I'm sick to death of being taxed to death !

RedPandaDan

marienbad wrote: »

and on top of all that the government gives you a 1000 euro a week because I am so great and it is still not your fault .

And don't forget, he was talking about dole scroungers earlier in the thread! I would laugh but I am paying for it all.

holyhead

RedPandaDan wrote: »

Inheritance tax can be used to pay for essential services too.

Same argument is true of any tax in that case RPD. Lets agree to disagree about the merits of inheritance tax.

marienbad

holyhead wrote: »

Same argument is true of any tax in that case RPD. Lets agree to disagree about the merits of inheritance tax.

That is the whole point I think , every tax can be questioned as unfair .

holyhead

marienbad wrote: »

That is the whole point I think , every tax can be questioned as unfair .

Most people, I think accept the existence of income tax, vat and corporation tax.

wolfeye

I'd rather just a consumption tax and wages from work,investments and savings being tax free.
More incentive to work,do over time.
Plus everyone pays consumption tax.

marienbad

holyhead wrote: »

Most people, I think accept the existence of income tax, vat and corporation tax.

Most people accept inheritance tax also , excepting those who have to pay it . So it is like all taxes , water property paye etc .

holyhead

marienbad wrote: »

Most people accept inheritance tax also , excepting those who have to pay it . So it is like all taxes , water property paye etc .

I actually have paid water taxes and have no problem with the concept of a tax on water. Your getting something from a service provider and rightly so paying for it. It should, theoretically, if the Govt have the balls to not back down, help reduce waste through more efficient consumption and the fixing of leaks.

marienbad

holyhead wrote: »

I actually have paid water taxes and have no problem with the concept of a tax on water. Your getting something from a service provider and rightly so paying for it. It should, theoretically, if the Govt have the balls to not back down, help reduce waste through more efficient consumption and the fixing of leaks.

Yeah I agree with you on water tax property tax etc ,I also paid them and would have preferred if we had stuck with them .

Yourself isit

marienbad wrote: »

Most people accept inheritance tax also , excepting those who have to pay it . So it is like all taxes , water property paye etc .

Actually there's a very large hostility to inheritance taxes in this country. Maybe it's the farmer background.

K-9

RedPandaDan wrote: »

And post like that and talking about others have childish ideas?

How embarrassing.

Mod:
Don't make posts personal, attacking the ideas in a post is fine, calling them childish or embarrassing doesn't help in a serious political discussion board.

worded

Two new tax ideas .... if they could, they would

A gravity tax - don't pay and you float off into space

An oxygen tax - those who don't pay cant breath

Jimmy Garlic

worded wrote: »

Two new tax ideas .... if they could, they would

A gravity tax - don't pay and you float off into space

An oxygen tax - those who don't pay cant breath

Don't be giving them ideas. Seriously. We are carbon based life forms that exhale Co2 and they are going to tax that.

RedPandaDan

Yourself isit wrote: »

Actually there's a very large hostility to inheritance taxes in this country. Maybe it's the farmer background.

I think its more to do with the benefits of large inheritance taxes are somewhat opaque but having to pay that tax are very apparent to the individual.

Dynastic wealth reduction, economic growth, etc. sound great and are great, but everyone probably will inherit something at some point in their lives.

FreudianSlippers

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

No. I asked you to define what you meant by 'middle class' in an Irish context. You responded by linking to a document that didn't define the term or even contain the words. If you consider, when I point this out, that I'm point scoring, then you need to re-evaluate your understanding of discussion and fact.

Anyhoo, my understanding of middle class is people on a higher income than 32-50k. In my opinion I would say that middle class is the class below very wealthy so anybody over 70k is 'middle class'

I lost half my initial long post, so here's the truncated version:


Ok, despite telling me to read the NERI document, clearly you did not. Which is frustrating to say the least.

50% of the country have gross income less than €40,330; the top 20% have an income over €84,046; "middle class" therefore cannot be anyone over €84,046 by definition.

The poorest 20% have gross incomes less than €19,484 - these would be the "working poor"; €20k-€30k (approx) the "working class"; €30k-€50k (approx) the "lower middle class"; €50k (approx) - €84,046 the "upper middle class"; etc.

In spite of that, let's go back and look at what I would suggest in economics is a pretty well established income class calculation (Atkinson and Brandolini) which is used by the OECD. Now, this particularly is where the NERI document comes in quite handy - I'll (edit: I said "you'll" first accidentally! :pac: ) have to apologise, I made the presumption that since you were in this forum and discussing matters that you would have been aware of this stuff.

Employing the above method in line with the NERI document, you calculate the poverty threshold at 60% of the median equivalent income.

So we have €40,330 * 0.6 = €24,198

Precarious class is 60%-75% or €24,198-€30,247

Lower Middle class is 75%-125% or €30,248-€50,412

Upper Middle class is 125%-166% or €50,413-€66,948

Affluent class is 167+ or €66,949+


This is, effectively, exactly what NERI has in their 1st chart to which I linked. NERI does the next logical step though in calculating disposable income as a result of taxation, which they suggest skews the chart a bit on the upper ends. They, therefore, raise the "affluent" threshold to €84,046, which makes sense when you look at the median of disposable income based on the above percentages and then reverse calculate the gross incomes.

Therefore, the middle class in Ireland is €30,248 to €84,046 - exactly as stated in the NERI document to which I linked.


Sigh.

FreudianSlippers

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Wealth redistribution is the state's business.

SMH - it isn't and shouldn't be.

RedPandaDan

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

SMH - it isn't and shouldn't be.

Why not? Aren't most taxes exercises in wealth redistribution?

FreudianSlippers

Yourself isit wrote: »

Actually there's a very large hostility to inheritance taxes in this country. Maybe it's the farmer background.

That makes no sense given there is a 90% exemption for farmers on CAT.

FreudianSlippers

RedPandaDan wrote: »

Why not? Aren't most taxes exercises in wealth redistribution?

They are, but the government should not have its sole purpose be to redistribute wealth. Market redistribution is more effective in many cases with a guiding hand and regulation by the government.

Professor Moriarty

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I lost half my initial long post, so here's the truncated version:


Ok, despite telling me to read the NERI document, clearly you did not. Which is frustrating to say the least.

50% of the country have gross income less than €40,330; the top 20% have an income over €84,046; "middle class" therefore cannot be anyone over €84,046 by definition.

The poorest 20% have gross incomes less than €19,484 - these would be the "working poor"; €20k-€30k (approx) the "working class"; €30k-€50k (approx) the "lower middle class"; €50k (approx) - €84,046 the "upper middle class"; etc.

In spite of that, let's go back and look at what I would suggest in economics is a pretty well established income class calculation (Atkinson and Brandolini) which is used by the OECD. Now, this particularly is where the NERI document comes in quite handy - I'll (edit: I said "you'll" first accidentally! :pac: ) have to apologise, I made the presumption that since you were in this forum and discussing matters that you would have been aware of this stuff.

Employing the above method in line with the NERI document, you calculate the poverty threshold at 60% of the median equivalent income.

So we have €40,330 * 0.6 = €24,198

Precarious class is 60%-75% or €24,198-€30,247

Lower Middle class is 75%-125% or €30,248-€50,412

Upper Middle class is 125%-166% or €50,413-€66,948

Affluent class is 167+ or €66,949+


This is, effectively, exactly what NERI has in their 1st chart to which I linked. NERI does the next logical step though in calculating disposable income as a result of taxation, which they suggest skews the chart a bit on the upper ends. They, therefore, raise the "affluent" threshold to €84,046, which makes sense when you look at the median of disposable income based on the above percentages and then reverse calculate the gross incomes.

Therefore, the middle class in Ireland is €30,248 to €84,046 - exactly as stated in the NERI document to which I linked.


Sigh.

Sigh.

I'm beginning to think you might not fully understand the words you use.

You're all over the shop. You link to a doc that does not contain the words 'middle' and 'class' when asked to define 'middle class'. Then you state that the middle class is defined as having an income of 32-52k. Now you've changed your mind and are claiming that it's 30-84k. Please do quote from the NERI doc where it 'exactly' states that "the middle class in Ireland is €30,248 to €84,046". In your own time.

Sigh.

Professor Moriarty

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

SMH - it isn't and shouldn't be.

It is the state's business. As part of governing a society, the state should redistribute wealth.

Professor Moriarty

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

They are, but the government should not have its sole purpose be to redistribute wealth. Market redistribution is more effective in many cases with a guiding hand and regulation by the government.

Who is claiming that wealth redistribution is government's "sole purpose"?

FreudianSlippers

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Sigh.

I'm beginning to think you might not fully understand the words you use.

You're all over the shop. You link to a doc that does not contain the words 'middle' and 'class' when asked to define 'middle class'. Then you state that the middle class is defined as having an income of 32-52k. Now you've changed your mind and are claiming that it's 30-84k. Please do quote from the NERI doc where it 'exactly' states that "the middle class in Ireland is €30,248 to €84,046".

This is pretty frustrating now. So because the NERI doesn't say "the middle class is..." you don't understand it?

I have outlined how the OECD defines middle class and the percentages are defined. Those are clearly then listed in the first chart on the NERI document and they match the OECD definition when calculated in line with net/gross income.

Your opinion on what the middle class is or isn't is worthless. It's factual, not opinions.

I'm starting to think you might not be a professor after all. :rolleyes:

In your own time.

Not gonna sink to your level on this tbh. I've outlined the facts and the rationale for the increase vis-a-vis the gross upper end of the "middle class". It can't be stated more plainly IMO.

I don't work in economics, but my undergrad degree was law and economics... this feel all fairly basic tbf.

lawred2

TheAnalyst_ wrote: »

I was in the same place a few years ago. There is only one way out of this mess and that is to leave. Can you imagine having all that tax money as spare cash in a similar cost country. It's every bit as good as you imagined. 
So much stress just lifts and you can buy whatever you like.

Where did you go?

Professor Moriarty

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

This is pretty frustrating now. So because the NERI doesn't say "the middle class is..." you don't understand it?

I have outlined how the OECD defines middle class and the percentages are defined. Those are clearly then listed in the first chart on the NERI document and they match the OECD definition when calculated in line with net/gross income.

Your opinion on what the middle class is or isn't is worthless. It's factual, not opinions.

I'm starting to think you might not be a professor after all. :rolleyes:



Not gonna sink to your level on this tbh. I've outlined the facts and the rationale for the increase vis-a-vis the gross upper end of the "middle class". It can't be stated more plainly IMO.

I don't work in economics, but my undergrad degree was law and economics... this feel all fairly basic tbf.

Ok. Let's forget the point-scoring. In what way do you think the middle class is unfairly squeezed?

lawred2

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Sigh.

I'm beginning to think you might not fully understand the words you use.

You're all over the shop. You link to a doc that does not contain the words 'middle' and 'class' when asked to define 'middle class'. Then you state that the middle class is defined as having an income of 32-52k. Now you've changed your mind and are claiming that it's 30-84k. Please do quote from the NERI doc where it 'exactly' states that "the middle class in Ireland is €30,248 to €84,046". In your own time.

Sigh.

30k maybe somewhat near a median or average income but it's certainly not a middle class income.

The middle class is shrinking. Our economy is massively imbalanced. Too top heavy and too bottom heavy.

Professor Moriarty

lawred2 wrote: »

30k maybe somewhat near a median or average income but it's certainly not a middle class income.

The middle class is shrinking. Our economy is massively imbalanced. Too top heavy and too bottom heavy.

It is distorted. But when you think about it, almost all sections of society have better lives now than 30 years ago. They certainly have more income and more stuff whatever about access to a decent health service.

Wanderer78

Professor Moriarty wrote:

It is distorted. But when you think about it, almost all sections of society have better lives now than 30 years ago. They certainly have more income and more stuff whatever about access to a decent health service.

I think we have been fooled a bit by our own success, I agree with many post-Keynesian economist that there's simply too much debt around now, I particularly like Michael Hudsons use of the term 'dept peonage', and I'd have to agree with him. There's something fundamentally going wrong with our economic systems and I do believe this is largely due to fundamentally flawed economic theories and principles such as neoliberalism and neoclassical theory.

Most certainly we have major improvements in our lives now than 30 years ago but these theories and principles have brought a lot of baggage with them. I personally believe neoclassical theory could be one of the main reasons why we have ever increasing mental health issues globally, amongst other things of course.

FreudianSlippers

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Ok. Let's forget the point-scoring. In what way do you think the middle class is unfairly squeezed?

Unless you're living under a rock, I think it's pretty well known that the middle class has been the hardest hit of all groups post-2008.

In the period 2008-2012, in terms of class polarization and the "middle class squeeze" (i) there was no significant negative impact on moving from social class to income class (ii) the largest impact was on the "lower middle class" followed by the "affluent class" and "upper middle class", followed then by the "income poor" and "precarious class".

UCD published a paper on economic stress which I can't access at the moment but have previously linked to in the Cafe (if you dare venture there! ).

I'm lucky enough based on the NERI figures to have been in the top 10% of earners gross, but I felt my taxation was at an unfair level on the basis of services I received. Luckily, I have a highly mobile career and have been able to begin transitioning my residence to California for the majority of the year with an aim to be tax resident in California in the next 2 years, with the goal of moving (perhaps not entirely) there in the next 3 years.

Good luck taxing all the higher earners out of wanting to live here! Not sure where you'll all get your socialist redistribution from then... oh maybe you'll just start following your opinion on what "middle class" is? It's all starting to become clear!

Professor Moriarty

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Unless you're living under a rock, I think it's pretty well known that the middle class has been the hardest hit of all groups post-2008.

In the period 2008-2012, in terms of class polarization and the "middle class squeeze" (i) there was no significant negative impact on moving from social class to income class (ii) the largest impact was on the "lower middle class" followed by the "affluent class" and "upper middle class", followed then by the "income poor" and "precarious class".

UCD published a paper on economic stress which I can't access at the moment but have previously linked to in the Cafe (if you dare venture there! ).

I'm lucky enough based on the NERI figures to have been in the top 10% of earners gross, but I felt my taxation was at an unfair level on the basis of services I received. Luckily, I have a highly mobile career and have been able to begin transitioning my residence to California for the majority of the year with an aim to be tax resident in California in the next 2 years, with the goal of moving (perhaps not entirely) there in the next 3 years.

Good luck taxing all the higher earners out of wanting to live here! Not sure where you'll all get your socialist redistribution from then... oh maybe you'll just start following your opinion on what "middle class" is? It's all starting to become clear!

Hmmm. I pay a lot of tax but I'm ok with that. I wish that some people didn't get the benefit of my tax as they don't deserve it, but overall I think Irish society gets it roughly right. Is that "socialist redistribution"? Maybe from your perspective, but I wouldn't be putting the US up as an ideal in terms of society. I have enough money from take home income so I'd rather live in a society such as Ireland than the US.

Professor Moriarty

Wanderer78 wrote: »

I think we have been fooled a bit by our own success, I agree with many post-Keynesian economist that there's simply too much debt around now, I particularly like Michael Hudsons use of the term 'dept peonage', and I'd have to agree with him. There's something fundamentally going wrong with our economic systems and I do believe this is largely due to fundamentally flawed economic theories and principles such as neoliberalism and neoclassical theory.

Most certainly we have major improvements in our lives now than 30 years ago but these theories and principles have brought a lot of baggage with them. I personally believe neoclassical theory could be one of the main reasons why we have ever increasing mental health issues globally, amongst other things of course.

Yes. There's a global debt train coming down the tracks and we are going to have to face it. What would you propose as alternatives?

Wanderer78

Professor Moriarty wrote:

Hmmm. I pay a lot of tax but I'm ok with that. I wish that some people didn't get the benefit of my tax as they don't deserve it, but overall I think Irish society gets it roughly right. Is that "socialist redistribution"? Maybe from your perspective, but I wouldn't be putting the US up as an ideal in terms of society. I have enough money take home income so I'd rather live in a society such as Ireland than the US.

What people don't deserve a share in your taxes? I personally feel very angry the way hard working people such as yourself have been treated particularly in the last few years

Professor Moriarty

Wanderer78 wrote: »

What people don't deserve a share in your taxes? I personally feel very angry the way hard working people such as yourself have been treated particularly in the last few years

People who don't deserve social welfare. Drunks who clog up A&E. People who get third level grants when sitting on large assets. And so on.

FreudianSlippers

Wanderer78 wrote: »

I think we have been fooled a bit by our own success, I agree with many post-Keynesian economist that there's simply too much debt around now, I particularly like Michael Hudsons use of the term 'dept peonage', and I'd have to agree with him. There's something fundamentally going wrong with our economic systems and I do believe this is largely due to fundamentally flawed economic theories and principles such as neoliberalism and neoclassical theory.

Most certainly we have major improvements in our lives now than 30 years ago but these theories and principles have brought a lot of baggage with them. I personally believe neoclassical theory could be one of the main reasons why we have ever increasing mental health issues globally, amongst other things of course.

I also don't think you can look at Ireland in a vacuum from 30 years ago. Ireland was in particularly bad shape 30 years ago - I'm not sure it could necessarily be argued that the average American is "better off" today than they were 30 years ago.

You also have to factor in technological advancements in the last 30 years in the change in lifestyle and the type of economy. Erosion of the typical "working class" that existed in Ireland 30 years ago is more of a result of the change in type of economy than anything else.

FreudianSlippers

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

People who don't deserve social welfare. Drunks who clog up A&E. People who get third level grants when sitting on large assets. And so on.

I'm of two camps

(1) We means test all social welfare/grants/etc.
(2) We give everyone a universal basic income and that's it

I don't think we can pick-and-choose who gets what on an individual basis, so I'd advocate the latter.

Wanderer78

Professor Moriarty wrote:

Yes. There's a global debt train coming down the tracks and we are going to have to face it. What would you propose as alternatives?

I've been on a search for solutions regarding these issues for some time and I'm finding it hard to find them, but I'm not overly kicking myself as I realise these issues are baffling some of the finest minds on the planet. Many post-Keynesians believe 'debts that can't be repaid, won't be', I do realise this causes complications for all. I'm a big fan of public banking and more co-operative systems, and I'm particularly enjoying David McWilliams approach to our corporate tax issues. We truly do need to think outside the box to try deal with these complex issues as our current systems and models are failing badly.

FreudianSlippers

Wanderer78 wrote: »

I've been on a search for solutions regarding these issues for some time and I'm finding it hard to find them, but I'm not overly kicking myself as I realise these issues are baffling some of the finest minds on the planet. Many post-Keynesians believe 'debts that can't be repaid, won't be', I do realise this causes complications for all. I'm a big fan of public banking and more co-operative systems, and I'm particularly enjoying David McWilliams approach to our corporate tax issues. We truly do need to think outside the box to try deal with these complex issues as our current systems and models are failing badly.

I think we should lower our corporate tax rate to around 10% and focus on international treaties to enforce payment of same; collecting more of less is better than collecting less of slightly more IMHO.

We should certainly not be waiting to see what other countries do. Anyone who truly believes Trump will get US corporation tax down as low as he claims, is living in a dream world and doesn't understand the rifts in the Republican controlled legislature in this regard.

The UK is on the ropes from an Irish perspective and waiting for them to strike back isn't a good idea. We should be hitting hard and fast right now and taking pre-emptive steps to lure companies to Ireland. Maybe even corporate tax incentives to locate in certain areas of Ireland?

Professor Moriarty

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I'm of two camps

(1) We means test all social welfare/grants/etc.
(2) We give everyone a universal basic income and that's it

I don't think we can pick-and-choose who gets what on an individual basis, so I'd advocate the latter.

Well, social welfare fraud and inequities prove that our current system is flawed. Isn't the universal basic income a bit of a blunt instrument though? Wouldn't it be more costly?

Professor Moriarty

Wanderer78 wrote: »

I've been on a search for solutions regarding these issues for some time and I'm finding it hard to find them, but I'm not overly kicking myself as I realise these issues are baffling some of the finest minds on the planet. Many post-Keynesians believe 'debts that can't be repaid, won't be', I do realise this causes complications for all. I'm a big fan of public banking and more co-operative systems, and I'm particularly enjoying David McWilliams approach to our corporate tax issues. We truly do need to think outside the box to try deal with these complex issues as our current systems and models are failing badly.

There has to be a big debt reset no matter what anyone does. I think the problem is that we have so little economic and financial independence these days, that what we decide to do has little impact. Not least because we are a small country enmeshed with much larger countries who, for example, set our interest rates. And we know where that got us in the recent past.

Wanderer78

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

There has to be a big debt reset no matter what anyone does. I think the problem is that we have so little economic and financial independence these days, that what we decide to do has little impact. Not least because we are a small country enmeshed with much larger countries who, for example, set our interest rates. And we know where that got us in the recent past.

yea i hear you alright, i do think we re waiting for some sort of seismic shift in macroeconomics before things really start changing but id disagree in the idea we cant do much to help ourselves.

david mcwilliams believes ireland should become a shareholder in the large corporations that exist here, i particularly like this idea, this is very different thinking in how to deal with this problem. im also sold on the idea of public banking, its just a safety deposit box for all the world, all for the people of ireland for when the next banking crisis hits. it also becomes a revenue stream for the country, taking a bit of pressure off the public, in particular the working classes. many of these ideas are truly thinking outside the box and might just work.

Professor Moriarty

Wanderer78 wrote: »

yea i hear you alright, i do think we re waiting for some sort of seismic shift in macroeconomics before things really start changing but id disagree in the idea we cant do much to help ourselves.

david mcwilliams believes ireland should become a shareholder in the large corporations that exist here, i particularly like this idea, this is very different thinking in how to deal with this problem. im also sold on the idea of public banking, its just a safety deposit box for all the world, all for the people of ireland for when the next banking crisis hits. it also becomes a revenue stream for the country, taking a bit of pressure off the public, in particular the working classes. mand of these ideas are truly thinking outside the box and might just work.

That's an interesting idea. Ireland being a large shareholder in Apple, Intel, Pfizer etc. I'd need to think about that deeply, but my first thought is that other countries wouldn't be too happy about that. Trump would be tweeting furiously. I also wonder if that would be allowable under EU/WTO regulations? BTW for those interested, I found the relevant article: http://www.davidmcwilliams.ie/2016/05/09/the-intel-indicator

Wanderer78

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

That's an interesting idea. Ireland being a large shareholder in Apple, Intel, Pfizer etc. I'd need to think about that deeply, but my first thought is that other countries wouldn't be too happy about that. Trump would be tweeting furiously. I also wonder if that would be allowable under EU/WTO regulations? BTW for those interested, I found the relevant article: http://www.davidmcwilliams.ie/2016/05/09/the-intel-indicator

im sure mcwilliams thought about this long and hard before releasing it to the public, apparently he posted it in the financial times first and they responded very positively, saying this is a doer! hes no fool, i.e im sure he made sure he crossed the t's and dotted the i's before publishing.

to be honest he explains it better himself in the article you posted and on these shows:

http://www.tv3.ie/3player/show/1040/0/0/

http://www.rte.ie/player/ie/show/claire-byrne-live-extras-30003215/10658862/

FreudianSlippers

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Well, social welfare fraud and inequities prove that our current system is flawed. Isn't the universal basic income a bit of a blunt instrument though? Wouldn't it be more costly?

Not necessarily - it would be require a complete tax-code re-write, which I advocate.

So with that caveat, I would also advocate and do advocate a flat tax with negative income tax to get rid of the need for a true "universal minimum wage" (or whatever it is called).

We have to decide as a country which way we want to go, but a bit of pot-a and a bit of pot-b isn't working (it's not working in places like the UK or US either to be fair.)

Professor Moriarty

Wanderer78 wrote: »

im sure mcwilliams thought about this long and hard before releasing it to the public, apparently he posted it in the financial times first and they responded very positively, saying this is a doer! hes no fool, i.e im sure he made sure he crossed the t's and dotted the i's before publishing.

to be honest he explains it better himself in the article you posted and on these shows:

http://www.tv3.ie/3player/show/1040/0/0/

http://www.rte.ie/player/ie/show/claire-byrne-live-extras-30003215/10658862/

Well, if the FT can't pick holes in it then who am I to question! I'll watch those, thanks.

Wanderer78

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Well, if the FT can't pick holes in it then who am I to question! I'll watch those, thanks.

like anything, im sure there are holes in it but at least its a very different approach to the norm as ive accepted, our political leaders are running out of options. they have used up most if not all tools in their arsenal, i do believe things such as bail outs, bail ins, austerity, qe and lowering interest rates to record lows and even negative territory, have all largely failed.

im on a personal quest to find alternative economic and financial models, public banking is one such model and im sure it to has holes, one major being, deposits tend not to be insured, which is a problem but im still sold on the idea.

in the words of yanis varoufakis all we re doing is 'extending and pretending' by following our current procedures and models

Professor Moriarty

Wanderer78 wrote: »

like anything, im sure there are holes in it but at least its a very different approach to the norm as ive accepted, our political leaders are running out of options. they have used up most if not all tools in their arsenal, i do believe things such as bail outs, bail ins, austerity, qe and lowering interest rates to record lows and even negative territory, have all largely failed.

im on a personal quest to find alternative economic and financial models, public banking is one such model and im sure it to has holes, one major being, deposits tend not to be insured, which is a problem but im still sold on the idea.

in the words of yanis varoufakis all we re doing is 'extending and pretending' by following our current procedures and models

Bailouts are basically placebos that can't cure the illness. Yanis's Greece being a prime example.

Which is where democracy falls down. No government will grasp the nettle because it would be so unpopular. So we keep passing the parcel until it blows up in our faces. Mind you, as Churchill said, democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried.

Professor Moriarty

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Not necessarily - it would be require a complete tax-code re-write, which I advocate.

So with that caveat, I would also advocate and do advocate a flat tax with negative income tax to get rid of the need for a true "universal minimum wage" (or whatever it is called).

We have to decide as a country which way we want to go, but a bit of pot-a and a bit of pot-b isn't working (it's not working in places like the UK or US either to be fair.)

Which brings us back to wealth redistribution. What principles would underpin your rewriting of the tax code?

Wanderer78

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Bailouts are basically placebos that can't cure the illness. Yanis's Greece being a prime example.

Which is where democracy falls down. No government will grasp the nettle because it would be so unpopular. So we keep passing the parcel until it blows up in our faces. Mind you, as Churchill said, democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried.

to be honest i think im more worried about 'bail-ins' than 'bailouts' but im most certainly not a fan of bailouts exactly for the reasons in which you have outlined.

democracy is a very interesting one, i believe there is no such thing as true democracy, its only an ideology that actually doesnt exist anywhere.

FreudianSlippers

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Which brings us back to wealth redistribution. What principles would underpin your rewriting of the tax code?

Economists across the board agree that "exemptions" are a major problem with the tax code. So start with the intent that there are none.

I would suggest we base the tax code on a simple flat tax with negative income tax for individuals based on the requirements.

I would start before that by implementing a 10% corporation tax, calculating the maximum potential return on that and then calculating the remainder from there.

Wanderer78

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Economists across the board agree that "exemptions" are a major problem with the tax code. So start with the intent that there are none.

I would suggest we base the tax code on a simple flat tax with negative income tax for individuals based on the requirements.

I would start before that by implementing a 10% corporation tax, calculating the maximum potential return on that and then calculating the remainder from there.

michael hudson has explained very well how flat tax systems have a very negative effects on economies.

id disagree with your reduction in corporation tax, again i agree with michael hudson that the fire sectors(finance, insurance and real estate) are actually parasitic on society, im not sure if he implies the corporate sector but i would include it. we need to stop these industries pulling wealth away from us and create systems that help distribute this wealth more evenly. this is no easy task.

Professor Moriarty

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Economists across the board agree that "exemptions" are a major problem with the tax code. So start with the intent that there are none.

I would suggest we base the tax code on a simple flat tax with negative income tax for individuals based on the requirements.

I would start before that by implementing a 10% corporation tax, calculating the maximum potential return on that and then calculating the remainder from there.

Isn't negative income tax therefore a form of welfare depending on the level of reimbursement? Would it be a disincentive to work because if I choose not to work or work extra hours I'll receive money for not working?