Leo Varadkar post Taoiseach

charlie14

Riskymove wrote: »

in fairness, that's very different to not being able to "buy a transfer vote"

I agree that the issue for them will be holding some 2nd or 3rd seats picked up last time

but the recent bye elections show plenty of transfers, Emer Higgins doubled her 1st count for example

Not really.

Those 2nd and 3rd seats last time were greatly helped by Lab transfers of 53% nationally.

If FG do not get them this time in that ratio it is difficult to see where else they will make up the shortfall.

seamus

gifted wrote: »

What about putting a time limit on the SW system?

You work for 10 years you get the SW and all the help you need for 10 years but made aware that the tap is turned down after the 10 years is up so you need to get back out and work find work ( any tax paying work)

You never work then you get a bare amount...nothing extra....a great motivation to find any type of tax paying work......

Basically the longer you work the longer the SW is there for you when it's needed.

We do already have this, in effect. The welfare available to you reduces over time after you lose your job until you're just on basic

The reality is that there is a baseline who will always be chronically unemployed. And there is functionally no level of welfare so low that they can't figure out a way to make ends meet.

Reducing welfare to try and force people into work, is like raising the level of flood water in the hope that people will save themselves from drowning. Some people can't swim and they'll eventually just drown.

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Or just cut welfare spending and introduce the almost million people in this country who pay no tax on low incomes to tax.

This is where a 20% flat tax would be an ideal scenario, everyone pays a fair share

What's "fair share" though? Surely a "fair" share is proportionate to your income? Incomes are proportionate to the level of state spending on basic necessities like infrastructure, tourism and foreign affairs. Someone earning €100k is benefitting far more from state spending than someone earning €20k.
Therefore it seems only fair that the person who has a higher income returns more of that to the state.

But if we run with this flat tax idea, have you run the figures?

If there are a million people earning money and paying no tax, then the maximum they can earn without being taxed is €16,500. If we assume every one of those million is earning €16,500, then a flat 20% tax would bring an extra €3.3bn into the exchequer. The reality is that those people are not earning that much, and the amount your flat tax would bring would be less. Let's say €2.2bn. Which is a generous overestimate, but also conveniently a 10% bump in income tax take.

So let's have a look at the other end. The top 10% of earners pay half of the tax. So in order to reproduce our 10% bump in income tax, we need to bump their tax up by a fifth. That means that from ~50% to ~60% for all earnings over €100k.

Who do you think will be more affected by this tax change? The guy who earns €16,500 and now sees his income drop by €3,300 a year? Or the guy who earns €110k and sees his income drop by €1,000 a year?

And which one will put more pressure on state supports? Which one's kids will have to seek out breakfast clubs, state-sponsored clubs, book allowances, college grants, etc, etc, etc.

So we can mildly inconvenience 10% of earners, or devastate 45% of them, for the same income tax increase.

Seems like a no brainer to me.

is_that_so

charlie14 wrote: »

As I said earlier, if they cannot hold the 53% of transfers they got from Lab in 2016 then those last seats they picked up then will become very precarious.

You said if, the other poster seems sure. Based on what? Why would they lose that Labour lower-order vote? You also seem to be ignoring the so-called seat bonus, which tends favour a larger party leaving in the top position for that final seat, commonly without reaching the quota.

Riskymove

seamus wrote: »

But if we run with this flat tax idea, have you run the figures?

............................
So let's have a look at the other end. The top 10% of earners pay half of the tax. So in order to reproduce our 10% bump in income tax, we need to bump their tax up by a fifth. That means that from ~50% to ~60% for all earnings over €100k.

the 20% "optimum tax" flat rate means 20% for everyone

there would only be one rate

charlie14

is_that_so wrote: »

You said if, the other poster seems sure. Based on what? Why would they lose that Labour lower-order vote? You also seem to be ignoring the so-called seat bonus, which tends favour a larger party leaving in the top position for that final seat, commonly without reaching the quota.

Labour were not keen in forming another coalition with FG in 2016 as they believed they got the brunt of the blame for FG policy from the FG/Lab government 2011 -2016.
In 2016 they encouraged their supporters to transfer to FG and 53% did.
I cannot see them doing the same in 2020 and will be eyeing up other possible options.

The so called seat bonus does favour the larger parties for those last seats leaving whoever is on top to take the last seat, but it is transfers that decides who gets it.
If those transfer from Labour that got FG many of those last seats for FG in 2016 are reduced this time then I do not see where else they will come from.

Eric Cartman

seamus wrote: »

We do already have this, in effect. The welfare available to you reduces over time after you lose your job until you're just on basic

The reality is that there is a baseline who will always be chronically unemployed. And there is functionally no level of welfare so low that they can't figure out a way to make ends meet.

Reducing welfare to try and force people into work, is like raising the level of flood water in the hope that people will save themselves from drowning. Some people can't swim and they'll eventually just drown.


What's "fair share" though? Surely a "fair" share is proportionate to your income? Incomes are proportionate to the level of state spending on basic necessities like infrastructure, tourism and foreign affairs. Someone earning €100k is benefitting far more from state spending than someone earning €20k.
Therefore it seems only fair that the person who has a higher income returns more of that to the state.

But if we run with this flat tax idea, have you run the figures?

If there are a million people earning money and paying no tax, then the maximum they can earn without being taxed is €16,500. If we assume every one of those million is earning €16,500, then a flat 20% tax would bring an extra €3.3bn into the exchequer. The reality is that those people are not earning that much, and the amount your flat tax would bring would be less. Let's say €2.2bn. Which is a generous overestimate, but also conveniently a 10% bump in income tax take.

So let's have a look at the other end. The top 10% of earners pay half of the tax. So in order to reproduce our 10% bump in income tax, we need to bump their tax up by a fifth. That means that from ~50% to ~60% for all earnings over €100k.

Who do you think will be more affected by this tax change? The guy who earns €16,500 and now sees his income drop by €3,300 a year? Or the guy who earns €110k and sees his income drop by €1,000 a year?

And which one will put more pressure on state supports? Which one's kids will have to seek out breakfast clubs, state-sponsored clubs, book allowances, college grants, etc, etc, etc.

So we can mildly inconvenience 10% of earners, or devastate 45% of them, for the same income tax increase.

Seems like a no brainer to me.

ok, except the guy on 100k sees a 60% marginal rate and goes to another country , the guy on 300k never came here in the first place and the banking firm wanting an english speaking EU base are having their staff contracted from malta or somewhere on 90 day stints because its cheaper than paying them here. If you flat taxes the wealthy or even just increased the marginal rate cap to 150k you would be flooded with a lot more people in those higher income brackets. At the moment most of them are paid elsewhere or engaged in large scale avoision to get around the opressive tax regime we have here.

hatrickpatrick

is_that_so wrote: »

You're not looking at what it was supposed to do, which was to take bad debt out of the banking system.

So in other words, it was designed to prevent a system with fundamental flaws from failing naturally, and thus prevent those fundamental flaws ever being addressed. Which is exactly why - and pretty much everyone knows this in one way or another - we will repeat this exact same cycle again. The only question is when. Not if.

hatrickpatrick

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Problem is I can already see INM, RTE and the LVA wringing their hands together waiting for MM to win and FF doing deals for a broadcasting charge on us all and minimum unit pricing for ‘health’

This is precisely why we need the next government to either be formed by or significantly hamstrung by populist independents. There's no way any of those three organisations get what they want if those voting for such policies don't have "the party whip made me do it" to hide behind, because it should be obvious by now that the general public is not on board with any of those organisations.

This is exactly why I'm always saying that populism can be a good thing, for all its obvious drawbacks. Sometimes we need a period of time in which vested interests get overruled in favour of the voting mob. This is one of those times. I'd argue that most of this decade has constituted one of those times, but better late than never. The minority government has prevented FG from following a lot of their worst instincts (not all, but a lot - imagine where we might be if they'd continued with a majority for the last three years) and if they were more dependent on independents and less on FF, I honestly believe many of those issues you've cited would have been properly dealt with by now.

Stability is not a good thing when your car is motionless because its engine has broken down, at that point you need instability if you're going to get it going again. We need a bit of upheaval in order to unseat all of those vested interests from their unearned and undemocratic seats at the table - seats which should, instead, be occupied by ordinary voters.

charlie14

Riskymove wrote: »

the 20% "optimum tax" flat rate means 20% for everyone

there would only be one rate

The total income tax take is now 20 Billion,50% is from the top rate and 50% from the standard rate.

A flat rate of 20% is not going to make any difference to the standard rate take of 10 Billion, but if you reduce the top rate to 20% then there would be an overall drop in revenue of 5 Billion.

A 20% income tax rate on lower income earners would be lucky to make up half that drop in revenue, plus all the associated problems it would bring with households requiring benefits such as the family income supplement just to survive.

charlie14

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

This is precisely why we need the next government to either be formed by or significantly hamstrung by populist independents. There's no way any of those three organisations get what they want if those voting for such policies don't have "the party whip made me do it" to hide behind, because it should be obvious by now that the general public is not on board with any of those organisations.

This is exactly why I'm always saying that populism can be a good thing, for all its obvious drawbacks. Sometimes we need a period of time in which vested interests get overruled in favour of the voting mob. This is one of those times. I'd argue that most of this decade has constituted one of those times, but better late than never. The minority government has prevented FG from following a lot of their worst instincts (not all, but a lot - imagine where we might be if they'd continued with a majority for the last three years) and if they were more dependent on independents and less on FF, I honestly believe many of those issues you've cited would have been properly dealt with by now.

Stability is not a good thing when your car is motionless because its engine has broken down, at that point you need instability if you're going to get it going again. We need a bit of upheaval in order to unseat all of those vested interests from their unearned and undemocratic seats at the table - seats which should, instead, be occupied by ordinary voters.

I can see where you are going with your point, and it would be the ideal, but unfortunately I am not sure just how much interest independents have in the national good.
More than likely we would end up with tax money being poured into individual fiefdoms for the purpose of re-election.
We have a history of this already from independent TD`s selling their support for minority governments

gifted

seamus wrote: »

We do already have this, in effect. The welfare available to you reduces over time after you lose your job until you're just on basic

The reality is that there is a baseline who will always be chronically unemployed. And there is functionally no level of welfare so low that they can't figure out a way to make ends meet.

Reducing welfare to try and force people into work, is like raising the level of flood water in the hope that people will save themselves from drowning. Some people can't swim and they'll eventually just drown.


What's "fair share" though? Surely a "fair" share is proportionate to your income? Incomes are proportionate to the level of state spending on basic necessities like infrastructure, tourism and foreign affairs. Someone earning €100k is benefitting far more from state spending than someone earning €20k.
Therefore it seems only fair that the person who has a higher income returns more of that to the state.

But if we run with this flat tax idea, have you run the figures?

If there are a million people earning money and paying no tax, then the maximum they can earn without being taxed is €16,500. If we assume every one of those million is earning €16,500, then a flat 20% tax would bring an extra €3.3bn into the exchequer. The reality is that those people are not earning that much, and the amount your flat tax would bring would be less. Let's say €2.2bn. Which is a generous overestimate, but also conveniently a 10% bump in income tax take.

So let's have a look at the other end. The top 10% of earners pay half of the tax. So in order to reproduce our 10% bump in income tax, we need to bump their tax up by a fifth. That means that from ~50% to ~60% for all earnings over €100k.

Who do you think will be more affected by this tax change? The guy who earns €16,500 and now sees his income drop by €3,300 a year? Or the guy who earns €110k and sees his income drop by €1,000 a year?

And which one will put more pressure on state supports? Which one's kids will have to seek out breakfast clubs, state-sponsored clubs, book allowances, college grants, etc, etc, etc.

So we can mildly inconvenience 10% of earners, or devastate 45% of them, for the same income tax increase.

Seems like a no brainer to me.

So reduce the basic SW .......and keep reducing it until they can't survive anymore and they realise that actually working is the only way they get more money

We have a very very generous SW system in this country, by the time you put a monetary value on what is available on the system it is quite high and a real deterrent to encourage people to find work........

Fann Linn

charlie14 wrote: »

Didn`t we have something similar under the old Pay Related Social Insurance (PRSI) before it became just another tax scam ?

I wouldn't really know. Glad to say I've never been out of work!

seamus

Riskymove wrote: »

the 20% "optimum tax" flat rate means 20% for everyone

there would only be one rate

That's even worse then, you'd be lucky to break even and bring in the existing amount of tax.

In effect you'd be taking more tax from lower earners in order to give money to higher earners. Which doesn't make much sense socially or economically.

gifted wrote: »

So reduce the basic SW .......and keep reducing it until they can't survive anymore and they realise that actually working is the only way they get more money

As I mention above, that might work in some limited capacity, but many won't spontaneously get a job. The fact is that they don't know how.

If they can't survive, they'll die on the streets or turn to crime. What might get you a short term reduction in social welfare costs, will in time create a whole new raft of social problems from families trying to raise kids on next to nothing. Social welfare payments are paltry as it is.

Eric Cartman wrote: »

ok, except the guy on 100k sees a 60% marginal rate and goes to another country

Yeah, he won't. Because the effective tax rate in other countries is still considerably larger and because the reality is that most people aren't so flexible that they'll be willing to relocate their entire life for a one grand improvement in their tax bill.

That kind of mobility kicks in closer to 500k, and the people on that kind of money have already structured their tax affairs to work around marginal tax rates.

The guy earning €300k will come to Ireland if he's offered the job because it's what he wants to do and the company offering that money will offset any tax difference with a larger salary.

The "flight of the elite" argument has been around for donkeys but has never come to fruition.

gifted

Fann Linn wrote: »

I wouldn't really know. Glad to say I've never been out of work!

9 years ago I was out of work for 7 months...worked straight for 21 years before that...was getting €188 a week because I was classed as single even though I had 2 kids and living with my partner....hurt my back and went to doctors...paid €55 to doctor....went next door to chemist and paid €125 to him..brought home €8 to the missus on dole day........two foreigners in doctors paid with medical card.....no charge in same chemist as well for them.....Who's the fool???

charlie14

Fann Linn wrote: »

I wouldn't really know. Glad to say I've never been out of work!

Same here, but I seem to remember that when it was PRSI the PR was pay related as too what you were earning should you become unemployed.
If it was then that was basically the same as this Dutch policy someone was advocating.

gifted

seamus wrote: »

That's even worse then, you'd be lucky to break even and bring in the existing amount of tax.

In effect you'd be taking more tax from lower earners in order to give money to higher earners. Which doesn't make much sense socially or economically.
As I mention above, that might work in some limited capacity, but many won't spontaneously get a job. The fact is that they don't know how.

If they can't survive, they'll die on the streets or turn to crime. What might get you a short term reduction in social welfare costs, will in time create a whole new raft of social problems from families trying to raise kids on next to nothing. Social welfare payments are paltry as it is.

Yeah, he won't. Because the effective tax rate in other countries is still considerably larger and because the reality is that most people aren't so flexible that they'll be willing to relocate their entire life for a one grand improvement in their tax bill.

That kind of mobility kicks in closer to 500k, and the people on that kind of money have already structured their tax affairs to work around marginal tax rates.

The guy earning €300k will come to Ireland if he's offered the job because it's what he wants to do and the company offering that money will offset any tax difference with a larger salary.

The "flight of the elite" argument has been around for donkeys but has never come to fruition.

When they see the SW tap being turned off they won't be long in spontaneously getting a job

seamus

gifted wrote: »

When they see the SW tap being turned off they won't be long in spontaneously getting a job

With all due respect, I think that's quite naive.

There are many many countries with no social welfare, and many many unemployed people. The two are not intrinsically linked.

gifted

seamus wrote: »

With all due respect, I think that's quite naive.

There are many many countries with no social welfare, and many many unemployed people. The two are not intrinsically linked.

Many many countries with no jobs either but guess what??...we have plenty of opportunities here...

SW here is way too high...no incentive to take up the jobs that are out there now....

What other country would pay a SW bonus at Christmas to the long term unemployed at Christmas??...it's laughable.....

Isn't the fuel allowance been paid out in January??.....open to correction here but it's €500????


I'd love to be able to put my hand on money like that in jan

is_that_so

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

So in other words, it was designed to prevent a system with fundamental flaws from failing naturally, and thus prevent those fundamental flaws ever being addressed. Which is exactly why - and pretty much everyone knows this in one way or another - we will repeat this exact same cycle again. The only question is when. Not if.

What flaws are you talking about?
The flaws in the financial systems have been addressed and even more so in Basel III.

is_that_so

charlie14 wrote: »

Labour were not keen in forming another coalition with FG in 2016 as they believed they got the brunt of the blame for FG policy from the FG/Lab government 2011 -2016.
In 2016 they encouraged their supporters to transfer to FG and 53% did.
I cannot see them doing the same in 2020 and will be eyeing up other possible options.

The so called seat bonus does favour the larger parties for those last seats leaving whoever is on top to take the last seat, but it is transfers that decides who gets it.
If those transfer from Labour that got FG many of those last seats for FG in 2016 are reduced this time then I do not see where else they will come from.

That doesn't mean Labour voters will not give them preferences. FG have always benefited from Labour voters down the line. There's no evidence that they will suddenly change their tune.
I wouldn't call last seats based on imagined transfers for one party or another especially when it comes to the elimination of those who were previously in contention. Being ahead is what counts as you can end up with a whole lot of non-transferable votes. There can also be a fair spread of vote transfers.

I don't think you've answered the question here and it all looks like supposition so I will ask what it is that shows you that FG have suddenly become even more transfer toxic than SF?

Wilfuler.

gifted wrote: »

Many many countries with no jobs either but guess what??...we have plenty of opportunities here...

SW here is way too high...no incentive to take up the jobs that are out there now....

What other country would pay a SW bonus at Christmas to the long term unemployed at Christmas??...it's laughable.....

Isn't the fuel allowance been paid out in January??.....open to correction here but it's €500????


I'd love to be able to put my hand on money like that in jan

It's s balance between the American system of
paying negligible SW and jailing lots of people or supporting an underclass

The additional problem here is immigration and justice system

James Brown

is_that_so wrote: »

This seems to assume that there is an entity out there who can and will "solve" the housing "crisis". There really isn't unless you want 50% taxes on anything earned over €30K. Building will solve it and all any government can do is facilitate that as far as possible. While I take a very dim view of what LAs do they have largely escaped scot free on culpability on what is their remit: social housing. Unfortunately the government and the private sector have had to step in there as well.
As for Ahern's time, it is very different. Sure there is a lot of commuting but that damage was done with the lunacy from the late 1990s. There is now proper control over how much debt people can get into, unfortunately reducing the options of affordability for some potential buyers. Private rental will have to be part of the solution, in the way that it is done in other countries, i.e. long term but generally affordable leases.

Are you not sick of people rolling out that propaganda? I know I am. Nobody has ever claimed there is a quick fix or one party with all the answers except apologists deriding a claim nobody made.
One thing we do know is the current path we are on does not work.

gifted

Wilfuler. wrote: »

It's s balance between the American system of
paying negligible SW and jailing lots of people or supporting an underclass

The additional problem here is immigration and justice system

Huge difference between the population of America and little oul Ireland....like I said, if someone worked and paid taxes for 10 years then give them everything for 10 years if they can't find a job ....they deserve it, they've paid their taxes......at least they'll know that when 10 years is up the tap is turned off.
it's the people who have contributed nothing and have no intention of contributing that I have zero sympathy for.

Anyway, that's just my opinion....I'll burn the ears off the politicians when they knock on my door for the election. Have a good new years folks.

Wilfuler.

gifted wrote: »

Huge difference between the population of America and little oul Ireland....like I said, if someone worked and paid taxes for 10 years then give them everything for 10 years if they can't find a job ....they deserve it, they've paid their taxes......at least they'll know that when 10 years is up the tap is turned off.
it's the people who have contributed nothing and have no intention of contributing that I have zero sympathy for.

Anyway, that's just my opinion....I'll burn the ears off the politicians when they knock on my door for the election. Have a good new years folks.

Can't even understand what you're saying

gifted

Wilfuler. wrote: »

Can't even understand what you're saying

Oh...and I wrote it slowly for you because you could read it slowly.....









Lol lol

charlie14

is_that_so wrote: »

That doesn't mean Labour voters will not give them preferences. FG have always benefited from Labour voters down the line. There's no evidence that they will suddenly change their tune.
I wouldn't call last seats based on imagined transfers for one party or another especially when it comes to the elimination of those who were previously in contention. Being ahead is what counts as you can end up with a whole lot of non-transferable votes. There can also be a fair spread of vote transfers.

I don't think you've answered the question here and it all looks like supposition so I will ask what it is that shows you that FG have suddenly become even more transfer toxic than SF?

Are you not also making a supposition that just because Labour voter transfers went strongly to FG where there was the hope of both forming a coalition government, that this will continue this time when Labour look to have no interest in going into coalition with FG ?

After the first count if you haven`t reached a quota the only votes that count to keep you in contention for a seat, are transfers.
If Labour are eyeing up another partner other than FG then I cannot see their transfers going in mass to FG and that will cause FG problems for those last seats.

If that is the case then where FG are going to get transfers from to make up the difference. They will get transfers from generic FG independents, but the first preference votes those independents will by far negated when they come back as transfers. Other than that I cannot see where else they will get them tbh .

It is only anecdotal, but from tally people at the Wexford by-election count had Lawlor been eliminated before Murphy, his transfers to Byrne would have been greater than those to Murphy.
If true it could be an indicator of problems for FG in the up-coming GE.

James Brown

As a Labour voter who backed Kenny's FG, it wont happen again unless they ditch Leo and move away from supporting business to the detriment of the tax payer.
Varadkar was a damp squib for the FG people placed him in charge and he certainly was for the working tax payer. More useless than Kenny. That's some achievement.

_Kaiser_

gifted wrote: »

When they see the SW tap being turned off they won't be long in spontaneously getting a job

More likely that the type you're referring to, who live off and abuse the welfare system as it is, will turn to other means to replace their lost "income" such as theft and other criminality.

Like it or not, that's something that welfare helps shield the rest of us from too.

charlie14

Matt Barrett wrote: »

As a Labour voter who backed Kenny's FG, it wont happen again unless they ditch Leo and move away from supporting business to the detriment of the tax payer.
Varadkar was a damp squib for the FG people placed him in charge and he certainly was for the working tax payer. More useless than Kenny. That's some achievement.

After all their broken promises of 2011 - 2016 Labour have a long way to go before I would again even consider voting for them.

Wilfuler.

What's Vardarak doing next?

MEP I guess