing policy would be applied effectively or fairly? How many decent, caring people do you want to see kicked to the curb before the whole public sector becomes nothing but a sales department?

Sounds more like a Stalinist purge than an modern company.

Speedwell

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Sounds more like a Stalinist purge than an modern company.

Works like one, too. Yeah.

If anyone wants to look up the philosophy behind this and the problems with its implementation, google "rank and yank".

machiavellianme

AndyBoBandy wrote: »

No because they are not internal combustion motors.

That's not what you said: "It has a motor-it pays motor tax"!
Now you're changing the goal posts and thereby providing exemptions to the growing sector of electric vehicles that have no ICE. A sector that the government had (at one point) targeted to account for 10% of all private vehicles by 2020.

AndyBoBandy

machiavellianme wrote: »

That's not what you said: "It has a motor-it pays motor tax"!
Now you're changing the goal posts and thereby providing exemptions to the growing sector of electric vehicles that have no ICE. A sector that the government had (at one point) targeted to account for 10% of all private vehicles by 2020.

Apologies for not going into a 200 page report detailing the exact terms of how the tax would be applied, and what motors it applied to. This is just a boards thread and I felt that the minuscule levels of detail wouldn't be required at such an early stage.

I would of assumed though that anyone who read my post/idea would have grasped the idea that a motor tax paid on top of fuel (diesel/petrol), would therefore not have any relation to electric motors found in washing machines & showers, unless of course they run on diesel/petrol.

I didn't really change the goal posts, you just weren't on the pitch.

machiavellianme

AndyBoBandy wrote: »

I didn't really change the goal posts, you just weren't on the pitch.

Just like Enda didn't really call anyone a whinger in the run up to the election.
This sums up politics here: someone points out the difficulties in the applicability or definition of a policy so the proposer starts backtracking, changing the parameters and name calling.

Besides, you've completely ignored my point about electric vehicles.

RainyDay

Susandublin wrote: »

Some of the carry on in my place is crazy - if people knew the half of it there would be uproar!

So let people know then. That's the joy of working in the public sector - almost all information is available through FOI or PQs or nosey journalists. If there is crazy stuff going on, shine a bloody big light on it.

AndyBoBandy

machiavellianme wrote: »

Just like Enda didn't really call anyone a whinger in the run up to the election.
This sums up politics here: someone points out the difficulties in the applicability or definition of a policy so the proposer starts backtracking, changing the parameters and name calling.

Would you ever give over, its a light hearted thread about possible ways a government could save money. We're not implementing any policy, just making suggestions that from the outside, look obvious, but indeed, perhaps they are unworkable silly ideas, but theres no need to turn into the boards police because you've found flaws in an idea.

machiavellianme wrote: »

you've completely ignored my point about electric vehicles.

ok, so electric vehicles will pay a flat rate of €100 motor tax per annum, deducted by the insurance companies on behalf of the government.
when EV ownership in Ireland reaches 10-15% it goes up to €150 and so on. in that way, the earliest adopters of the technology pay the least while EV ownership is still relatively low.

Sam Russell

In the thirties, there was a suggestion that congestion in the corridors of the government offices would be reduced if they painted a white line down the centre and if everyone kept left, that way the people arriving late would not bump into the people leaving early.

The whole project was abandoned when it was realised that the people arriving late were the people leaving early.

RainyDay

AndyBoBandy wrote: »

Would you ever give over, its a light hearted thread about possible ways a government could save money. We're not implementing any policy, just making suggestions that from the outside, look obvious, but indeed, perhaps they are unworkable silly ideas, but theres no need to turn into the boards police because you've found flaws in an idea.

Unfortunately, much of the debate around 'public sector savings' run along these lines. The 'obvious' solutions for saving money have generally been tried and failed, or are unworkable for reasons well known to those who work in the area, but not so well known to the armchair experts who take pleasure in griping about everything.

L1011

onrail wrote: »

Easy one to start - peg Public Sector salaries to those private sector.

In my line of work (Engineering) public sector are paid 10-20% more than equivalent roles in the private sector... and have a much less stressful time of it.

Even if pay levels were similar, I'm confident that 90% of those in the private sector would jump at the chance to take a public job!

In mine, public sector workers are paid about 60% less at many grades - you aren't going to save much doing this

BoJack Horseman

L1011 wrote: »

In mine, public sector workers are paid about 60% less at many grades - you aren't going to save much doing this

What area of the PS pays just 40% of what the private sector pays?

L1011

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

What area of the PS pays just 40% of what the private sector pays?

Middle to senior IT roles would be my area. Most of the pay scales max out at about 75k for roles that would be pulling solid six figures (and share options in a listed US firm). Starting points on them are even lower.

I believe senior accountancy roles are similarly affected.