[Chuck Stone]

I'd be interested as to what part of state intervention in the economy would be prioritised for the chop by a libertarian party.

Stop funding 3rd level education?

Stop granting corporate status?

Do away with limited liability?

What about patent and copyright protection?

Would a libertarian party remove entry barriers to the protected professions?

I mean, from a libertarian perspective the state's only role should be to enforce contracts and protect property.

Isn't it?

[Pride Fighter]

Originally Posted by BOHtox

Yes you did say that.

That is my quote and quite clearly I did not.

Originally Posted by Pride Fighter

That is because taxes have been constantly coming down. In 1976 the tax rate on the upper bracket was 77%, it is now 41%. In fact such erosion of the tax-base, by neo-liberals such as the PD's aided and abetted the crisis.

I'd like to see a party advocate more taxes, about 50%, in order to close the deficit, invest in infrastructure and public services. The neoliberal right has been wrecking nations since Reagan, we need to fight back against them.

[Pride Fighter]

Originally Posted by Suryavarman

Trying to find a correlation using only two data points is beyond ridiculous.

I agree. So lets look over the past 60 years.

It's beyond me how you could think that high taxes create jobs. Higher taxes mean that people will stop working past a certain point. High taxes mean the private sector has less money than the public sector, meaning a more inefficient and slower growing economy.

Here is evidence to show higher taxes means higher economic growth and lower unemployment rates.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-Wo...onomic_climate

That link should show a table. Average global economic growth between 1945-1979 was 4.8%. Taxes were a lot higher then, the US even had a 90% rate of tax for its highest bracket between the early 50's and mid 70's. From 1979 to 2009 average global growth was 3.2% when they had less taxes.

Unemployment was lower in the US, UK, France and Germany when they had higher taxes. Who would have thought it?

[BOHtox]

Originally Posted by Pride Fighter

That is my quote and quite clearly I did not.

"invest" - that is increasing spending.

[celtictiger32]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by BOHtox

My local football team, just a small Leinster Senior cup team or something, used to do microwavable pizzas. They hired an extra bar man. They had 3 barmen to deal with the demand. The microwave or the oven or whatever in which it was cooked, was too far away from a sink so they could no longer make them. Barman now unemployed. Now there was a sink in the kitchen but Health and Safety couldn't allow it. Nanny state regulation is crippling small business in this country!

agree totally, nanny state regulations and political correctness is ruining society as a whole

[comeback_kid]

[QUOTE=celtictiger32;78442976]

agree totally, nanny state regulations and political correctness is ruining society as a whole

next thing we know , it wil start ruining this site

[Suryavarman]

Originally Posted by Pride Fighter

I agree. So lets look over the past 60 years.



Here is evidence to show higher taxes means higher economic growth and lower unemployment rates.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-Wo...onomic_climate

That link should show a table. Average global economic growth between 1945-1979 was 4.8%. Taxes were a lot higher then, the US even had a 90% rate of tax for its highest bracket between the early 50's and mid 70's. From 1979 to 2009 average global growth was 3.2% when they had less taxes.

Unemployment was lower in the US, UK, France and Germany when they had higher taxes. Who would have thought it?

Working off the figures here government revenue as a percentage of GDP averaged 17.72% between 1950-2010, 18.12% between 1950-1959 and 17.53% between 1960-1969. In the fifties US real GDP per capita increased by 1.85% per year. In the sixties US real GDP per capita increased by 3.32% per year. Although, working off the figures here the average unemployment rate in the fifties was 4.5% vs 4.8% for the sixties.

As for Germany and France, they were so far behind the US in GDP per capita at the end of the war it is no surprise that they could manage low unemployment or high economic growth.

You've also failed to give me a reason why higher taxes would cause low unemployment or a better economy. If you can't do that then all the correlations you point out are meaningless.

[dtf]

IMO this is the problem with talk of a new political party. From a quick glance at the first page of this thread, I have seen one poster wanting a new party to fill the void left by the PDs, another calling for a party that will reflect Green issues and another for a party that will raise taxes in order to bridge the deficit.
Most would like to see a new political party, but it seems that the views of what that party should actually stand for are very wide.

[lkdsl]

@dtf - you hit the nail on the head!

I, too, would like my own personal political party. But it wouldn't be based on ideology of left or right. I would like:
1. Economically right of centre. Where the private sector works well, it works very well and should be encouraged to get on with it.
2. Excellent regulation in sectors where market-based economics leads (or could lead) to excess e.g. banking, food safety, standard setting, etc.
3. A progressive taxation system that generates sufficient revenue without clobbering initiative and endeavour.
4. User pays principle applied to most resources (water, waste, energy) with externalities included in the pricing (carbon, waste, tobacco, alcohol, etc.)
5. Redistributive and welfare that actually works. As it is, some who don't need help receive it while some who desperately need it do not. That is shameful on both counts.
6. State involvement only in those areas which would otherwise not work effectively - national grid, gas distribution, railway lines and roads, education, health (probably), regulation
7. Liberal in everything else - if it is not specifically involved, it's none of the state's business (our bedrooms, back gardens, etc.).

Anyone with me?

[Lockstep]

Originally Posted by lkdsl

@dtf - you hit the nail on the head!

I, too, would like my own personal political party. But it wouldn't be based on ideology of left or right. I would like:
1. Economically right of centre. Where the private sector works well, it works very well and should be encouraged to get on with it.
2. Excellent regulation in sectors where market-based economics leads (or could lead) to excess e.g. banking, food safety, standard setting, etc.
3. A progressive taxation system that generates sufficient revenue without clobbering initiative and endeavour.
4. User pays principle applied to most resources (water, waste, energy) with externalities included in the pricing (carbon, waste, tobacco, alcohol, etc.)
5. Redistributive and welfare that actually works. As it is, some who don't need help receive it while some who desperately need it do not. That is shameful on both counts.
6. State involvement only in those areas which would otherwise not work effectively - national grid, gas distribution, railway lines and roads, education, health (probably), regulation
7. Liberal in everything else - if it is not specifically involved, it's none of the state's business (our bedrooms, back gardens, etc.).

Anyone with me?

The problem here is that these are truisms: you'd be hard pressed to find someone who doesn't want State involvement only where the market fails/ excellent regulation/progressive taxation that doesn't stifle innovation/welfare that isn't wasteful and so on.

[OS119]

Originally Posted by dtf

...Most would like to see a new political party...

there was a new party - Amrahn Nua i think they called themselves, came on here looking for engagement, had a website with general principles, and then vanished without trace.

ok, so they looked to me to be a bit of a mish-mash, and they got a bit shirty with people who mentioned that some of their stuff was a bit illogical/badly thought-out - but it was all mainstream stuff, nothing about war with France or the compusory eating of Asparagus.

new party, mainstream ideas, and lots of public engagement yet they disappeared off the face of the earth - i'm not sure this 'the people want more choice' line is really true...

[lkdsl]

Originally Posted by Lockstep

The problem here is that these are truisms: you'd be hard pressed to find someone who doesn't want State involvement only where the market fails/ excellent regulation/progressive taxation that doesn't stifle innovation/welfare that isn't wasteful and so on.

Ok. So that's two people for starters. LOL

What shall we call our new party?

[KarmaBaby]

The only void in Irish politics now as it stands is a Fascist Party and Stalinist Party. Actually, both exist but have no real support base to build on. I don't think a Maoist party would ever develop here but you never know. They're still quite popular in the middle east.

The idea that a "Libertarian" party would cover some part of Ireland's political landscape which Fianna Fail/Labour/Sinn Fein wouldn't already is complete and utter fantasy since such a party would essentially be yet another pro market-capitalism party pretending to be socially "left" while at the same time being corporately funded. i.e. Another populist party that forever dances around the ever moving political centre, inevitably shifting to the right and creating another political vacuum on the left which the SF the ULA is currently filling.

[Lockstep]

Originally Posted by lkdsl

Ok. So that's two people for starters. LOL

What shall we call our new party?

These are ideas rather than policies.

Both Fine Gael and Sinn Fein would see their policies as achieving everything you advocate but go about it very differently.

[Suryavarman]

Originally Posted by KarmaBaby

The only void in Irish politics now as it stands is a Fascist Party and Stalinist Party. Actually, both exist but have no real support base to build on. I don't think a Maoist party would ever develop here but you never know. They're still quite popular in the middle east.

Ireland has a fascist party?

What's the difference between a Maoist party and a Stalinist one?

The idea that a "Libertarian" party would cover some part of Ireland's political landscape which Fianna Fail/Labour/Sinn Fein wouldn't already is complete and utter fantasy since such a party would essentially be yet another pro market-capitalism party pretending to be socially "left" while at the same time being corporately funded. i.e. Another populist party that forever dances around the ever moving political centre, inevitably shifting to the right and creating another political vacuum on the left which the SF the ULA is currently filling.

How does a party pretend to be socially left?