Would you support a significantly higher rate of income tax?

r0nanf

Very simple proposition really - would you support a significantly higher rate of income tax (lets say averaging out at 30% of gross income for the average worker) in return for a world class universal health and education system?

I would also propose a higher level again for earners over say €150k btw.

In return for a lower net income you would receive free healthcare including GP visits and free education (1-3rd level). Maybe 50% of the cost of 4th level to be subsidized too.

Everybody, rich and poor, receiving the same level of social support with no option to pay your way to the top of the waiting list or to pay to have your child put in a school with higher progression rates.

Lockstep

Yes, I would completely support such a proposal.

Soldie

No, I wouldn't.

John_Mc

I'd have no problem if I saw value for money. I'd rather leave the country than pay that rate if things were to stay as they are.

bladespin

Couldn't support it as a world class system would never happen here, they'd squander the extra on something silly.

I would support a third tax band for anyone on €60k or more per year.

spank_inferno

I would argue that no such thing is necessary as we are already taxed quite high already.

I am earning the industrial average, so I pay 20% income tax
On the remainder of my income I pay 21% vat on what I purchase to survive.
On certain items less, on certain more.

I'm taxed for the possession of a television, car, dog (lisence).
I paid thousands in tax to purchase my home
Small business owners are hosed by local authority rates.


At what point have I paid enough to expect good public services in return?

r0nanf

Soldie wrote: »

No, I wouldn't.

Reasons? The current system doesn't work, why not try something different.

wes

I would have no issue with paying a high tax rate if I got value for money. So in theory I would be for your idea.

However, I think the Irish government has been pretty useless at spending our money properly and I would have to see one hell of a change among most political parties to be convinced that higher taxes wouldn't be flushed down the toilet.

r0nanf

wes wrote: »

However, I think the Irish government has been pretty useless at spending our money properly and I would have to see one hell of a change among most political parties to be convinced that higher taxes wouldn't be flushed down the toilet.

Fact. This supposition is contingent on a different government

Dr Galen

no neither would i tbh. but not on idealogical grounds, more on the grounds that it simply wouldn't work out as you plan.

Your proposing something akin to the Social Democracy model used in places in Sweden and Denmark?

I just don't think such a model would work very well over here. You'd be asking people to leave behind decades of cronyism, nepotism and dodging the system in one way or another.

I also don't think that the rich need to have the same level of support as the poorer. Why does someone on 200k per annum need free 3rd level education for their kids? It's actually been shown that having free fee's in this country has not really affected the numbers of people from lower socio-economic groups attending 3rd level. In fact many degree's that are issued nowadays aren't worth the paper they are written on!

Primary and secondary education should most definitely be free, as they are now, but using that same setup for 3rd level wouldn't be beneficial in my view. Allowing universities etc to become more self sufficient with regard to funding would be a start, government sponsored business incubators, allowing Universities to commercialise and license technology that they develop would also be a major step to adequate funding.



I'd certainly love to see a better health system in this country, but to be fair, its not really cash that has been the issue there, its been the total mismanagement of resources, wastage and short sightedness. A clearout within the HSE as a whole would make much more difference than another billion euro being thrown at them.

Soldie

r0nanf wrote: »

Reasons? The current system doesn't work, why not try something different.

I see significant flaws in any system that offers 'free' anything, because there's no such thing - ultimately someone has to pay. What motivation do the lower-paid workers have for trying to better their situation if they're already getting 'free' healthcare and education at the expense of others? Likewise, what motivation do the higher-paid workers have for sticking around and paying punitive taxes? It'd just lead to a skilled-labour shortage like in Denmark, where income taxes of up to 63% in certain circumstances drive the successful abroad.

And if we want to try something different, perhaps we should lower taxes and privatise hospitals, giving people a competitive healthcare market which will drive prices down, and more disposable income. Right now we have a situation where we've vastly increased spending on health, but to no discernible benefit - what makes you think that providing even more funding will change anything?

wes

r0nanf wrote: »

Fact. This supposition is contingent on a different government

Fair enough then.

ateam

This might be off topic a bit, but if they broaden the tax base i.e. bring lower income people into the tax net..would there be an argument that the those who are lower paid will be better off on social welfare. Minimum wage is €8.65, over a week is €337.35..the dole is €204. Taxing the lower income people will disincentivise them to work when they can get the same sort of amount less all the hassel of work?

Unless they reduce social welfare, I don't think they should broaden the tax base.

r0nanf

Mystik Monkey wrote: »

I also don't think that the rich need to have the same level of support as the poorer. Why does someone on 200k per annum need free 3rd level education for their kids?

As previously mentioned I would advocate an even higher rate on high earners. I think giving 50% or higher of your earnings over €150k would be a fair trade for free education and health. I think that if someone who is wealthy pays enough tax that their contribution has been made, and ultimately then they have the same access to the same resources.

It's actually been shown that having free fee's in this country has not really affected the numbers of people from lower socio-economic groups attending 3rd level.

Although we hear that a lot it is far too early to tell that for sure. For instance in the first 10 years of free second level education the completion figures remained fairly similar, but the retention level is now 81%.

A clearout within the HSE as a whole would make much more difference than another billion euro being thrown at them.

Agreed, the whole system needs to be redrawn.

Pedro K

wes wrote: »

I would have no issue with paying a high tax rate if I got value for money. So in theory I would be for your idea.

However, I think the Irish government has been pretty useless at spending our money properly and I would have to see one hell of a change among most political parties to be convinced that higher taxes wouldn't be flushed down the toilet.

+1

A few people have said it.

I wouldn't pay that rate to this government because they would no doubt squander it on blow drys etc...

r0nanf

Soldie wrote: »

What motivation do the lower-paid workers have for trying to better their situation if they're already getting 'free' healthcare and education at the expense of others?

Plenty of motivation. Access to private rooms. Beds. Shorter waiting lists. My neighbour is dying because he has been waiting over a year for what was then a relatively routine operation.

Likewise, what motivation do the higher-paid workers have for sticking around and paying punitive taxes?

No private health care fees. No GP fees. No private education fees. The same arguement applies whether you are rich or poor, thats the point.

Dr Galen

r0nanf wrote: »

As previously mentioned I would advocate an even higher rate on high earners. I think giving 50% or higher of your earnings over €150k would be a fair trade for free education and health. I think that if someone who is wealthy pays enough tax that their contribution has been made, and ultimately then they have the same access to the same resources.

well i know that if i worked myself into a position that I was getting paid 150k then a) i wouldn't need to worry about free education and healthcare and b) I'd be pretty pissed off giving 50% of my cash out to pay for services that i didn't want or need in the first place.

A bit of research would tell you that the rich tax payers in this country already pay a disproportiate amount of tax when compared to the rest of the people in the tax net, so taxing them even further is hardly fair now is it?
Changing the tax system to include some of the 40% or so that pay no income tax at all would be a good idea, that situation is pretty much unheard of anywhere else. Re-drawing the rules on tax exile and tax loophole status would also be of benefit.

r0nanf

Mystik Monkey wrote: »

A bit of research would tell you that the rich tax payers in this country already pay a disproportiate amount of tax when compared to the rest of the people in the tax net, so taxing them even further is hardly fair now is it?

I've done my research thanks. The top 6% although providing about 50% of all income tax raised pay on average 27% of their earnings on income tax. That is not enough imho.

jimmmy

To answer the OP question , yes, as long as the govt did not blow it on giving themselves and their employees higher salaries and pensions ( They are aleready among the highest, if not the highest, in the whole world ).

The tax should be used to reduce our requirement for such massive borrowing eg only borrow 22 billion instead of 25 or 26 billion this year.

Soldie

r0nanf wrote: »

Plenty of motivation. Access to private rooms. Beds. Shorter waiting lists. My neighbour is dying because he has been waiting over a year for what was then a relatively routine operation.

Everybody, rich and poor, receiving the same level of social support with no option to pay your way to the top of the waiting list or to pay to have your child put in a school with higher progression rates.

Can you explain this discrepancy?

No private health care fees. No GP fees. No private education fees. The same arguement applies whether you are rich or poor, thats the point.

Yes, but those who make more money would be paying punitive taxes and getting less for their money than those paying nothing - as per your claim that those below a certain income would get 'free' GP visits, etc. Is that equitable? It promotes laziness because those who make less money are happy to avail of 'free' services at the expense of the rich, while those making more money are in a situation where they're paying punitive taxes to pay other people's way. I find that to be regressive.

r0nanf

Soldie wrote: »

Can you explain this discrepancy?

What discrepancy? Everybody gets the same facilities. I merely mentioned different examples as lower paid workers who already have access to free (albeit rubbish) healthcare could have access to better free healthcare. Such as private rooms as opposed to wards.

Yes, but those who make more money would be paying punitive taxes and getting less for their money than those paying nothing - as per your claim that those below a certain income would get 'free' GP visits, etc. Is that equitable? It promotes laziness because those who make less money are happy to avail of 'free' services at the expense of the rich, while those making more money are in a situation where they're paying punitive taxes to pay other people's way. I find that to be regressive.

Again I'm saying that everyone would have access to the same, free services.
To work the tax band would have to be widened too to include some lower paid workers, but again if you didn't have to pay for GP visits etc...

Dr Galen

r0nanf wrote: »

I've done my research thanks. The top 6% although providing about 50% of all income tax raised pay on average 27% of their earnings on income tax. That is not enough imho.

Ronanf that was not meant a snipey comment at you! but i can see how you could pick that up, so i apologise dude.

to address your point though, i agree that 27% tax on earnings is on the low side, but 50% is far too much. a happy medium should and could be reached. The fact is that if you over-tax the drivers of the ecomony, i.e the business people, the entrepreneurs etc they'll just up and leave

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

silverharp

r0nanf wrote: »

Very simple proposition really - would you support a significantly higher rate of income tax (lets say averaging out at 30% of gross income for the average worker) in return for a world class universal health and education system?

there is no cause and effect here , having higher taxes does not guarantee a better quality service. Also you always end up in a rationing system and artificial bottlenecks

r0nanf wrote: »

or to pay to have your child put in a school with higher progression rates.

we have a very bland primary and second level system as it is , educate together schools etc. should be encouraged and not stamped on to promote some "fairness" on paper which in reality doesnt exist.
Why arent you asking why everyone is shoehorned to follow one particular syllabus when again in reality it only suits 50% to 60% of kids?

Iwasfrozen

Most provinces in Canada have made private health insurance illegal, to make sure that everyone would have to use the state-provided system. However, long waiting lists mean that people who need urgent surgery often travel to the USA to have their operations performed quickly and privately. Many of them spend their life savings or sell their houses to get the medical care that they desperately need.

In Ireland, how would you make sure that someone with a serious condition, such as a brain tumor, had "no option to pay his way to the top"? Would you also prevent him from traveling to another country for the purpose of getting medical treatment?

Of course not, preventing people from getting threatment in another country would affect their Personal Freedom.
If a person can afford to then they should be allowed to get threatment whereever they want.

Bottle_of_Smoke

No, I wouldn't.

You can get health insurance that covers €30 out of the €50 you pay to the GP. If GPs were completely free everyone with a cold would be clogging up GP surgeries.

If people didn't drink so much, didn't smoke, exercised occasionally and ate properly they wouldn't be getting sick for the most part. Everyone knows this and I don't see why people who look after themselves should hand over extortionate rates of tax. And I'm someone who doesn't look after myself to any great extent in those categories.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Iwasfrozen

If that is so, then the OP's proposal that people should be denied access to private health care or prevented from putting their children in better schools also constitute restrictions on personal freedom?

Surely, if people can afford it, they should be allowed to send their children to any school they want?

As long as their paying the higher level of income tax does it really matter ?
Why would someone put themselves out of money by in inroling in a private school when theywill get an equaly good school for free ?
The choice will still be there but why would anyone choose it ?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

SeanW

OP, I think you've got it all wrong.

First off, I should explain that I'm approaching this from a position of left-leaning Libertarianism, so what I'm about to write is filtered throgh that perspective. I have no objection, in principle, to redistribution - within reason and limits that is - but there is fundamental problem with looking to the government to provide services. They literally have no incentive to do it right. It's not just our Zanu-FF mob, it's a fundamental worldwide problem with all government services.

Put yourself in the position of 4 different consumers, and see if this makes sense.

1. You are a consumer, with a limited pot of money, looking to obtain some product or service. You are fundamentally affected by this transaction, being both the paymaster and the end user, you need to obtain the best purchase and the least cost.
2. You're buying a gift for a friend - you are primarily worried about cost, quality too - you don't want to buy your friend something that's unsafe or junky (hopefully) but this is a secondary concern.
3. You are a trophy wife or kept man, your rich spouse has just lent you their credit card, and you need a new coat - in some cases, you will go entirely for fashion/quality and may not even look at the price tag.
4. You're in government, and are spending other peoples' money, on other people. Without insanely strong accountability regulations - like executing Ministers who screw up or bankrupting public service unions that hold the public services in a deadlock of ineffectiveness - you have absolutely no personal interest in the task, your decisions have no bearing on you personally, and no mistake you make can hurt you in any way.

You see the problem here? A "world class government service" is almost a contradiction in terms, an oxymoron, like "the tall midget" or "the rich homeless man" and is impossible in most cases.

A good example of this in the U.S. is the Walter Reed Army Medical Centre neglect scandal. If the Veterans Affairs simply paid the cost of medical care directly to those veterans, instead of filtering it through the military system, the vets would have been able to procure their own care and never had to suffer what they did.

What I would do instead, is fire the entire public service - all of it, save for the gardaí, army and firemen, and give people - particularly people on low incomes, vouchers to obtain services like health and education on a partially liberated market. (School voucher programs are an idea that do the rounds in the U.S. from time to time, but anti-religion activists and a host of groups with a vested interested in a public monopoly keep nixing it.)

Then publish "league tables" of schools exam results, doctor/hospital recovery rates, and other pertinent information to give prospective parents and patients an idea about what a particular service provider is "all about." This so that anyone, from the poorest to the richest can say of a non-functional service "screw you, I'm giving this money to an organisation that can do it properly" which a private system could provide.

Some things on the other hand, you have no choice but to wait for the government to provide a service - like the Driver Testing System - where we pay twice over the odds for a system that doesn't work and an entrenched trade union mafia that stands over this. New legislation punishing poor standards in remaining public services would be needed, for the limited things that couldn't be privatised.

Iwasfrozen

It's standard logic that wealthier people should pay more tax but should not be "allowed" to avail of better public services.

With the extra revenue increased Taxes will generate we will be able to incease the quality of Public Service Schools.

If public schools were just as good as private schools, then your argument would be perfectly valid. But you won't find many places where this is the case.

Why sould the child of a rich person recieve a better education than a child from an improverished area ?
Is good education a birth right ?
With our way there will be no Public or Private schools, no "good" or "Bad" schools, simply a free education for every child, even in 3rd level, paid for by an increase on Income Tax.

Iwasfrozen

You're in government, and are spending other peoples' money, on other people. Without insanely strong accountability regulations - like executing Ministers who screw up or bankrupting public service unions that hold the public services in a deadlock of ineffectiveness - you have absolutely no personal interest in the task, your decisions have no bearing on you personally, and no mistake you make can hurt you in any way.

Except the chance of not being elected again and losing your only source of income ? Though it might be nice to see a Politician in the Dole line.

You see the problem here? A "world class government service" is almost a contradiction in terms, an oxymoron, like "the tall midget" or "the rich homeless man" and is impossible in most cases.

I see no contradiction, more like tautology.

Then publish "league tables" of schools exam results, doctor/hospital recovery rates, and other pertinent information to give prospective parents and patients an idea about what a particular service provider is "all about." This so that anyone, from the poorest to the richest can say of a non-functional service "screw you, I'm giving this money to an organisation that can do it properly" which a private system could provide.

Might be all good and well in a city, but what about at grass roots level, Ireland is a rural country and a private company will simply not be motivated to set up business in a place with limited chance to expand. Take for example my home county Monaghan, with a population of circa. 50,000 there is simply not enough sick people to keep these greedy private companies happy here. Are we or any one else in a similar situation to drive to the nearest city Dundalk in the case of an emergency ? Allot of people don't cars are we to phone the ambulance just to go to A&E ? This ideal may be well and good for a city but simply won't work for the majority of the population.

SeanW

Except the chance of not being elected again and losing your only source of income ? Though it might be nice to see a Politician in the Dole line.

That's why all our public services are so efficient?

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

With the extra revenue increased Taxes will generate we will be able to incease the quality of Public Service Schools.

It's not that simple. Some government services will by their very nature suck up any available money and not deliver quality.

Why sould the child of a rich person recieve a better education than a child from an improverished area ?

I don't believe they should, and this explains the "Left leaning" part of my self description of "Left leaning Libertarian." I'm all for children getting a good education - but the government is often as responsible for the two tier system as the disparity in wealth.

Take another hypothetical. Suppose it is found that the cheapest a privateer or charter school can educate a child to a high standard is €1500. The rich man spends this on lunch money but the poor family cannot pay this, so they have to send their child to a poorly performing public school.
Get rid of the public school and give the poor family a €1500 voucher, and lets say a high quality private school opens in the area and asks between 1500 and 1800 per year. Chances are, the poor family can afford to make up the shortfall, and in any case the child gets a better education.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

NewDubliner

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Except the chance of not being elected again and losing your only source of income ? Though it might be nice to see a Politician in the Dole line.

Bless you innocence. They become lobbyists and consultants.

Iwasfrozen

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

With the extra revenue increased Taxes will generate we will be able to incease the quality of Public Service Schools.

Lol, that's a good one

NewDubliner

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

OMG, you're a closet PD

Lockstep

NewDubliner wrote: »

OMG, you're a closet PD

He's more PD than the PDs themselves.

Iwasfrozen

That's why all our public services are so efficient?

It's not that simple. Some government services will by their very nature suck up any available money and not deliver quality.

Which is both why I want huge reforms in the Goverment.

Take another hypothetical. Suppose it is found that the cheapest a privateer or charter school can educate a child to a high standard is €1500. The rich man spends this on lunch money but the poor family cannot pay this, so they have to send their child to a poorly performing public school.
Get rid of the public school and give the poor family a €1500 voucher, and lets say a high quality private school opens in the area and asks between 1500 and 1800 per year. Chances are, the poor family can afford to make up the shortfall, and in any case the child gets a better education.

Nice, but how do we afford the vouchers without increasing tax ? You and I seem to be on the same scale, Social Democracy. Pity we can't agree on what role the Goverment should take.

Bless you innocence. They become lobbyists and consultants.

Lol, that's a good one

Not sure how to respond to these, never the less, Sig Worthy!

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

SeanW

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Which is both why I want huge reforms in the Goverment.

Bless your innocence First, the "reforms" would have to be strong enough to overcome the iron law of self interest as I described above. Second, you'd have to get politicians to support them, which would be like getting turkeys to vote for Christmas. Literally, since something like the rules governing the Doge of old Venice would be required.

Besides, if we take the Irish example of the Driver Testing service, where according to one ex-SGS tester, they were doing more tests per week for less money, and the public sector union in charge of the RSA operation is too strong to allow their gravy train to be derailed. I also pointed out the Walter Reed Medical scandal in the U.S. as another example.

If we assume that this kind of madness is just a highly visible microchasm of what is else is going on in the public services, then IMHO the question goes beyond reform, to how do we smash these abysmal failures, and what if anything to replace them with.

Nice, but how do we afford the vouchers without increasing tax ? You and I seem to be on the same scale, Social Democracy. Pity we can't agree on what role the Goverment should take.

Before we get to arguments about whether we should have a welfare-state or not with protections for the poor, or anarcho-capitalist-libertarianism, or to what degree of each, there is a lot of bad value for money in current services that needs to be rooted out in either case. In my hypothetical school system above, a public monopoly school could be taking €1500 per student/year off the taxpayer and providing a crap service. Should we allow that to continue?

francish

In answer to OP's question, absolutely not. How could anyone trust an Irish politican of any party to spend extra taxes wisely? Rather than look simply at tax as a percentage of wealth, you have to look at the quality of service we get for what we currently spend. Is there any public service out there where there is not huge waste. It absolutely sickens me to hear all the commentary focused on increasing taxes or a reduction in services. Why as taxpayers are we not demanding reform and value for money?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

P. Breathnach

This discussion seems a bit odd to me, because the cart has been placed before the horse, and nobody seems to be focusing on that.

I am not in favour of increasing taxes in order to do anything. I am in favour of reaching a social agreement on what we want the state to do for us, and then levying taxes sufficient to pay for that. I think most of us would agree broadly on what we want the state to do for us -- a very broad agreement, with lots of vigorous skirmishing about the details.

That's not the whole story of course, but it is the starting position. The challenges are that we need to
1. ensure that there is efficiency in how the state makes the provision;
2. decide on what types of activity we levy taxes, and how the burden is distributed;
3. do some economic management.

In those three areas, I disagree with the policies that we have been following for the last few years. So do many other people, but we don't all disagree with policy in the same way. I think our differences on these matters are greater than on the more basic question of what we want the state to do for us.

[This submission takes no account of the libertarian fringe on this forum. I don't think they are part of the national consensus.]

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

silverharp

P. Breathnach wrote: »

[This submission takes no account of the libertarian fringe on this forum. I don't think they are part of the national consensus.]

Neither is the bond market, but by god will they have the final say the way things are going

P. Breathnach

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

You a libertarian? Who would have suspected it?

We've adopted a "throw money at the problem" mentality over the past decade of plenty. When our coffers were full, nobody was keeping a particularly close eye on how the state was spending our money.

Agreed.

Bureaucracy, inefficiency, and waste became rampant.

I think we have always had bureaucracy, with its shortcomings. I am not sure that it increased. Yes, I think we became victim to inefficiencies, partly due to a lack of political will to control things, and partly because of system failures. Yes, I think there has been waste, but what I might consider to be waste somebody else might consider useful spending (your small local hospital is wasteful; my small local hospital is a necessary service).

Social welfare payments rose to multiples of what they are in the UK.

That's part of our national consensus.

And then the boom came to a shuddering halt, and now we are faced with the prospect of borrowing billions every year so that we can sustain outrageous levels of public spending.

Modify "outrageous" and we are ad idem.

Look at this on a personal level. I recently lost my job, like many other people in this country, so my revenue has dwindled dramatically. The very first thing I did was go through my budget and make radical cutbacks. I have trimmed my lifestyle back to the essentials. My priorities are (a) to find another job as quickly as possible; (b) to live within my means while doing so; and (c) not to have to borrow money to survive.

I don't think this is unusual. Most people when they suffer a drop in income don't carry on spending like they did before. They buy their clothes in Dunnes and their groceries in Aldi; they don't buy a flashy new car; they don't go on holidays to exotic destinations.

You have outlined a very sensible strategy. Yet I know people who have lost their jobs who are not yet adopting such a strategy. Some find it very difficult to make an adjustment.

But our politicians, who are not spending their own money in any case, want to carry on pretending that the credit crunch and ensuing recession never happened. They want to party like it's 2006. They want to keep on throwing money at problems. They refuse to recognize the reality of the situation that we are in.

I think that just about all of them know what sort of things need to be done. Most of them don't have the courage to say it to us. Even less do they have the courage to do it. Like the newly unemployed, necessity will force them to change their ways. It's a pity that they are trying to avoid the inevitable day of reckoning. But, to an extent, it is our fault for consistently voting for populists.

[I didn't expect that I could find such large areas of agreement with a libertarian!]

Gael23

I feel it is important to keep the low paid out of the tax net or at least at the standard rate of tax. What I would like to see is a third tax band of maybe 45/48% on incomes of say €150k+.

P. Breathnach

ryanf1 wrote: »

I feel it is important to keep the low paid out of the tax net or at least at the standard rate of tax. What I would like to see is a third tax band of maybe 45/48% on incomes of say €150k+.

So under €150k is low paid?

A tax like that would raise relatively little. That's not a reason for not implementing it. But most of the rest of us will have to take some pain, too.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

silverharp

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I think that just about all of them know what sort of things need to be done. Most of them don't have the courage to say it to us. Even less do they have the courage to do it. Like the newly unemployed, necessity will force them to change their ways. It's a pity that they are trying to avoid the inevitable day of reckoning. But, to an extent, it is our fault for consistently voting for populists.

I'd give them some credit if they saw it coming , but I see no evidence that from say 2000 that they suspected that that there any sort of "one off " element to tax revenue this decade. For instance they could have pulled money out of the economy to fund the NDP going forward. They could have pulled the property reliefs when Ireland went into the Euro.
I fully agree that they are avoiding the day of reckoning , by the time the day of reckoning comes I suspect that we will have real interests rates here of around 12% , that could be -4% inflation and borrowing costs of 8%. Any setup like this will destroy the private economy and will slam the state budgets into a brick wall. The system as I see it is designed to fail. It builds up in the good times and there is no correcting mechanism on the downside.