Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Do we pay too much tax for crappy services?
Comments
-
What I find odd is we are told the poor don't vote that's why parties that supposedly pander to them do so poorly.
Then we are to believe FF/FG won't go for changes because they may hit the poor hard and they are fearful they'll lose votes.
Then we have the popular parties, (FF/FG) overseeing societal crises anyway.
I think everything is going great for FF/FG at the moment, otherwise they'd change they way we do business. It's obvious to me that they keep things as is because it suits them. I can't explain any other reason why they watch things get worse with the crises but stay with the same policies that exacerbate them.
The tax payer is propping up a broken system that serves some and ignores others IMO.0 -
Its quite simple Matt.
The government is there to manage the country and keep the show on the road while inflicting the least possible pain to the electorate.
Housing, for example, could be fixed if the government crashed house prices, but that will destroy the wealth of the vast majority of Irish households while damaging the economy.
They could CPO huge tracts of land in and around the cities, to create High-Density housing complexes, but that will annoy the hell out of the most important Irish voter, the property owner.
We want to fix the problems, but no one wants to suffer any ill consequences of the fixes that are needed. So instead we take the long slow process as if the thing can be managed away.0 -
Its quite simple Matt.
The government is there to manage the country and keep the show on the road while inflicting the least possible pain to the electorate.
Housing, for example, could be fixed if the government crashed house prices, but that will destroy the wealth of the vast majority of Irish households while damaging the economy.
They could CPO huge tracts of land in and around the cities, to create High-Density housing complexes, but that will annoy the hell out of the most important Irish voter, the property owner.
We want to fix the problems, but no one wants to suffer any ill consequences of the fixes that are needed. So instead we take the long slow process as if the thing can be managed away.
There's a balance. They could cool the market rather than crash it.
I'd counter that any drop in profits is being avoided and that's why we aren't cooling the market. The tax payer is one of the housing markets top financiers.
I disagree, people are always happy to pay for quality. We are just so use to being bled for poor quality we don't want more of the same, that's one reason why politicians avoid any costly fixes and why they aren't popular, not to mention the likely associated wastes on poor deals for the tax payer, incompetence and cronyism that accompanies pretty much everything FF/FG do.0 -
Matt Barrett wrote: »There's a balance. They could cool the market rather than crash it.
Yes, there is also another purist way of doing something, isn't there.
There may well be, but of course these things time, money and political capital to execute.I'd counter that any drop in profits is being avoided and that's why we aren't cooling the market. The tax payer is one of the housing markets top financiers.
Profits for whom exactly? The landlord? Haha. Yea right. They are leaving the sector in droves and being replaced by large funds.I disagree, people are always happy to pay for quality. .
Can you cite one recent Irish example where the people were happy to pay for quality in regards to government policy or project? Because I think you are insane if you think that.0 -
Yes, there is also another purist way of doing something, isn't there.
There may well be, but of course these things time, money and political capital to execute.
Sorry that excuse is tired, (see Sitserv deal, see Reilly's clinics, see laughing yoga and consultants, see children's hospital over run, see Varadkars department of spin, see buying houses for social housing instead of building, see selling to vulture funds and then buying back from vulture funds and on and on). Time? That recycled line you just spouted has been doing the rounds for several years. We didn't wake up to a crisis this morning.
Also you're the one talked about the government crashing house prices as the other option.Profits for whom exactly? The landlord? Haha. Yea right. They are leaving the sector in droves and being replaced by large funds.
Any company that sells or rents property to the government/LA's as they struggle to meet the massive gap of us having no social housing stock in a housing crisis.Can you cite one recent Irish example where the people were happy to pay for quality in regards to government policy or project? Because I think you are insane if you think that.
No I can't because FF/FG don't do value for money. That's partially the point. People don't like paying more because, to paraphrase the OP, they generally get crappy services or crappy Noonanesque deals. I believe if people got quality services and results they'd happily pay for them.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
You'll pay 200 a month, but then you or someone in your family are unfortunate enough to become ill with something and your 200 a month premium suddenly triples to 600 a month next year because you're high risk.
But you can't move insurer, because you have a pre-existing condition, and no other insurer will touch you, or they load your premium to account for your condition.
Then next year, the insurance company decide that your condition is no longer covered on the payment plan you are on, you need to upgrade to a higher package. So it goes from 600 a month to 800 a month.
You can't afford this, so you let your insurance lapse. Which means treatment stops. But then your son or daughter has a fall and breaks their leg, and you get a bill in the post for 30 grand that you now owe for the hospital fees and various consultant fees and use of equipment.
The American system is rubbish. Big Pharma and insurance companies have been lobbying against reform of their system for years, because it'll end up hitting their profits if they move closer toward a semi-socialist health model.
Plenty of countries have social health insurance:- community-rating
- fixed premium
- 100% of pop covered
- competing insurers
One idea is to leave the provision of healthcare to the private sector (GP, clinic, hosps), but guarantee everybody access via social health insurance.0 -
Matt Barrett wrote: »Sorry that excuse is tired, (see Sitserv deal, see Reilly's clinics, see laughing yoga and consultants, see children's hospital over run, see Varadkars department of spin, see buying houses for social housing instead of building, see selling to vulture funds and then buying back from vulture funds and on and on). Time? That recycled line you just spouted has been doing the rounds for several years. We didn't wake up to a crisis this morning.
Also you're the one talked about the government crashing house prices as the other option.
I said it was one option but one they will not take due to the pain it will cause the electorate at large. If you cannot see that there are a large cohort of people who are quite happy with the status quo, in regards housing and that these people represent the vast majority of the people of Ireland (i.e. property owners), then perhaps you should try and evaluate politics a little more with a dose of reality.
One thing the government should do is increase property tax and also bring back rates, to every household in Ireland, even if you do not own property. Is that something you will stand by? Or is it too radical?Any company that sells or rents property to the government/LA's as they struggle to meet the massive gap of us having no social housing stock in a housing crisis.
So you think the entire government housing policy and the dept. of the environment are beholden to these people only?No I can't because FF/FG don't do value for money. That's partially the point. People don't like paying more because, to paraphrase the OP, they generally get crappy services or crappy Noonanesque deals. I believe if people got quality services and results they'd happily pay for them.
So, we get the literal u-turn from you within one post. Quite a turnaround.
You can believe what you want, that does not make it so. The reason for crappy services and the causes behind them have been mentioned many times before. People speak in forked tongues when it comes to this topic all the time. You want 'Accounts driven, cost-effective' public services but won't be willing to take on the measures that go some way in achieving that. You are an example of the microcosm of why we have crappy public services that people 'want' to pay more for.0 -
FreudianSlippers wrote: »There's a huge difference between the US healthcare system and the method of funding that system. The US has probably the best healthcare system in the world in terms of quality of service.
The US has probably also one of the worst healthcare systems in the world in terms of quality of service. It just depends who you are and how you are accessing it.
You can't really divorce how it is funded from the quality of the system when the realities of how it is funded mean that many, many people can not properly access the high-quality parts of the system.0 -
I said it was one option but one they will not take due to the pain it will cause the electorate at large. If you cannot see that there are a large cohort of people who are quite happy with the status quo, in regards housing and that these people represent the vast majority of the people of Ireland (i.e. property owners), then perhaps you should try and evaluate politics a little more with a dose of reality.
You mean enough voters are happy to let it continue or worsen.
What's needed is a dose of realty outside of a personal bubble for such people. There are tax paying workers suffering due to the housing crisis.One thing the government should do is increase property tax and also bring back rates, to every household in Ireland, even if you do not own property. Is that something you will stand by? Or is it too radical?
I'd rather they raised taxes for vulture funds and Russian oil companies carrying out their money laundering in Ireland. I'd rather they took the money for hotels and buying off the market to build social housing.So you think the entire government housing policy and the dept. of the environment are beholden to these people only?
I know for a fact that current housing policy benefits the housing industry over the tax payer. I know current government policy exacerbates the housing crisis.So, we get the literal u-turn from you within one post. Quite a turnaround.
You can believe what you want, that does not make it so. The reason for crappy services and the causes behind them have been mentioned many times before. People speak in forked tongues when it comes to this topic all the time. You want 'Accounts driven, cost-effective' public services but won't be willing to take on the measures that go some way in achieving that. You are an example of the microcosm of why we have crappy public services that people 'want' to pay more for.
You seem to often infer a u-turn of sorts. Basically I make a point and you side step it and then query me on your side step and when I don't take the bait I'm doing a u-turn or dodging like you're some kind of Nancy Drew catching me out.
To explain it simply, people don't like to pay more tax. Why? Because more tax doesn't equate to better services or better value for money. I believe if people thought or believed they would get a better bang for their buck, people would happily pay for quality. I've been quite clear on this from the get go. It's a simply concept to comprehend, one would think.0 -
Advertisement
-
Think there's been a recent survey on that which confirmed that. Let me see if I can find it. Generally, people are happy to chip in for the community / society to work well.Matt Barrett wrote:No I can't because FF/FG don't do value for money. That's partially the point. People don't like paying more because, to paraphrase the OP, they generally get crappy services or crappy Noonanesque deals. I believe if people got quality services and results they'd happily pay for them.0 -
Spot on. And the only way to achieve that is this - transparency, no tolerance to corruption, evidence based approach in shaping policy. And to break the FF/FG duopoly is absolutely needed for this, it won't work without that. Radical cleanup is required and start from the basics, working way up.Matt Barrett wrote:To explain it simply, people don't like to pay more tax. Why? Because more tax doesn't equate to better services or better value for money. I believe if people thought or believed they would get a better bang for their buck, people would happily pay for quality. I've been quite clear on this from the get go. It's a simply concept to comprehend, one would think.0 -
Name a model country where it works like that and what they're outcomes are, please.Geuze wrote:One idea is to leave the provision of healthcare to the private sector (GP, clinic, hosps), but guarantee everybody access via social health insurance.0 -
This is my personal opinion and not SD policy.markodaly wrote:Seeing as you fairly and honestly state that you are a Social Democrats member, and the SD's favour Scandinavian services (from the last election), would they also favour Scandinavian taxes, especially income taxes and property taxes? It's a genuine question, as I do not want to pick fights about this.
It doesn't have to be necessarily Scandinavian services, just decent public services as in most of Europe (typically Northern, Western and Central). There is a long way to get there but you have to start somewhere. I don't thinks anybody is talking about making a huge sudden increase in tax rates, that's not on the agenda. It's clear that there are reserves in the current system and wastefulness, inefficiencies and eGovernance need to be looked at first, before any increase in spending and/or taxation. The point is to trying to fix what's broken and fix all leaks first, and there's many of them, I believe. There's little point pouring more water to a leaking barrel, right.
Other than that my personal opinion is that Swedish property tax system is well designed and I wouldn't have issue with moving policy towards a similar direction provided the revenue is used by local authorities locally. System where local property taxes are raised locally but transfered out to the centre is wrong and unacceptable.
Unbalanced yes (especially with regards to the corporations vs SMEs), odd yes, but talking about 50% tax as "the guts" is simply not true. As I said average earner at 45k pa pays 26% total tax including social security payments (I count that as a tax). Even single earner at 65k pa doesn't pay 50%, but only 32%. Single earner at double the average salary 90k pa pays 37% total tax.markodaly wrote:Ireland has a very odd and unbalanced income tax system. Almost 45% of workers do not pay any income tax, yet for earnings over €34,500 are taxed at the guts of 50%. It means that low-income people pay virtually no income tax and the income tax burden is worn especially by middle income and higher income people.
Where did you get the 50% figure from?
Also, just for correctness, your low full time minimum wage person pays 9% 'tax' as defined by me above (including usc and prsi).
Even if they paid more, hypothetically, I think most people would welcome better public services and would be wiling to contribute for their realisation.markodaly wrote:If we are to follow a Swedish system as an example, everyone would be paying income tax and the lower income people would actually be worse off, than middle-income people. This is another example of finding an Irish solution to an Irish problem when you step back and look at it, it makes no sense at all. But no TD is going near it cause, votes....
Other than that, what "Irish solution" would you suggest? Because so far, despite all the success of transforming a mostly agrarian country into a modern one in let's say 3 decades, the Irish solution has been facilitation of global tax avoidance, corruption of grand scale, crashing the economy at least once, crashing the property market, escalation of the housing crisis, property market destabilisation and inability to provide at least average European level of healthcare service. So I generally beg to differ, I think no magic Irish solution exists, because otherwise it would have been already in place.
Furthermore, I don't think anyone advocates copying all policies exactly from Sweden, Denmark or Norway or whatever country, adjustments will always be needed, but it's a good idea to look at functional models and take it from there rather than trying to cook up something from scratch especially if Irish solutions don't seem to work, apart from inventing largest global tax avoidance system in the world.
As for SD manifesto, if you read it, you would find that it suggests 'not eroding the tax base', 'maintaining current tax base with some minor adjustments'. Because as you know FF/FG are/will be pushing tax reduction, which is bad news for public services and bad idea when your government debt to real GDP ratio is 110% (as high as Italy's), if you count debt per capita then it's the highest in the EU. Tax cuts may lead to a higher government debt, and if it gets out of control it would be extremely dangerous, this time 'banking socialism' style bail out wouldn't be possible.
The SD manifesto focuses much more on closing the gaps, fixing the leaks (inefficiencies, corruption, transparency) as I said, that's where lot of resources are lost. Also, it clearly mentions government's fiscal discipline. This sort of a manifesto would be called Blairite in the UK and wouldn't be really considered seriously leftist in Europe, by the way.0 -
Ireland does not have corruption on a grand scale and it is farcical to suggest otherwise. We have a lot of room for improvement no doubt and there needs to be more transparency in a number of areas, but we're not Italy or Greece (or indeed the many worse places that would properly earn the "grand scale" title). There is also pretty much nothing we can do to avoid suffering from global economic crashes given the openness and size of our economy.
As to the FF/FG duopoly - they have less than 60% of the seats in the Dáil between them. The nature of Ireland's political system enables other parties and independents to easily gain seats (unlike, e.g. the UK). There are no nefarious forces at play, or even a system weighted particularly in their favour. People just keep voting for them and keep hammering other parties who get large enough to get into government with them.
I don't think Ireland's services are particularly crap either. They are certainly not top notch but for the most part I would consider them reasonably middling. It is worth looking at examples such as the metro and bus projects ongoing at the moment to see how much people will demand better services and yet reject all efforts to bring them in in the face of the slightest inconvenience though.0 -
-
Name a model country where it works like that and what they're outcomes are, please.
Outcomes? As in life expectancy?
https://www.oecd.org/health/health-systems/health-care-quality-and-outcomes.htm0 -
Matt Barrett wrote: »You mean enough voters are happy to let it continue or worsen.
What's needed is a dose of realty outside of a personal bubble for such people. There are tax paying workers suffering due to the housing crisis.
Voters will, of course, say they want things to be fixed but presented to actual workable solutions, which could have a negative impact on them, they will be the first to lobby their TD or local councilor to stop, say a high rise apartment development or their local hospital closing.
Such people say many things, but doing is another thing entirely.I'd rather they raised taxes for vulture funds and Russian oil companies carrying out their money laundering in Ireland. I'd rather they took the money for hotels and buying off the market to build social housing.
The perfect response to prove the point I made above.
I mentioned increasing property taxes because this state has used it before for building social houses. I presented this idea to you and we go off on a tangent about Russian oil companies.
Rates and Property taxes have been used for centuries to build public works infrastructure and housing. It actually predates income taxes, yet we in Ireland have a weird aversion to it.
We are the only country in the world, where Socialists are against property taxes. This encapsulates neatly the issues of the electorate saying one thing but wanting something else.
"There is always someone or something out there that needs fixing or taxing first before someone taxes ME!"
It's like the argument about TD's pay when talking about the national debt. A total strawman and a complete waste of time.I know for a fact that current housing policy benefits the housing industry over the tax payer. I know current government policy exacerbates the housing crisis.
A fact? No, its an opinion.
The government is beholden to every property owner in the state. That is everyone from a farmer, to an owner of a 3-bed semi, to a developer.You seem to often infer a u-turn of sorts. Basically I make a point and you side step it and then query me on your side step and when I don't take the bait I'm doing a u-turn or dodging like you're some kind of Nancy Drew catching me out.
To explain it simply, people don't like to pay more tax. Why? Because more tax doesn't equate to better services or better value for money. I believe if people thought or believed they would get a better bang for their buck, people would happily pay for quality. I've been quite clear on this from the get go. It's a simply concept to comprehend, one would think.
I infer it because you u-turn so often when pressed, you could be halfway to the south pole by now.
I press you hard on this, because your posts are all of the same generic fluff, that is endemic when Irish public policy is discussed. No detail or figures, no factoring in of the hard decisions to be made, just populist notions and airy-fairy 'why cant things be perfect' soliloquies.
You change your tune so often I cannot keep up.
One minute you want 'Cost-effective, accounts driven' public services.
The next you reject any reform or even the notion that a service could be privatised, even if that saved the taxpayer money while providing the same level of service.
As to your last point, its pure nonsense. People will pay the least amount for a service that they deem acceptable. The fact you can't even mention one example of this speaks for the truth of your own view.0 -
johnnyskeleton wrote: »I think everyone who lives in a social democracy believes that they pay too much tax and dont get enough services! Even the huge multinationals corporations who pay very little corporation tax in Ireland probably believe they pay too much in tax and dont get enough for it.
That's why we should always compare with our (european) peers + add some premium to the costs considering the island location and small size (only 4.5M people).0 -
Join Date:Posts: 22734
In my experience, I think it's more common for people in other countries (in this case Spain, France, and Germany) to link the amount of tax they pay to the public services they receive and to treat that with acceptance (and in some cases pride).
That's not to say there isn't a decent constituency in any of those countries who think they pay too much tax for what they receive. You're always going to get that wherever you go. It's just that it seems a bit more common in Ireland to think that we pay a relatively high amount of tax and that we're being jipped in the services we receive in return.0 -
Advertisement
-
Chips Lovell wrote: »It's just that it seems a bit more common in Ireland to think that we pay a relatively high amount of tax and that we're being jipped in the services we receive in return.
That’s probably because we do and we are.0 -
Except it's untrue. Plenty of US hospitals will treat people regardless of their insurance situation as if they were insured; the issue there is the massive bill that they will issue at the end. There are a number of hospitals with Catholic-ethos who engage in a lot of debt forgiveness.The US has probably also one of the worst healthcare systems in the world in terms of quality of service. It just depends who you are and how you are accessing it.
You can't really divorce how it is funded from the quality of the system when the realities of how it is funded mean that many, many people can not properly access the high-quality parts of the system.
You can't be seriously alleging that there are any hospitals in the US that are significantly worse than in Ireland?0 -
-
We pay too little tax but live in a relatively high cost country so taking more tax will stretch a lot of people.
Our services are shockingly poor, for that tax take, however. Any increase in tax take is used to buy votes by increasing pay as opposed to investing long term.
Public service workers should NEVER be paid the same as their private sector equivalents. They get pension, leave, security that the private sector will never get. Instead we have governments benchmarking and often paying more than the equivalent.
Disclaimer: Both incomes from my house come from the public purses.0 -
-
Would Irish people accept a level of property taxes the Germans are paying?
I like German-style social insurance, where benefits are linked to contributions.
If a workers loses their job, the ST un payment is much higher than the LT un payment.
More benefits for workers, lower for non-workers.
Here, after 45 years paying PRSI, you get 11 euro a week more in pension than somebody who never worked.0 -
Chips Lovell wrote: »In my experience, I think it's more common for people in other countries (in this case Spain, France, and Germany) to link the amount of tax they pay to the public services they receive and to treat that with acceptance (and in some cases pride).
That's not to say there isn't a decent constituency in any of those countries who think they pay too much tax for what they receive. You're always going to get that wherever you go. It's just that it seems a bit more common in Ireland to think that we pay a relatively high amount of tax and that we're being jipped in the services we receive in return.
Even though the overall level of taxes in Irl is not high, and even though many earners pay zero or very low income taxes, workers focus on the 50% approx MTR that kicks in at a very low point.
You can't really blame workers for focussing on the 50% MTR after 35k approx.0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
Are you referring to an annual property tax?
Like the Grundsteuern in Germany?
As the rate is decided locally by each local Govt, then there isn't one single rate.
I am seeing example of, e.g. 300 pa in Duisburg.
Here's an example for Hamburg:
property value: 200,000 euros
tax rate: 3.5 ‰
Property tax base value: 700 EUR
Lifting Rate: 540%
Annual property tax: 3,780 euros
they do some complex calculations in Germany but the LPT isn't cheap.
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grundsteuer_(Deutschland)0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement