Survey-new movement

Mario007

Hey everybody! I'm just trying to get a new political movement or a faction moving and I would like to ask you what do you think of its ideas and the ten point plan it has. It would be a capitalist right wing movement, as I believe there is a gap in the public representation on the right, since FF or FG are more center based. The movement would be aimed at the middle-class people, business people but particularly, in the early stage, at the intelligentsia and students since I will be going to college next year and it will be much easier to get its ideas across. (this does not rule out having members from other classes, its just a prediction, an estimate). Thanks

Here's the plan:

1. Have a political system where the government is made up off top experts in their field, not TDs. The Taoiseach, who also would be a top expert, would be nominated by the coalition that will form within the Dail, and he will then pick out his cabinet. The cabinet will have to be approved by the Dail, along with its program. This will make the cabinet apolitical, which means it will take decissions that will be good for the country, as based on their analitical expertise, not on the popular demand. Since every law will have to pass the Dail, this will ensure that that people's wishes will be still listened to. Also since TDs have the power to produce new bills and acts in the Dail, it will but greater pressure on them from their electorate, who will demand that they shall draft out these bills.
2. Flat rate of tax. Introduce a flat rate of tax across the board on all taxable items. This way some taxes will drop, others will increase. The main advantage of this system is that it is very simply and a flat rate is proved to reduce tax fraud, as people generally don't bother putting in the work to avoid tax payments anymore. The decreased tax on incomes allows for more money for the citizen, which he can spend on goods, on which VAT will be taxed, giving the state more money in VAT payments and other such taxes and also supporting production and increasing employment ie more money for the state from new income taxes.
3. Reduced social welfare benefits, not payments. By this I mean things like the state granting people money to pay for heating or rent. Also the jobseekers allowence would be reduced to 60% or 70% of the minimum income, encouraging people to go to and find a job. Jobseekers benefit will remain the same.
4. A complete reform of the education system, with continuous assessment rather than one exam to determine your life. This would include a change in the primary education as well, where children would also be assessed annually, with a greater selection of subject to increase the level of knowledge between the children in primary sector, which is among the lowest in the EU.
5. A foreign policy that supports the EU and the integration and well being of the EU members. This would include following the path of the Lisbon Treaty. A vital part for this would also be to create great exchange schemes for students in the secondary schools. On these exchanges they would gain the knowledge of other European cultures and hopefully will learn to accept them.
6. Reduced minimal wage by the value of deflation. This would allow a greater competitiveness to the Irish workforce and would not damage the people, due to the deflation.
7. Selling off some semi state companies, such as the ESB, that the state doesn't need. In the case of ESB the state doesn't need it to regulate the prices of electricity as the state can still regulate the prices through Board Gais, which makes owning both companies a luxury that we can't afford at the moment.
8. Use the money from selling of semi state companies to finance stimuli that would attract new companies to Ireland. This would include reaching a deal with the company that the state would make such and such contribution towards the company for a workplace that it'll create in Ireland. The contract would include also clause of the minimal time the company has to be in Ireland, and not pack off to other country at the earliest opportunity. This would enhance the competitiveness yet again.
9. Make a great audit of the public service sector, axing all the incompetent and inefficient agencies that have been created in the public sector, to save money, and also to send the message that public service sector is not a sector from which you can't be fired or your wages reduced.
10. Reducing the role of the unions. I'm not saying the unions are bad, or that they are to be completely destroyed, but their influence has grown to a radically high level right now.

Iskenderun

It sounds like Plato's Republic to me - a surefire recipe for authoritarianism!

paddyland

We had a right wing representation in the Dáil.

They were the party formerly known as the PDs.

They were voted out of existence, by DEMOCRACY.

The sole remaining lump of sediment from this short lived exercise in right wingery is presently trying to have sick children banished out of Irish hospital wards to any arbitrary hospital in the UK or abroad who might care to have them. The further away they go, the quicker we might all forget about them. Irish voters do have short memories, don't they? Who was it that said that again?

Right wing politics in Ireland?

NO THANKS!

turgon

Wow paddyland, tell us more about these right-wingers. You seem to be a treasure trove of factual information!

Euro_Kraut

Mario007 wrote: »

1. Have a political system where the government is made up off top experts in their field, not TDs. The Taoiseach, who also would be a top expert, would be nominated by the coalition that will form within the Dail, and he will then pick out his cabinet. The cabinet will have to be approved by the Dail, along with its program. This will make the cabinet apolitical, which means it will take decissions that will be good for the country, as based on their analitical expertise, not on the popular demand. Since every law will have to pass the Dail, this will ensure that that people's wishes will be still listened to. Also since TDs have the power to produce new bills and acts in the Dail, it will but greater pressure on them from their electorate, who will demand that they shall draft out these bills.

I'm not sure about this bit. How do you propose that theses experts are elected (or selected??) to the Dail? Also if the cabinet needs the backing of the majority of the Dail - how will that make them apolitical? Surely they will form allegiances.

Nice to see that you have thought about things though and have put a few ideas together. Better than just moaning about it.

Mario007

paddyland wrote: »

We had a right wing representation in the Dáil.

They were the party formerly known as the PDs.

They were voted out of existence, by DEMOCRACY.

The sole remaining lump of sediment from this short lived exercise in right wingery is presently trying to have sick children banished out of Irish hospital wards to any arbitrary hospital in the UK or abroad who might care to have them. The further away they go, the quicker we might all forget about them. Irish voters do have short memories, don't they? Who was it that said that again?

Right wing politics in Ireland?

NO THANKS!

thats your opinion, but right wing parties arent about all profits and letting the citizen to starve on the street. in the right wing parties there is such a concept as solidarity as well, you know, its actually very strong. We just dont like lay abouts that abuse the state's social programmes and do not contribute to the society

Iskenderun wrote: »

It sounds like Plato's Republic to me - a surefire recipe for authoritarianism!

oh you mean the first point? why authoritarianism? dont you think there's enough transparency in that system?

Mario007

Euro_Kraut wrote: »

I'm not sure about this bit. How do you propose that theses experts are elected (or selected??) to the Dail? Also if the cabinet needs the backing of the majority of the Dail - how will that make them apolitical? Surely they will form allegiances.

Nice to see that you have thought about things though and have put a few ideas together. Better than just moaning about it.

firstly, thanks:D

The candidate for the post of the taoiseach would be selected by the majority coalition in the dail, and would have to be approved by the president. then this new taoiseach would have say 2 weeks to shortlist candidates for the various ministries and put them forward to the dail, which whose vote would give these candidates their full mandate(or not, in case they do not meet the expectations). So to answer your question, the taoiseach selects them and the dail votes on them, either rejecting them or approving of them. When voting on these candidates the dail will also be, in fact, voting on the program they put forward.

its a fair point to say that they will be not be trully political, true. I think the point of this is to have people who know what they're doing as the cabinet, as opposed to people who, during one term are minister for foreign affairs, then in the next term they switch to finance and in the next to say agriculture and thats all because they really dont know much about these fields. The reason why they would be apolitical(well mostly apolitical, as you pointed out) is when they introduce a bill that might not neccassary be supported by the coalition that elected them in. this would mean the ministers would have to try and persuade the dail to support his/her views, giver arguements, facts, and this would open up a debate. also the government would only be bound to the coallition in the dail by its program, so it could introduce a bill that will be, in its opinion, beneficial to ireland, but not supported by the coalition that got them in power but still not in conflict with its program. yet again this would offer greater room for debate and could make the governance of the country not one-sided, as would be the case if politicians would be in the cabinet, i think.

sorry if the ideas seems a bit mashed up and confused, i'm still working out all the trapholes and procedures how these things can actually work.

Mario007

i hate to be doing this, just to make this thread rise up, but does anyone else have any suggestions or opinions about the ten points i've raised? i would love to get more feedback, thanks

paddyland

Your suggestions seem to suggest less democracy, and more one party utopia, a kind of right wing soviet style autocracy. That would combine all the worst elements of right wing politics with all the worst elements of single party self perpetuating dictatorship. Maybe I have it all wrong, and I'm sure you don't mean it that way. Why for example, will it support the Lisbon Treaty by default? Arguably half the country may well vote against Lisbon. What is democratic about that? Reduce the role of the unions? Just like that? Thousands of people are paid up members of unions. What do you propose reducing? Their democratic vote?

Whatever you intended it to mean, it reads simply as a list of all the things you personally would do if you were in power, rather than how you would see other people have a more democratic say in the running of the country. Some of your ideas would be opposite to mine. So why would your ideas be in the best interests of the country any more than mine? That is where democracy steps in. But all of your points 2 to 10 are a wish list of things that in your opinion would be for the good of the country, and you make precious little mention of where the democratic will of the country might have a say in the matter. I'm not saying they are all bad, but you seem to suggest imposing them on the country whether they are wanted or not.

Politics is dominated by agendas and vested interests. The Bertie Aherns of this world rise to the top of whatever political system you put in place, and usurp it to their own ends. Figure out a way to keep dishonest people out of politics, figure out a way to prevent absolute power from absolutely corrupting people, and you might have a winner. It hasn't been invented yet.

I'd like us to have that panel of experts advising us how to run the country. I most definitely would not like to have them telling us how to run it. In the meantime, I'd rather see ordinary people have more of a voice in the running of their own country, not less.

I'd like to give you credit for proposing change. But something in the way you present your ideas makes me sick and angry. You need to mix outside your narrow circle a bit. Live life from both sides.

manicmonoliths

I'd agree with the majority of your points on principal (if not on a practical basis as things stand.)

However I don't agree with a flat out rate of tax. I'm not exactly sure what you mean by this, maybe you could explain it a bit more? Do you mean the same level of income tax for everyone? The same level of VAT for all goods? Taxes on things like cigarettes and alcohol? Could you be a bit more clear on this point. I'm in favour of lowering taxes accross the board but the kind of system you're talking about seems almost too simplisitc without more details. I think goods like booze and smokes should be taxed at higher rates to act as a disincentive, almost the only form of paternalism I'm in favour of. Also we need things like carbon taxes.

I like the education plan, very ambitious and would need sizable investment but the rest of your ideas are all about cutting back expenditure so that's all good.

I like your first point about the Cabinet being made up of apolitical experts in theory and obviously I can see how having an economist as minister for finance makes a lot of sense for example but in other areas it's not so obvious. Should the minister for health be a doctor? All well and good they know about the health service, but only from a doctors point of view, there could be a tendancy to pander to the interests of fellow doctors (which is definitely not what we need right now) They may be a fantastic doctor but that says nothing about their ability to manage a massive budget and allocate resources nationwide. You almost need experienced politicians/civil servants in these roles, but I'd agree we definitely need people with more expertise on the Cabinet.

The apolitical Taoiseach worrys me a bit. Who exactly is this person? Why would the parties nominate him/her. What's to stop someone sponsoring a party's election campaign on the promise that they'll elect him as taoiseach?
The figurehead of the government and the state (the president aside) needs to be directly elected by the people. I can't imagine a system whereby we vote for parties and then once elected they nominate some Joe Soap to lead the country.

Great post overall though. We definitely need a party that promotes more individual choice in the economy. FG is not the solution.

Yeah...down with this sort of thing...

And in relation to education you are of course talking about privatising it are you?..or funding it from selling coke in the canteen?

Mario007

paddyland wrote: »

Your suggestions seem to suggest less democracy, and more one party utopia, a kind of right wing soviet style autocracy. That would combine all the worst elements of right wing politics with all the worst elements of single party self perpetuating dictatorship. Maybe I have it all wrong, and I'm sure you don't mean it that way. Why for example, will it support the Lisbon Treaty by default? Arguably half the country may well vote against Lisbon. What is democratic about that?

Whatever you intended it to mean, it reads simply as a list of all the things you personally would do if you were in power, rather than how you would see other people have a more democratic say in the running of the country. Some of your ideas would be opposite to mine. So why would your ideas be in the best interests of the country any more than mine? That is where democracy steps in. But all of your points 2 to 10 are a wish list of things that in your opinion would be for the good of the country, and you make precious little mention of where the democratic will of the country might have a say in the matter.

Politics is dominated by agendas and vested interests. The Bertie Aherns of this world rise to the top of whatever political system you put in place, and usurp it to their own ends. Figure out a way to keep dishonest people out of politics, figure out a way to prevent absolute power from absolutely corrupting people, and you might have a winner. It hasn't been invented yet.

I'd like us to have that panel of experts advising us how to run the country. I most definitely would not like to have them telling us how to run it. In the meantime, I'd rather see ordinary people have more of a voice in the running of their own country, not less.

i never mentioned one party. in fact i dont like the rule of one single party, i think it doesnt serve well for the country as the party does whatever it wants, knowing nothing can stop it. Three party government, i think is the optimum.
About Lisbon, I support it, and would get a movement that I create support it, as it is in the best interest of both ireland and the eu. it allows for a new phase in the eu, in which ireland would, no doubt, play a great role. the qualitative majority system is one that finally bring dynamics into the eu and giving more power to the ep and national parliaments makes it more transparent and controllable. That is, among other things, the reason why is support lisbon. No doubt there are people that do not but when you create a movement you can't represent everyone. each of human beings is different, unique, and so no one can realistically create some organization or movement to represent everyone's wishes. that is the beaty of democracy, if you dont agree with my points you can state so, as you have done:D, and then we can have a debate on them. i cant aim to represent everyone, that would create that one party utopia, which i would not like to see.
I'm not saying my ideas are great or better than yours...all i'm saying is, here people, i'm thinking of setting up a movement with these ideas, tell me would you be inclined to agree with them, what needs more work, which ideas are just plain dumb? thats the sole purpose, not trying to enforce anything upon anyone.
i believe the way to get those people that abuse the political system out is just as i have described in step 1- getting apolitical figures to form the cabinet.
this is not taking away democracy from people...people still elect TDs and the TDs still control the cabinet. it stays the same. the cabinet, only, is apolitical and actually has expertise in the areas that it implements policies.

forgive me this remark, but i have to ask, are you inclined to lean more on the left of the political spectrum?

Joey the lips

1. Have a political system where the government is made up off top experts in their field, not TDs. The Taoiseach, who also would be a top expert, would be nominated by the coalition that will form within the Dail, and he will then pick out his cabinet. The cabinet will have to be approved by the Dail, along with its program. This will make the cabinet apolitical, which means it will take decissions that will be good for the country, as based on their analitical expertise, not on the popular demand. Since every law will have to pass the Dail, this will ensure that that people's wishes will be still listened to. Also since TDs have the power to produce new bills and acts in the Dail, it will but greater pressure on them from their electorate, who will demand that they shall draft out these bills.

above 1 sounds cool to me!
2. Flat rate of tax. Introduce a flat rate of tax across the board on all taxable items. This way some taxes will drop, others will increase. The main advantage of this system is that it is very simply and a flat rate is proved to reduce tax fraud, as people generally don't bother putting in the work to avoid tax payments anymore. The decreased tax on incomes allows for more money for the citizen, which he can spend on goods, on which VAT will be taxed, giving the state more money in VAT payments and other such taxes and also supporting production and increasing employment ie more money for the state from new income taxes.
nope sounds terriable. The reason that 2 taxes were brought in was so the poor were not paying as much as the rich! I can see why your rightwing your principles are correct but you will not get my vote

3. Reduced social welfare benefits, not payments. By this I mean things like the state granting people money to pay for heating or rent. Also the jobseekers allowence would be reduced to 60% or 70% of the minimum income, encouraging people to go to and find a job. Jobseekers benefit will remain the same. Nope! I cannot wait till your in the same boat but again as a right winger you are fine!

4. A complete reform of the education system, with continuous assessment rather than one exam to determine your life. This would include a change in the primary education as well, where children would also be assessed annually, with a greater selection of subject to increase the level of knowledge between the children in primary sector, which is among the lowest in the EU. Think this is a brilliant idea. Is education going to be free!
5. A foreign policy that supports the EU and the integration and well being of the EU members. This would include following the path of the Lisbon Treaty. A vital part for this would also be to create great exchange schemes for students in the secondary schools. On these exchanges they would gain the knowledge of other European cultures and hopefully will learn to accept them.
6. Reduced minimal wage by the value of deflation. This would allow a greater competitiveness to the Irish workforce and would not damage the people, due to the deflation. ok maybe not sure here
7. Selling off some semi state companies, such as the ESB, that the state doesn't need. In the case of ESB the state doesn't need it to regulate the prices of electricity as the state can still regulate the prices through Board Gais, which makes owning both companies a luxury that we can't afford at the moment. ok but I dont agree with it!

8. Use the money from selling of semi state companies to finance stimuli that would attract new companies to Ireland. This would include reaching a deal with the company that the state would make such and such contribution towards the company for a workplace that it'll create in Ireland. The contract would include also clause of the minimal time the company has to be in Ireland, and not pack off to other country at the earliest opportunity. This would enhance the competitiveness yet again. How would you inforce this!

9. Make a great audit of the public service sector, axing all the incompetent and inefficient agencies that have been created in the public sector, to save money, and also to send the message that public service sector is not a sector from which you can't be fired or your wages reduced. ok maybe

10. Reducing the role of the unions. I'm not saying the unions are bad, or that they are to be completely destroyed, but their influence has grown to a radically high level right now. Typical bull! I was waiting for this!


I am just wondering.... Are you margret thatcher or michael mc dowell

Mario007

Deleted User wrote: »

And in relation to education you are of course talking about privatising it are you?..or funding it from selling coke in the canteen?

not at all. i would cetainly welcome private schools, who would get no state support, as opposed to the system we have now when the state pays a contribution to the private schools.
However i would still go for the reform, have state schools set up(not just use the ones from the church) and have people decide. Get more education into primary schools, because the children in primary schools learn very little in those 6 years that they spend there and to have them to actually put the work in i would introduce continuous assessment.

Well ok fair enough, but from experience, any government with the economic view you propose generally leads to funding being cut from education..

And id feel much better about cutting a few quid off the dole for the army of twentysomethings than cutting off a families heating..

Mario007

Joey the lips wrote: »

1. Have a political system where the government is made up off top experts in their field, not TDs. The Taoiseach, who also would be a top expert, would be nominated by the coalition that will form within the Dail, and he will then pick out his cabinet. The cabinet will have to be approved by the Dail, along with its program. This will make the cabinet apolitical, which means it will take decissions that will be good for the country, as based on their analitical expertise, not on the popular demand. Since every law will have to pass the Dail, this will ensure that that people's wishes will be still listened to. Also since TDs have the power to produce new bills and acts in the Dail, it will but greater pressure on them from their electorate, who will demand that they shall draft out these bills.

above 1 sounds cool to me!
2. Flat rate of tax. Introduce a flat rate of tax across the board on all taxable items. This way some taxes will drop, others will increase. The main advantage of this system is that it is very simply and a flat rate is proved to reduce tax fraud, as people generally don't bother putting in the work to avoid tax payments anymore. The decreased tax on incomes allows for more money for the citizen, which he can spend on goods, on which VAT will be taxed, giving the state more money in VAT payments and other such taxes and also supporting production and increasing employment ie more money for the state from new income taxes.
nope sounds terriable. The reason that 2 taxes were brought in was so the poor were not paying as much as the rich! I can see why your rightwing your principles are correct but you will not get my vote

3. Reduced social welfare benefits, not payments. By this I mean things like the state granting people money to pay for heating or rent. Also the jobseekers allowence would be reduced to 60% or 70% of the minimum income, encouraging people to go to and find a job. Jobseekers benefit will remain the same. Nope! I cannot wait till your in the same boat but again as a right winger you are fine!

4. A complete reform of the education system, with continuous assessment rather than one exam to determine your life. This would include a change in the primary education as well, where children would also be assessed annually, with a greater selection of subject to increase the level of knowledge between the children in primary sector, which is among the lowest in the EU. Think this is a brilliant idea. Is education going to be free!
5. A foreign policy that supports the EU and the integration and well being of the EU members. This would include following the path of the Lisbon Treaty. A vital part for this would also be to create great exchange schemes for students in the secondary schools. On these exchanges they would gain the knowledge of other European cultures and hopefully will learn to accept them.
6. Reduced minimal wage by the value of deflation. This would allow a greater competitiveness to the Irish workforce and would not damage the people, due to the deflation. ok maybe not sure here
7. Selling off some semi state companies, such as the ESB, that the state doesn't need. In the case of ESB the state doesn't need it to regulate the prices of electricity as the state can still regulate the prices through Board Gais, which makes owning both companies a luxury that we can't afford at the moment. ok but I dont agree with it!

8. Use the money from selling of semi state companies to finance stimuli that would attract new companies to Ireland. This would include reaching a deal with the company that the state would make such and such contribution towards the company for a workplace that it'll create in Ireland. The contract would include also clause of the minimal time the company has to be in Ireland, and not pack off to other country at the earliest opportunity. This would enhance the competitiveness yet again. How would you inforce this!

9. Make a great audit of the public service sector, axing all the incompetent and inefficient agencies that have been created in the public sector, to save money, and also to send the message that public service sector is not a sector from which you can't be fired or your wages reduced. ok maybe

10. Reducing the role of the unions. I'm not saying the unions are bad, or that they are to be completely destroyed, but their influence has grown to a radically high level right now. Typical bull! I was waiting for this!


I am just wondering.... Are you margret thatcher or michael mc dowell

i'm glad you agree with the first point, as that seems to be what people usually criticize:D

yes education would be free as opposed to this system when you pay for your leaving cert or your junior cert and pretty much every summer or Christmas examination. also i would be inclined to have the book schemes for every student, when the student gets his book for the given year, the condition of the book is recorded and then the student uses it during the year. should he deface it, he will have to pay back some of its value(or the whole value, depending on the amount of damage to the book).

the stimuli would really be enforcing it themselves. instead of giving the stimuli to the company the state would 'sell' their stimuli for the new job places for a minimum of x years. that would all be included in a contract that would be signed between the state and the company. the longer the minimum stay the higher the stimulus.

i was thinking you might have a problem with the last point:D alas its an essential point in a right wing movement:D

no, in fact the first i really heard of mrs thatcher and her policies was only about a month ago, until then i knew who she was and that she was disliked by many but also managed to transform the britain. I'd be more inclined to be the follower of the policies of Mikulas Dzurinda, a slovakian politician that got slovakia off its knees after winning the elections in 1998 and 2002.
here's a link if you want to check it out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikul%C3%A1%C5%A1_Dzurinda

Mario007

Deleted User wrote: »

Well ok fair enough, but from experience, any government with the economic view you propose generally leads to funding being cut from education..

And id feel much better about cutting a few quid off the dole for the army of twentysomethings than cutting off a families heating..

no i think that education is really the way forward....seeing that i propose a cabinet of experts i believe there needs to be more money into the education so that these experts can develop and have enough resources. having said that i would introduce paying back your college fees after you finish studying, as i believe it would lead to people cherishing the third level education more.

i agree with the cutting the dole of the people in their twenties...they usually dont even bother trying to look for work as it is convenient for them to stay on the dole. still the cutting of the heating is also, i think, essential as i can see dozens of people abusing these benefits and bonuses to social welfare, something that should not be done.

paddyland

Mario007 wrote: »

forgive me this remark, but i have to ask, are you inclined to lean more on the left of the political spectrum?

Funnily enough, no. I am somewhere in the centre, although radically left on some issues, and a bit to the right on others. Don't ask me to list them all.

I distrust all right wing politicians. I would stand for some right wing issues, but alas, right wing politics is spoiled by the bigoted nonsense spouted by many right wing politicians. Some right wing people would have a very valuable contribution to make. Michael O'Leary, for example, would have a lot of value in government right now. I would respect his opinions. But how are you going to reign him in when he starts trying to turn every worker in Ireland into a mini-me Ryanair employee? These people are very shrewd thinkers, but they can run away with themselves. Where would we be if there were no Aer Lingus and Ryanair owned and ran the DAA? As long as we have both, then there are checks and balances in the system.

Likewise, the union leaders are just as apt to spout nonsense, and drag this country down into a black hole from which there is no return. Yet if there were no unions at all, where would IBEC lead the ordinary people of Ireland? Perhaps some people would like us to have no minimum wage at all, and work 70 hour weeks for €1 an hour. Again, it's all about checks and balances.

Put anyone with too strong a sense of their own vested interest in charge, and they are apt to run away off on a tangent. It's all about checks and balances, fairness, truth, honesty and openness. Too much public business is conducted behind closed doors, particularly in relation to the allocation of public money. TAXPAYER'S money. I want to pay a fair amount. But I'm damned sure I want to have more of a say where it goes than I do at present. And I would like every red cent of it to be accounted back to me.

But in reality heat and electricity are a major cost to most people..and going up rapidly also..why not apply these cuts at source maybe, to stop people abusing it..I suppose you're for privatising the water supply?..

Mario007

manicmonoliths wrote: »

I'd agree with the majority of your points on principal (if not on a practical basis as things stand.)

However I don't agree with a flat out rate of tax. I'm not exactly sure what you mean by this, maybe you could explain it a bit more? Do you mean the same level of income tax for everyone? The same level of VAT for all goods? Taxes on things like cigarettes and alcohol? Could you be a bit more clear on this point. I'm in favour of lowering taxes accross the board but the kind of system you're talking about seems almost too simplisitc without more details. I think goods like booze and smokes should be taxed at higher rates to act as a disincentive, almost the only form of paternalism I'm in favour of. Also we need things like carbon taxes.

I like the education plan, very ambitious and would need sizable investment but the rest of your ideas are all about cutting back expenditure so that's all good.

I like your first point about the Cabinet being made up of apolitical experts in theory and obviously I can see how having an economist as minister for finance makes a lot of sense for example but in other areas it's not so obvious. Should the minister for health be a doctor? All well and good they know about the health service, but only from a doctors point of view, there could be a tendancy to pander to the interests of fellow doctors (which is definitely not what we need right now) They may be a fantastic doctor but that says nothing about their ability to manage a massive budget and allocate resources nationwide. You almost need experienced politicians/civil servants in these roles, but I'd agree we definitely need people with more expertise on the Cabinet.

The apolitical Taoiseach worrys me a bit. Who exactly is this person? Why would the parties nominate him/her. What's to stop someone sponsoring a party's election campaign on the promise that they'll elect him as taoiseach?
The figurehead of the government and the state (the president aside) needs to be directly elected by the people. I can't imagine a system whereby we vote for parties and then once elected they nominate some Joe Soap to lead the country.

Great post overall though. We definitely need a party that promotes more individual choice in the economy. FG is not the solution.

yes you are right i did not devote enough time to explain everything to do with the flat rate of tax. This would stretch out from the income tax through tax on profits, coporations tax, property tax,car tax to VAT. I agree that alcohol and cigarettes need a higher level of tax as does petrol, i believe. However I would lower the cigarettes tax a small bit as right now it just helps to create illegal smuggling of cigarettes to the country. I would increase the alcohol tax, however. I also agree on carbon and emission taxes being introduced, because I believe the environment should be preserved. I would keep these taxes on the same flat level.

yes education is the key really, and having come out of the secondary education just now, i know it desperately needs a reform.

no minister for health should not be a doctor, but rather, say the director of the University Hospital in Cork...for example. I would pick people with proven track record that shows that they were on leading positions in the institutions in the areas of concern and that they preformed well in that area.

i can see the problems arising with the apolitical taoiseach. i admit i must look into this again, because the concerns you have raised are all very real and there are in fact trapholes. i suppose the only measure that jumps to my mind right now would be to increase the power of the president and decrease the ones of the taoiseach. the taoiseach would be responsible for the cabinet to work as a unit, for the bills proposed etc but the president would have an executive power too...as i said this is just something that came to my mind right now, not thought through.

thank you and i'm glad that there are people out there that feel the same way:D

Mario007

paddyland wrote: »

Funnily enough, no. I am somewhere in the centre, although radically left on some issues, and a bit to the right on others. Don't ask me to list them all.

I distrust all right wing politicians. I would stand for some right wing issues, but alas, right wing politics is spoiled by the bigoted nonsense spouted by many right wing politicians. Some right wing people would have a very valuable contribution to make. Michael O'Leary, for example, would have a lot of value in government right now. I would respect his opinions. But how are you going to reign him in when he starts trying to turn every worker in Ireland into a mini-me Ryanair employee? These people are very shrewd thinkers, but they can run away with themselves. Where would we be if there were no Aer Lingus and Ryanair owned and ran the DAA? As long as we have both, then there are checks and balances in the system.

Likewise, the union leaders are just as apt to spout nonsense, and drag this country down into a black hole from which there is no return. Yet if there were no unions at all, where would IBEC lead the ordinary people of Ireland? Perhaps some people would like us to have no minimum wage at all, and work 70 hour weeks for €1 an hour. Again, it's all about checks and balances.

Put anyone with too strong a sense of their own vested interest in charge, and they are apt to run away off on a tangent. It's all about checks and balances, fairness, truth, honesty and openness. Too much public business is conducted behind closed doors, particularly in relation to the allocation of public money. TAXPAYER'S money. I want to pay a fair amount. But I'm damned sure I want to have more of a say where it goes than I do at present. And I would like every red cent of it to be accounted back to me.

ok then sorry of accusing you of being left wing. I agree with your Aer Lingus Ryanair example. Thats why I was advocating the sale of ESB as the state retain Board Gais and can still retain its tools to control the electricity cost. I also agree that when people look on their best interest it genrally doesnt work out nice, just as when people work so that wealth can be redistributed among all the citizens.
unions are good, in my opinion, and we need them, but they have been given too much influence and power and this needs to be reduced.
more transparency is also an issue i would hope to look at, just didnt get around to thinking up the bones of a model to ensure it yet.

Deleted User wrote: »

But in reality heat and electricity are a major cost to most people..and going up rapidly also..why not apply these cuts at source maybe, to stop people abusing it..I suppose you're for privatising the water supply?..

yes i know about hear and electricity and the prices are just ridiculously high. i'm quite happy that airtricity and board gais are finally destroying the monopoly of ESB and would like to see this in other sectors as well.
i'm sorry but i dont get what you mean by 'cuts at source', would you be able to explain that?
water supply is a complex issue...if the private company will provide clean water as opposed to the one we're getting right now i would be willing to pay for it. here too i would like to see two or three companies competing to ensure that there is no monopoly and prices are ludicrously high

itsnotmyname

is it not enevitable that FF and FG will merge ??

By at source i mean maybe some sort of arrangement with the company, you might call it a subsidy..They could probably do it the same way they apply mortgage relief..

But..Man, you're just out of secondary school and you seem to have developed a right wing mindset..Stop it..Go away and read some chomsky or something for yourself..This type of thing has been tried quite a bit..Selling off of what should be essential services just doesn't work..The whole dog eat dog mentality just leads to a two teir society..Neo liberal capitalism is eating itself..

Lockstep

Mario007 wrote: »

1. Have a political system where the government is made up off top experts in their field, not TDs. The Taoiseach, who also would be a top expert, would be nominated by the coalition that will form within the Dail, and he will then pick out his cabinet. The cabinet will have to be approved by the Dail, along with its program. This will make the cabinet apolitical, which means it will take decissions that will be good for the country, as based on their analitical expertise, not on the popular demand. Since every law will have to pass the Dail, this will ensure that that people's wishes will be still listened to. Also since TDs have the power to produce new bills and acts in the Dail, it will but greater pressure on them from their electorate, who will demand that they shall draft out these bills.

How do you decide what a top expert is?
A cabinet approved by the Dáil would be apolitical?
What is for the "good of the country" is way too subjective. We live in a representative democracy where people are elected; you'll have a hard time getting people to elect representatives to the Dáil if they know that their wishes will be ignored when the government feel they know better.

Mario007 wrote: »

2. Flat rate of tax. Introduce a flat rate of tax across the board on all taxable items. This way some taxes will drop, others will increase. The main advantage of this system is that it is very simply and a flat rate is proved to reduce tax fraud, as people generally don't bother putting in the work to avoid tax payments anymore. The decreased tax on incomes allows for more money for the citizen, which he can spend on goods, on which VAT will be taxed, giving the state more money in VAT payments and other such taxes and also supporting production and increasing employment ie more money for the state from new income taxes.

So someone earning minimum wage pays the same tax as a millionaire on all goods?
This would push luxury items like cigarettes down and essentials up. Not a good idea.
You mention that income tax would be lower; to what level?

Mario007 wrote: »

3. Reduced social welfare benefits, not payments. By this I mean things like the state granting people money to pay for heating or rent. Also the jobseekers allowence would be reduced to 60% or 70% of the minimum income, encouraging people to go to and find a job. Jobseekers benefit will remain the same.

We are in a recession and people are being laid off across the board.
The supply (workers) exceeds demand (work)
Do you really think that they can be "incentivised"? We are not in a period where there is large scale employment.

Mario007 wrote: »

4. A complete reform of the education system, with continuous assessment rather than one exam to determine your life. This would include a change in the primary education as well, where children would also be assessed annually, with a greater selection of subject to increase the level of knowledge between the children in primary sector, which is among the lowest in the EU.

Agreed; continuous assessment is a good way to go.
When I was in school in Belgium, we had what was called an "A" mark and a "B" mark.
The A mark came from things like participation, punctulaity, continuous assessment etc etc. The teacher decided this.
The B mark came from exams.
However, the problem we encountered with continuous assessment was that the teacher had a lot of power; if they didn't like you, they could easily lower your mark. Sure you could appeal but it was extremely hard to do. To make it easier would be extremely expensive.

Mario007 wrote: »

6. Reduced minimal wage by the value of deflation. This would allow a greater competitiveness to the Irish workforce and would not damage the people, due to the deflation.

We are never going to really be competitive. Manafacturing can be done much cheaper in Eastern Europe and the service industrties can be done in the far east.
As someone who is slightly above the minimum wage, I'm curious as to how much you will reduce it by. What is our current deflationary status?
Last I heard, we were on around 10% or so. Lowering the minimum wagwe to €7.90 an hour or so would make little difference in attracting foreign investment.

Mario007 wrote: »

8. Use the money from selling of semi state companies to finance stimuli that would attract new companies to Ireland. This would include reaching a deal with the company that the state would make such and such contribution towards the company for a workplace that it'll create in Ireland. The contract would include also clause of the minimal time the company has to be in Ireland, and not pack off to other country at the earliest opportunity. This would enhance the competitiveness yet again.

Corporate welfare?
This has been tried in the US repeatedly. it's a dismal failure. The companies would never agree to being held in by a contract, unless you gave them such incredibly benefical options which we wouldn't be able to afford anyway.

Mario007 wrote: »

9. Make a great audit of the public service sector, axing all the incompetent and inefficient agencies that have been created in the public sector, to save money, and also to send the message that public service sector is not a sector from which you can't be fired or your wages reduced.

The public sector is already one where you can be fired and your wages reduced.
Surely this great audit would be incredibly expensive.

Mario007 wrote: »

10. Reducing the role of the unions. I'm not saying the unions are bad, or that they are to be completely destroyed, but their influence has grown to a radically high level right now.

You think our unions have a strong influence?
Mate, check out the French unions if you want to see strong unions.
A strong union is one which can drive the country to a standstill. Ours do the odd march or picket and that's it. Around 600,000 Irish workers are members of unions. That's not a high level.
How do you propose reducing the role of the unions?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Lockstep

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

He supports lower taxation, lower social welfare, lower minimum wage, state provided eductation, corporate welfare and reduced unions. All perfectly compatible with right wing ideology.

He can still be a right winger, albeit not as extreme as your own.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Lockstep

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Well of course it doesn't place him in that particular camp, but that is a fairly extreme ideology. His views would place him in the right wing camp, just not as far as you are.

im kind of thinking soft facism/corporatism..

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Lockstep

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Well, coming from as extreme as yours (anarcho capitalism), anyone would appear centrist/left wing. The OP would be further right than the centre. I'd just call him right wing.

Conservatism (the archetypal right wing ideology) is mostly about law and order. They definetely don't fit into your above definition given that they have;
Established monopolies (Charles I)
Decided what children should learn (especially stopping sex related topics for example)
Deciding what people can say/write/create (censorship, blasphemy etc)
Starting wars (Ah now, the right has had no problems doing this)
Etc

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Lockstep

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

He seems to embrace right wing liberalism, just nowhere near to the same degree as you have.
I'm not someone who believes that the spectrum is divided into extrme left-left of centre-centre-right of centre-extreme right.

I'd add in moderate left and moderate right between the centres and extremes

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Yes, I never claimed that the above was exclusive to the right, I was saying that the above was not exclusive to the left.

Mario007

Deleted User wrote: »

By at source i mean maybe some sort of arrangement with the company, you might call it a subsidy..They could probably do it the same way they apply mortgage relief..

But..Man, you're just out of secondary school and you seem to have developed a right wing mindset..Stop it..Go away and read some chomsky or something for yourself..This type of thing has been tried quite a bit..Selling off of what should be essential services just doesn't work..The whole dog eat dog mentality just leads to a two teir society..Neo liberal capitalism is eating itself..

but how would this subsidy work? i would support rather a competition on the market on the energy market to reduce the prices down, as opposed to state sponsoring a chosen few. I live in a familky with one parent income that is around 400 euro a week, and we get ESB bills of 400 to 500 euros, which i agree are extremely high.however we dont get any supplement for electricity or heating and we still manage, mainly by buying items that would help heat isolation in the house, because it is our individual resposonsiblity to ensure that the bill isnt as high.

i dont agree with yuor opinion that because i am young i should lean towards the left. there has been too much of that, and i think we need to get new ideas into the right wing side as well, i'm not saying my ideas are new, but i am advocating we get fresh blood in and thus fresh ideas.

kickoutthejams wrote: »

How do you decide what a top expert is?
A cabinet approved by the Dáil would be apolitical?
What is for the "good of the country" is way too subjective. We live in a representative democracy where people are elected; you'll have a hard time getting people to elect representatives to the Dáil if they know that their wishes will be ignored when the government feel they know better.


So someone earning minimum wage pays the same tax as a millionaire on all goods?
This would push luxury items like cigarettes down and essentials up. Not a good idea.
You mention that income tax would be lower; to what level?



We are in a recession and people are being laid off across the board.
The supply (workers) exceeds demand (work)
Do you really think that they can be "incentivised"? We are not in a period where there is large scale employment.


Agreed; continuous assessment is a good way to go.
When I was in school in Belgium, we had what was called an "A" mark and a "B" mark.
The A mark came from things like participation, punctulaity, continuous assessment etc etc. The teacher decided this.
The B mark came from exams.
However, the problem we encountered with continuous assessment was that the teacher had a lot of power; if they didn't like you, they could easily lower your mark. Sure you could appeal but it was extremely hard to do. To make it easier would be extremely expensive.



We are never going to really be competitive. Manafacturing can be done much cheaper in Eastern Europe and the service industrties can be done in the far east.
As someone who is slightly above the minimum wage, I'm curious as to how much you will reduce it by. What is our current deflationary status?
Last I heard, we were on around 10% or so. Lowering the minimum wagwe to €7.90 an hour or so would make little difference in attracting foreign investment.



Corporate welfare?
This has been tried in the US repeatedly. it's a dismal failure. The companies would never agree to being held in by a contract, unless you gave them such incredibly benefical options which we wouldn't be able to afford anyway.


The public sector is already one where you can be fired and your wages reduced.
Surely this great audit would be incredibly expensive.


You think our unions have a strong influence?
Mate, check out the French unions if you want to see strong unions.
A strong union is one which can drive the country to a standstill. Ours do the odd march or picket and that's it. Around 600,000 Irish workers are members of unions. That's not a high level.
How do you propose reducing the role of the unions?

1. Top experts are proven by their track record in the past in the given area of governance. It would be less political that a cabinet of politicians, true, it wouldn't be trully apolitical as the program of the government would be agreed upon by the coalition in the dail. Given their expertise they would know whats 'best for the country' better than a politican who doens't know much about the area he covers and sees it only as climbing the career ladder in politics. The beauty of this is that it should, in theory, make the TDs more effective, as they themselves would have to introduce bills and acts that they promised to their electorate.

2.Yes everyone pays the same tax. thats the fairest system. you cant tax someone just because they are more successful than a person that leaves school at 16 and goes to work in the shop for his whole life. The ciggarettes, alcohol and petrol would still have a separate tax rate, i think i've mentioned that in my earlier post. The level of the flat tax would be from 16% to 19%...that would have to be worked out, but i dont have access to the figures to actually be able to set the rate.

3. No but there need to be cuts in the social welfare, furthermore we hear that some countries are coming out of recession which brings more opportunity for irish workers as well as they can try to get jobs in other countries and not sit at home and wait for the state to care for them.

4. I went to school in Slovakia and Czech republic and the continuous assessment was used there too. I agree that it might be subjective, but whenever i got a bad mark from a test I could do a repeat oral exam in front of the board. that way the system was fairer.

6. I agree i might have been a bit too soft at the lowering of the minimum wage. the total abolition of it would be, in my opinion a bit too far, but reducing it to the levels of 5-7 euro would make a good change for the competitiveness.

8. you would be surprised but companies do agree to it. thats how the eastern european countries attracted more investment, for example kia in slovakia has been established on these principles.

9. to be honest the public sector, including the teachers etc, is a sector where it is extremly hard to get fired. you would need to do something horrible to actually be kicked out from work. yes the audit would be costly, but one cant just go in and start a massive reform of the public service sector, when one doesnt know enough about its internal workings.

10. abolishing the social partnership...that would be the ultimate answer

Mario007

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

social welfare, as i indicated should be cut from the level it is now, as it unsustainable and it makes people spoiled with the thought that state is going to provide for them.
Taxes are essential for the state to survive and provide basic services, having a flat rate of tax reduces the taxes and helps to created more demand and thus productivity which boosts the market.
unions, as i have indicated should not have as great power as they have now, by diminishing the social partnership.
government should not confiscate private property, of course(unless under NAMA and similiar cases of course) and in fact I am strongly against the government telling a citizen what to do on his private land and what can be built there.
school curriculum has to be set by state and allow for a better school system and more intelligent students

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

in fact i didnt know libertarianism was up until yesterday when i was pointed out that i should check out these ideas. so i can assure you all these ideas are not trying to fit into that frame, they are just a collection of ideas that i believe are essential to make this state work better

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Mario007

It does indeed. It also discourages people from taking out private pensions, insurance policies, etc., and encourages sexual irresponsibility, because the state is expected to take financial responsibility for unplanned pregnancies.

i agree with you 100% on this point

But why should the state provide services at all? Why isn't that the role of the private sector?

i'm not sure private sector would just like that go and repair the roads, for example. i also think services such as police, fire brigade etc should be provided for by the state.

And having no taxes does that even better!



But every time the government taxes me, it takes away my private property. If I invest money and make a profit, the state takes its cut. If I use my wealth to start a business, the state deluges me with taxes. If I pay tax at 43 percent, and work an eight-hour-day, I spend three and a half hours every day working for the state.

yes true no taxes would really boost competitiveness but for the services i've mentioned it is essential state gets money from taxes. I can see why you are pissed off with taxes because paying the 43% is something that should be scrapped as soon as possible. thats why, i propose to cut it to 16-19%:rolleyes:

How do you account for the fact that privately owned schools are generally far better run and have much higher academic standards?

it shows private schools have much more motivated teachers that get paid by the results. and this system needs to be introduced in the state school as well...we cant pay the teachers just for the years they served, regardless of the quality of the teaching. i've mentioned it already in this thread, i would welcome private schools to take a greater role in the education, but they would be without the help granting them money as it is doing right now and i would still keep state schools as well.

You should check out libertarian thinking—you'd find it very interesting, I think. I would very much recommend Hayek's book The Road to Serfdom: The Errors of Socialism.

I've heard of Hayek and some of his ideas are quite appealing. I'll try to check out the book in the library, thanks for the tip. But wasnt hayek more like liberal conservative? thats what i've heard

Lockstep

Mario007 wrote: »

1. Top experts are proven by their track record in the past in the given area of governance. It would be less political that a cabinet of politicians, true, it wouldn't be trully apolitical as the program of the government would be agreed upon by the coalition in the dail. Given their expertise they would know whats 'best for the country' better than a politican who doens't know much about the area he covers and sees it only as climbing the career ladder in politics. The beauty of this is that it should, in theory, make the TDs more effective, as they themselves would have to introduce bills and acts that they promised to their electorate.

Even if they know what's best for the country, it doesn't mean they will act on it.
It sounds extremely subjective on what constitutes a track record. Really takes the power out of democracy to be honest.

Mario007 wrote: »

2.Yes everyone pays the same tax. thats the fairest system. you cant tax someone just because they are more successful than a person that leaves school at 16 and goes to work in the shop for his whole life. The ciggarettes, alcohol and petrol would still have a separate tax rate, i think i've mentioned that in my earlier post. The level of the flat tax would be from 16% to 19%...that would have to be worked out, but i dont have access to the figures to actually be able to set the rate.

No it is not the fairest system; I earn €9 an hour and the money goes mainly on food. You expect me to pay the same as someone earning
The concept behind taxation is that disposable income is taxed. When I am paying for food this is an essential, it is not at all equitable that someone who earns a million a year is paying the same as someone on €8.65 an hour. Really this is not fair at all.
The minimum wage earner spends proportionally more on necessities (as €8.65 only goes so far), whereas the millionare spends proportionally far less on essentials. You do not advocate an abolition of the welfare state; any attempt to fund any form of a welfare state on sales tax is ludicrous.
You also advocate cutting the minimum wage which makes it even harder on the low earners.
Everyone paying the same tax isn't fair as they are not earning the same. What needs to be done is their contributions changed so that everyone contributes what they can afford. Your system involves placing the tax burden on the less well off.

You seem to think that rich people are deserving of their wealth whereas the poor aren't. This isn't always the case.

Mario007 wrote: »

3. No but there need to be cuts in the social welfare, furthermore we hear that some countries are coming out of recession which brings more opportunity for irish workers as well as they can try to get jobs in other countries and not sit at home and wait for the state to care for them.

I've never lived in one country for more than 7 years because of a father who had to move in order to find work. You make it sound like moving abroad is a great thing without contemplating the effects it has on individuals and families.
Tell me; which countries are coming out of recession and can you show that it is a genuine coming out of recession rather than part of a W economic cycle?
Can Irish people live on the wages they would earn?

Mario007 wrote: »

6. I agree i might have been a bit too soft at the lowering of the minimum wage. the total abolition of it would be, in my opinion a bit too far, but reducing it to the levels of 5-7 euro would make a good change for the competitiveness.

A minimum wage between 5 and 7 euro?
Ye gods.... even if the standard of living dropped that much, the transitional period would be a nightmare. Our standard of living is too high.
We are never going to be able to be "competitive" unless we inititate a race to the bottom. We can never really compete with the Far East or even parts of Eastern Europe.

Mario007 wrote: »

8. you would be surprised but companies do agree to it. thats how the eastern european countries attracted more investment, for example kia in slovakia has been established on these principles.

Do you have any evidence for this at all?
I have seen numerous examples of US states providing corporate welfare but these have been dismal failures.
Let's take the example of Sears, Roebuck and Co in 1989. It told Illinois that in order to recover its costs after disastrous management choices, it would move to Texas or North Carolina, resulting in Illinois losing 6000 jobs. Sears was given $280 million dollars worth of handouts ($178million in tax breaks,$61.1million in State funds to facilitate site preparation (streetlights, sewerage etc) and $7million in reduced sales and income tax.) 4 years later, Sears fired 50,000 people, 4,900 of them in Illinois.
Attracting corporations to spots is one thing, it is unrealistic to expect them to bind themselves to the same spot for any lengthy period of time.

Mario007 wrote: »

9. to be honest the public sector, including the teachers etc, is a sector where it is extremly hard to get fired. you would need to do something horrible to actually be kicked out from work. yes the audit would be costly, but one cant just go in and start a massive reform of the public service sector, when one doesnt know enough about its internal workings.

This is an extremely common assumption that people have. It is not extremely hard to get fired. I've seen it happen in hospitals, schools and universities.
THe only place I can see it being extremely hard to get fired from is in a tenured position in third level. And not all lecturers are tenured. Most of the lecturers I know are on yearly contracts.

Mario007 wrote: »

10. abolishing the social partnership...that would be the ultimate answer

The idea of social partnership was to try and reach a compromise with the unions. Abolishing it does not reduce their power at all. If anything it would be more likely to piss them off without taking away any of their strength.

Mario007

Even if they know what's best for the country, it doesn't mean they will act on it.
It sounds extremely subjective on what constitutes a track record. Really takes the power out of democracy to be honest.

i would disagree with you, because all the power still lies with the TDs. The reason for a cabinet of experts is to get new ideas flowing, the ideas that the politicians might not want to think up or would not want to think up. thus we retain the democratic power of the system, while upgrading it. A good truck record is something like good managment of a hospital, when the hospital has managed to create no debts and still retain the comfort for the people'.

No it is not the fairest system; I earn €9 an hour and the money goes mainly on food. You expect me to pay the same as someone earning
The concept behind taxation is that disposable income is taxed. When I am paying for food this is an essential, it is not at all equitable that someone who earns a million a year is paying the same as someone on €8.65 an hour. Really this is not fair at all.
The minimum wage earner spends proportionally more on necessities (as €8.65 only goes so far), whereas the millionare spends proportionally far less on essentials. You do not advocate an abolition of the welfare state; any attempt to fund any form of a welfare state on sales tax is ludicrous.
You also advocate cutting the minimum wage which makes it even harder on the low earners.
Everyone paying the same tax isn't fair as they are not earning the same. What needs to be done is their contributions changed so that everyone contributes what they can afford. Your system involves placing the tax burden on the less well off.

You seem to think that rich people are deserving of their wealth whereas the poor aren't. This isn't always the case.

first off i would advocate the abolishing of welfare state. sorry if i didnt make that clear before. i would only keep social welfare payments when necessary- really necessary. Regarding the flat rate -it is fair, because it doesnt penalize you if you earn more, if you put more work in, if your job is more demanding, if you put more time into education yourself rather than leaving school early etc.
the minimum wage has to be decreased, even the IMF says this. i'm sorry but it has risen to ridiculous levels. with lower minimum wage comes deflation...which i know isnt good, but thats what has to happen to out prices in order to restore ireland to a substainable level.
I know the rich aren't always deserving of their wealth(like Ronaldo for example:D) but it is mostly the case and a flat rate of tax ensures greater motivation.

I've never lived in one country for more than 7 years because of a father who had to move in order to find work. You make it sound like moving abroad is a great thing without contemplating the effects it has on individuals and families.
Tell me; which countries are coming out of recession and can you show that it is a genuine coming out of recession rather than part of a W economic cycle?
Can Irish people live on the wages they would earn?

i've lived in three different countries in the 18 years of live so far and i know it is difficult, but i believe it enriches individuals. it allows for an individual to learn to adapt, to broaden his/hers horizons and to learn a new language and culture. it is hard, i admit, but it is manageable. i'll use an example from soccer to illustrate my point, if you dont mind. England as a soccer country not qualifying for the euro2008 tournament was a great shock to everyone. So analysts went and tried to find the reason why. and the reason was that while england had the best league in the world, it was actually hindering young english players. the league was composed of the very top players and so the young talents that needed game practice could not break through and this caused lack of new young talent among the english squad. however in every other european country where the league was of very high quality this lack of young talent did not occur. why? because the players went to try their luck to other countries...fabregas for example was kicked out of the barcelona acadamy for not having enought talent, apparently, so he went to arsenal and look at him now!

A minimum wage between 5 and 7 euro?
Ye gods.... even if the standard of living dropped that much, the transitional period would be a nightmare. Our standard of living is too high.
We are never going to be able to be "competitive" unless we inititate a race to the bottom. We can never really compete with the Far East or even parts of Eastern Europe.

as i've said already the minimum wage is way above of what we can afford, we have to stop living in the world where ireland is the booming economy...we need to come back down to sustainable level of minimum wage.

Do you have any evidence for this at all?
I have seen numerous examples of US states providing corporate welfare but these have been dismal failures.
Let's take the example of Sears, Roebuck and Co in 1989. It told Illinois that in order to recover its costs after disastrous management choices, it would move to Texas or North Carolina, resulting in Illinois losing 6000 jobs. Sears was given $280 million dollars worth of handouts ($178million in tax breaks,$61.1million in State funds to facilitate site preparation (streetlights, sewerage etc) and $7million in reduced sales and income tax.) 4 years later, Sears fired 50,000 people, 4,900 of them in Illinois.
Attracting corporations to spots is one thing, it is unrealistic to expect them to bind themselves to the same spot for any lengthy period of time.

kia was attracted to slovakia back in 2005. they were given stimuli to set up a factory near a city called Zilina, while the state also built a road to the factory and bought out the lands for the factory to be set up. as of now Kia Cee'd is made there exclusively, along with other types of car models that are also made elsewhere. even though there is reccession on and the car industry is badly hit, kia did not fire a single worker, in order as to not breach the contract.

This is an extremely common assumption that people have. It is not extremely hard to get fired. I've seen it happen in hospitals, schools and universities.
THe only place I can see it being extremely hard to get fired from is in a tenured position in third level. And not all lecturers are tenured. Most of the lecturers I know are on yearly contracts.

i dont agree...the public sector is one of the sectors that needs to be cut by a large margin and this is very hard right now, when the public servants are seen as a group of people who's votes can be pretty much bought over easily. that is why i believe that there needs to be an axing of the public servants or reductions of their wages...as the IMF points out, actually.

The idea of social partnership was to try and reach a compromise with the unions. Abolishing it does not reduce their power at all. If anything it would be more likely to piss them off without taking away any of their strength.

i agree that simple abolishing of social partnership is not going to be the only solution to the problem. but when i heard yesterday that the unions wanted the minimum wage increased and about three months ago there were claims from the unions that the goverment should stick to its plan of increasing public service wages i must say the abolishing of social partnership would be a step in the right direction

Lockstep

Mario007 wrote: »

i would disagree with you, because all the power still lies with the TDs. The reason for a cabinet of experts is to get new ideas flowing, the ideas that the politicians might not want to think up or would not want to think up. thus we retain the democratic power of the system, while upgrading it. A good truck record is something like good managment of a hospital, when the hospital has managed to create no debts and still retain the comfort for the people'.

Grand but you havn't answered my point; who decides what constitutes an expert? This sounds way too open to abuse.
Neither have you answered how they would further the interests of the country as a whole.

Mario007 wrote: »

first off i would advocate the abolishing of welfare state. sorry if i didnt make that clear before. i would only keep social welfare payments when necessary- really necessary.

Then you do not advocate abolishing the welfare state.
Again you're idea sounds great on paper; welfare only for those who really need it but how do you go about this?
The Irish government tried complete means testing (1920s IIRC) which resulted in;
A horribly inefficient system that cost way too much money.
Pissed off people who felt humiliated by having every item they had valued to see if they qualified.

Mario007 wrote: »

Regarding the flat rate -it is fair, because it doesnt penalize you if you earn more, if you put more work in, if your job is more demanding, if you put more time into education yourself rather than leaving school early etc.

No it is not fair; rich people have more money, poor people don't. Advocating that they should pay the same level of tax is ridiculous and horribly inequitable. You are shifting the tax burden onto the less well off, claiming it is fair for them
Pre WWI had a regressive tax system as does your model and it worked terribly.
You have a very black and white view of wealth; I work with way too many people who work hard for little pay, likewise there are those higher up who do very little work and got jobs by nepotism.
Penalising those who leave education by necessity isn't a smart idea.

Mario007 wrote: »

the minimum wage has to be decreased, even the IMF says this. i'm sorry but it has risen to ridiculous levels. with lower minimum wage comes deflation...which i know isnt good, but thats what has to happen to out prices in order to restore ireland to a substainable level.
I know the rich aren't always deserving of their wealth(like Ronaldo for example:D) but it is mostly the case and a flat rate of tax ensures greater motivation.

THe reason we have such a high minimum wage is that we have an annoyingly high standard of living. You've lived abroad yourself so you should already know this. Good luck trying to cut the minimum wage before prices drop. Doing so will hamstring any future for your party.
How would your political party fund itself if it simultaneously relies on poor people paying proportionally more tax while cutting what they earn? If your system of government relies so heavily on sales tax then reducing what people earns means shooting yourself in the foot.

Mario007 wrote: »

i've lived in three different countries in the 18 years of live so far and i know it is difficult, but i believe it enriches individuals. it allows for an individual to learn to adapt, to broaden his/hers horizons and to learn a new language and culture. it is hard, i admit, but it is manageable. i'll use an example from soccer to illustrate my point, if you dont mind. England as a soccer country not qualifying for the euro2008 tournament was a great shock to everyone. So analysts went and tried to find the reason why. and the reason was that while england had the best league in the world, it was actually hindering young english players. the league was composed of the very top players and so the young talents that needed game practice could not break through and this caused lack of new young talent among the english squad. however in every other european country where the league was of very high quality this lack of young talent did not occur. why? because the players went to try their luck to other countries...fabregas for example was kicked out of the barcelona acadamy for not having enought talent, apparently, so he went to arsenal and look at him now!

Travelling countries every so often=great.
Having to move by economic necessity/having a father who had to live in a different country so that we could pay the bills/waiting around in order to try and find a job=not great.
Really don't understand where the football analogy is going though.

Mario007 wrote: »

as i've said already the minimum wage is way above of what we can afford, we have to stop living in the world where ireland is the booming economy...we need to come back down to sustainable level of minimum wage.

Cutting it in proportion to deflation is grand. Cutting it to €5 will cause uproar.
Tell me you're plan for combatting the high standard of living first.

Mario007 wrote: »

kia was attracted to slovakia back in 2005. they were given stimuli to set up a factory near a city called Zilina, while the state also built a road to the factory and bought out the lands for the factory to be set up. as of now Kia Cee'd is made there exclusively, along with other types of car models that are also made elsewhere. even though there is reccession on and the car industry is badly hit, kia did not fire a single worker, in order as to not breach the contract.

So you oppose social welfare on the grounds we can't afford it, but if it's a massive multinational corporation then yes, suddenly we have the money?
Can you back up your claim with a source? I am extremely sceptical that a multinational will sign a contract promising not to move.

Mario007 wrote: »

i dont agree...the public sector is one of the sectors that needs to be cut by a large margin and this is very hard right now, when the public servants are seen as a group of people who's votes can be pretty much bought over easily. that is why i believe that there needs to be an axing of the public servants or reductions of their wages...as the IMF points out, actually.

No it is not; you keep saying it's hard without providing any evidence to the contrary. A reform of the PS is needed but you seem to just be going on what the popular opinion is; of PS on high wages getting jobs for life.

Out of curiosity; how do you intend to get elected?
YOu're policies will not appeal to the welfare class (cutting welfare) or the working class and trade unions (cutting minimum wage), then you intend going for the public sector (alienating large swaths of the lower and upper middle classes)

Mario007 wrote: »

i agree that simple abolishing of social partnership is not going to be the only solution to the problem. but when i heard yesterday that the unions wanted the minimum wage increased

Source?

Mario007 wrote: »

and about three months ago there were claims from the unions that the goverment should stick to its plan of increasing public service wages i must say the abolishing of social partnership would be a step in the right direction

As I have previously stated , social partnership does not really hurt the unions. The idea behind them was to reach a partnership between the government, employers and trade unions for the good of the nation. Post WWII, most European countries came to agreements with the unions and got on grand, Britain didn't and the unions were a major thorn in the governments side.
Once again; how do you intend to reduce the unions power? What you are proposing just gives them more incentives to make trouble without weakening them in any way.

smokinp

Abolishing or cutting social welfare is not the answer..
Do this and crime rates will go through the roof...
You will create an under class that will do what it takes to survive..

There are plenty of examples of countries around the world with very little social welfare and a lot of problems...

Unless you want to live in a gated community and in fear of your life then i would suggest less greed is good and more and help to our brothers and sisters who have not been as fortunate in life..

ART6

The issue of a flat tax is an interesting concept. If the only tax was income tax, charged as a percentage of personal gross income, and no corporation tax and the other myriad of taxes charged on company profits, then the people would know only too well just what their politicians were costing them as there would be no hiding it behind stealth taxes and double taxes like VAT and excise duty. In the absence of company taxes employers would be able to pay much higher salaries. A level of income would always be free of tax, so that the unemployed, disabled, elderly, paid nothing, and with increased company profitability unemployment might become a thing of the past. Companies might be better able to resist the Unions that the government has shown itself to be, since they will not be touting for votes, but they will be competing for labour.

Isn't going to happen of course if for no other reason then because no political party in existence now could survive such a level of transparency.:D

Mario007

firstly i would like to apologize to you all for not replying, i had many problems with my internet connection, so i am sorry but i will answer your comments in a few moments...

Mario007

Grand but you havn't answered my point; who decides what constitutes an expert? This sounds way too open to abuse.
Neither have you answered how they would further the interests of the country as a whole..

i suppose to define an 'expert' is very very hard. it would be, after all, on the leaders of the political parties that would constitute a dail majority that would be choosing the expert. But lets say the head of ISME, of Central Bank or of CSO would be nice templates. Of course if labour would be the biggest party in the dail majority it would probably be the head of ICTU or SIPTU.
The experts would pursue the program to which they have been tied with their best expert knowledge in how to go about fulfilling or renegotiation the points of the program. Look at Czech republic and Jan Fisher, he is an expert, was the head of the czech CSO and he was hailed by the commentators for finishing up the Czech presidency the way it should have been carried out all along...

Then you do not advocate abolishing the welfare state.
Again you're idea sounds great on paper; welfare only for those who really need it but how do you go about this?
The Irish government tried complete means testing (1920s IIRC) which resulted in;
A horribly inefficient system that cost way too much money.
Pissed off people who felt humiliated by having every item they had valued to see if they qualified.


No it is not fair; rich people have more money, poor people don't. Advocating that they should pay the same level of tax is ridiculous and horribly inequitable. You are shifting the tax burden onto the less well off, claiming it is fair for them
Pre WWI had a regressive tax system as does your model and it worked terribly.
You have a very black and white view of wealth; I work with way too many people who work hard for little pay, likewise there are those higher up who do very little work and got jobs by nepotism.
Penalising those who leave education by necessity isn't a smart idea.


THe reason we have such a high minimum wage is that we have an annoyingly high standard of living. You've lived abroad yourself so you should already know this. Good luck trying to cut the minimum wage before prices drop. Doing so will hamstring any future for your party.
How would your political party fund itself if it simultaneously relies on poor people paying proportionally more tax while cutting what they earn? If your system of government relies so heavily on sales tax then reducing what people earns means shooting yourself in the foot.

Cutting it in proportion to deflation is grand. Cutting it to €5 will cause uproar.
Tell me you're plan for combatting the high standard of living first.

I have been researching of a way to address the concerns you've raised in these three separate points and I found a concept of the Negative Income Tax. The Negative Income Tax can be used as a flat rate of tax across the spectrum with the untaxable minimum, a threshold that would be established and would constitute of the minimum a person needs to lead a quality life, depending whether they're single or married or with children. Above this threshold the income would be taxed(just like the tax credits in this respect) with a flat tax. If a person earns below this level of threshold, however, the difference is taxed and paid to the person from the state.
For example, let the flat rate be 20%, and let the deductions be €20,000 per adult and €7,000 per dependent. Under such a system, a family of four making €54,000 a year would owe no tax. A family of four making €74,000 a year would owe tax amounting to 0.2(74,000-54,000) = €4,000, as under a flat tax with deductions. But families of four earning less than €54,000 per year would owe a "negative" amount of tax (that is, it would receive money from the government). E.g., if it earned €34,000 a year, it would receive a check for €4,000.
This way, welfare benefits are substituted by the NIT and the administration, along with fraud cases, are decreased and minimum wage can be scratched.

Travelling countries every so often=great.
Having to move by economic necessity/having a father who had to live in a different country so that we could pay the bills/waiting around in order to try and find a job=not great.
Really don't understand where the football analogy is going though.

i have already agreed with you that its ideal, but it does open new doors for the individuals as well. the football analogy was meant to mean that the players that embraced the opportunity and did travel out in search of a 'job' proved to benefit from it as opposed to those that stayed at home.

So you oppose social welfare on the grounds we can't afford it, but if it's a massive multinational corporation then yes, suddenly we have the money?
Can you back up your claim with a source? I am extremely sceptical that a multinational will sign a contract promising not to move.

the reason why we suddenly have the money is that the investment will generate jobs which in turn will generate tax revenues which bring the money back into the economy...of course over a number of years. and this doesnt actually apply to just multinationals i have stated in this thread that money would also have to be available in form of grant for the small business and rural development-this would come both from the EU structural funds and from the government. Money would also be available from selling off surplus state agencies, like the ESB.

No it is not; you keep saying it's hard without providing any evidence to the contrary. A reform of the PS is needed but you seem to just be going on what the popular opinion is; of PS on high wages getting jobs for life.

the irish independent published figures, yesterday or two days ago, that the public service jobs actually grew in the times of the recession and only became declining in this year(which can also be contributed to the embargo)

Out of curiosity; how do you intend to get elected?
YOu're policies will not appeal to the welfare class (cutting welfare) or the working class and trade unions (cutting minimum wage), then you intend going for the public sector (alienating large swaths of the lower and upper middle classes)

i dont intend to get elected yet. this is more of a thinktank or something along those lines, thus calling it a movement not a party. but i would indeed seek election, if i saw these ideas are not coming through to the politicians. I am sure the the middle income families would benefit from the NIT and it wouldnt hurt the lower class , unions would be my enemy, i suppose, but i believe that cannot be avoided with my policies ...with regards to public sector, after an board snip nua it seems i wont be the one cutting the public sector.
I plan to get the support of intelligentsia and of students at first, and the policies suggest getting the support of the businessmen and middle class.

As I have previously stated , social partnership does not really hurt the unions. The idea behind them was to reach a partnership between the government, employers and trade unions for the good of the nation. Post WWII, most European countries came to agreements with the unions and got on grand, Britain didn't and the unions were a major thorn in the governments side.
Once again; how do you intend to reduce the unions power? What you are proposing just gives them more incentives to make trouble without weakening them in any way.

I agree i will have to look at this area a bit more, as simply abolishing of the social partnership would not be the only solution. I will do some research into the area and will talk to some proffessors and students from sociology who would have heard of ways of managing the unions.
thank you for pointing that out to me

Mario007

smokinp wrote: »

Abolishing or cutting social welfare is not the answer..
Do this and crime rates will go through the roof...
You will create an under class that will do what it takes to survive..

There are plenty of examples of countries around the world with very little social welfare and a lot of problems...

Unless you want to live in a gated community and in fear of your life then i would suggest less greed is good and more and help to our brothers and sisters who have not been as fortunate in life..

i would disagree with the regards that cutting social welfare is not the answer. social welfare has grown too much in ireland over the past few years and we still had to push through the new bill to help to fight crime. therefore you can't simply link the crime to social welfare. i do agree with poverty comes more crime, and for that i would propose the Negative Income Tax(its explained in the comment above this one) which would allow us to cut social welfare benefits.

Mario007

ART6 wrote: »

The issue of a flat tax is an interesting concept. If the only tax was income tax, charged as a percentage of personal gross income, and no corporation tax and the other myriad of taxes charged on company profits, then the people would know only too well just what their politicians were costing them as there would be no hiding it behind stealth taxes and double taxes like VAT and excise duty. In the absence of company taxes employers would be able to pay much higher salaries. A level of income would always be free of tax, so that the unemployed, disabled, elderly, paid nothing, and with increased company profitability unemployment might become a thing of the past. Companies might be better able to resist the Unions that the government has shown itself to be, since they will not be touting for votes, but they will be competing for labour.

Isn't going to happen of course if for no other reason then because no political party in existence now could survive such a level of transparency.:D

that is a very interesting idea, but then the income tax would be rocket high in order for the state to generate its finances. I would propose the idea of the Negative Income Tax(explained two comments above this) which would introduce the flat tax. However, the idea of every capitalistic thinking is low taxes so the idea you're proposing, though i cant see it working right now, is something i will look at and consider to for maybe a long term goal...

Lockstep

Mario007 wrote: »

i suppose to define an 'expert' is very very hard. it would be, after all, on the leaders of the political parties that would constitute a dail majority that would be choosing the expert. But lets say the head of ISME, of Central Bank or of CSO would be nice templates. Of course if labour would be the biggest party in the dail majority it would probably be the head of ICTU or SIPTU.

If there is no concrete definition of what the expert would be, how can there be one in the government?
It's too wide open to abuse. You'd just have the same people we'd always see with the government claiming "Yeah, they're the expert"

Mario007 wrote: »

The experts would pursue the program to which they have been tied with their best expert knowledge in how to go about fulfilling or renegotiation the points of the program. Look at Czech republic and Jan Fisher, he is an expert, was the head of the czech CSO and he was hailed by the commentators for finishing up the Czech presidency the way it should have been carried out all along...

If Jan Fisher is an expert and a member of government; grand.
Making it a requirement for a minister to also be an expert wouldn't work. It's too open to interpretation.

Mario007 wrote: »

I have been researching of a way to address the concerns you've raised in these three separate points and I found a concept of the Negative Income Tax. The Negative Income Tax can be used as a flat rate of tax across the spectrum with the untaxable minimum, a threshold that would be established and would constitute of the minimum a person needs to lead a quality life, depending whether they're single or married or with children. Above this threshold the income would be taxed(just like the tax credits in this respect) with a flat tax. If a person earns below this level of threshold, however, the difference is taxed and paid to the person from the state.
For example, let the flat rate be 20%, and let the deductions be €20,000 per adult and €7,000 per dependent. Under such a system, a family of four making €54,000 a year would owe no tax. A family of four making €74,000 a year would owe tax amounting to 0.2(74,000-54,000) = €4,000, as under a flat tax with deductions. But families of four earning less than €54,000 per year would owe a "negative" amount of tax (that is, it would receive money from the government). E.g., if it earned €34,000 a year, it would receive a check for €4,000.
This way, welfare benefits are substituted by the NIT and the administration, along with fraud cases, are decreased and minimum wage can be scratched.

That sounds way too much of a moral hazard for employers; they can pay whatever they like as the government will cough up the difference.
For the government to fill such a wide gap (20k per adult, 7k per kid) would be extremely expensive.
Would you really be able to raise enough capital to pay everyone that much, given that you also plan to implement corporate welfare?

Mario007 wrote: »

i have already agreed with you that its ideal, but it does open new doors for the individuals as well. the football analogy was meant to mean that the players that embraced the opportunity and did travel out in search of a 'job' proved to benefit from it as opposed to those that stayed at home.

Do you mean to say it isn't ideal? If you meant what you said, I disagree for the reasons listed above.
If it was a typo, then I fail to see how it opens new doors. Beyond living in a different country long enough to gain citizenship I suppose.
There will always be people who will emigrate, but expecting it be fair in the long run doesn't work. Look at Ireland until the 1960s; there was such a horrendous drain of manpower. The government should be trying to retain as many as possible.

Mario007 wrote: »

the reason why we suddenly have the money is that the investment will generate jobs which in turn will generate tax revenues which bring the money back into the economy...of course over a number of years. and this doesnt actually apply to just multinationals i have stated in this thread that money would also have to be available in form of grant for the small business and rural development-this would come both from the EU structural funds and from the government. Money would also be available from selling off surplus state agencies, like the ESB.

Grand; you've explained how you'd raise the capital.
However you havn't explained how you'd keep the companies in place; I;m still extremely sceptical that a company would agree to limit itself to to one place and not cut jobs, even if it suddenly became necessary for them to do so.

Mario007 wrote: »

the irish independent published figures, yesterday or two days ago, that the public service jobs actually grew in the times of the recession and only became declining in this year(which can also be contributed to the embargo)

Linky?
At any rate this doesn't add to your point; that the PS is almost impossible to be fired from.
I can see why PS would increase during recessions, given how often recessions have the government creating new initiatives ; IDA/Coras Trachtala in Ireland for example.

Mario007 wrote: »

i dont intend to get elected yet. this is more of a thinktank or something along those lines, thus calling it a movement not a party. but i would indeed seek election, if i saw these ideas are not coming through to the politicians. I am sure the the middle income families would benefit from the NIT and it wouldnt hurt the lower class , unions would be my enemy, i suppose, but i believe that cannot be avoided with my policies ...with regards to public sector, after an board snip nua it seems i wont be the one cutting the public sector.
I plan to get the support of intelligentsia and of students at first, and the policies suggest getting the support of the businessmen and middle class.

I doubt you'd have much success with the middle class as many rely on the public sector, and the remainder/businessmen already have FF/FG to rely on.

Students and intellectuals wouldn't be much help; students are surprisingly apathetic (as I found out when I started college)

Mario007

If there is no concrete definition of what the expert would be, how can there be one in the government?
It's too wide open to abuse. You'd just have the same people we'd always see with the government claiming "Yeah, they're the expert"

i can see your concern, however the taoiseach would be the only nominee of the dail majority. it would be his role only to select the other expert candidates to work as his/hers cabinet. and there would, i suppose, need to be a requirement that the taoiseach nominees would not have to be members of the given political party.

If Jan Fisher is an expert and a member of government; grand.
Making it a requirement for a minister to also be an expert wouldn't work. It's too open to interpretation.

the thing is Jan Fisher is not the only expert and a member of the government, the whole government is consigned of experts. each ministry has an expert in its field as the minister and there is no problem with that. the government is efficient and takes actions it does quickly, without thinking of the political merit.

That sounds way too much of a moral hazard for employers; they can pay whatever they like as the government will cough up the difference.
For the government to fill such a wide gap (20k per adult, 7k per kid) would be extremely expensive.
Would you really be able to raise enough capital to pay everyone that much, given that you also plan to implement corporate welfare?

those figures are just set as an example. there would, if NIT was proposed, have to be precise workings to establish such thresholds.
the government will cough up the difference taxed. it allows for minimum wage to be abolished as the poverty should not increase. the employers, however, can't just give the employees ridiculously low wages, you know that. the unions would not allow that, i know i do say that union power should be decreased, but as you can see i dont want to abolish the trade unions.
the capital would be raised, because of the greater power of the population to buy new stuff, which would be in fact cheaper, given the no minimum wage. the VAT figures would rise, and more demand means more people can be employed etc.

here's a quote from wikipedia about it:

A negative income tax is intended to create a single system that would not only pay for government, but would also fulfil the social goal of making sure that there was a minimum level of income for all. With an NIT, the need for minimum wage, food stamps, welfare, social security programs and so on, would be eliminated, thus reducing the administrative effort and cost to a fraction of what it is under the current system, as well as eliminating the perverse incentives created by these overlapping aid programs.

An NIT does not disrupt low-wage markets. By contrast, the minimum wage does, making certain very low end jobs impossible (completely unemploying those whose labour would be valued slightly less than the minimum).

Aid programs create perverse incentives, as when a minimum wage worker who earns a little more nets out with less income because he is newly ineligible for aid. This then discourages low-wage workers from seeking higher-paying employment, and is known as the welfare trap.

A worker under a NIT always gets the same portion of each marginal dollar earned, so there is always an equal incentive to work.

A negative income tax would reduce administrative overhead, since the large bureaucracies responsible for administering taxation and welfare systems could be eliminated. The resources saved by eliminating these bureaucracies could then be spent on more productive government activities.

A negative income tax is also expected to have an immediate stabilizing effect as well as a positive influence on the cycle of economic "boom and bust" (during recession, the minimum income aids individuals' confidence whilst businesses are aided by option to lower wages)

Do you mean to say it isn't ideal? If you meant what you said, I disagree for the reasons listed above.
If it was a typo, then I fail to see how it opens new doors. Beyond living in a different country long enough to gain citizenship I suppose.
There will always be people who will emigrate, but expecting it be fair in the long run doesn't work. Look at Ireland until the 1960s; there was such a horrendous drain of manpower. The government should be trying to retain as many as possible.

yes i meant it isnt ideal, sorry for the typo. it does open new doors, you learn a new language, new way of life that you can incorporate into your own, new culture etc. it also opens up new ways of life for people.
take all the people from easter europe that came over here(me being one of them:D). Ireland provided new opportunities, new challenges, new language, new jobs, new people. i wont say all was for the better, because i would be lying, but suddenly for example for me i am able to pick between colleges that are ranked in the first 100 of the university rankings rather than 200-300.

Grand; you've explained how you'd raise the capital.
However you havn't explained how you'd keep the companies in place; I;m still extremely sceptical that a company would agree to limit itself to to one place and not cut jobs, even if it suddenly became necessary for them to do so.

of course there would be legal difficulty with the company not cutting jobs even in recession times or not decreasing the wages. that i admit. however you can keep companies signed to be in ireland for x years when you sign a stimulus deal-it's something along the lines of you 'you want my money, well here's what to do to get them'. and if we were a market with no minumum wage as i propose under NIT it would give even more reasons for the company to pick ireland. we wouldnt get dell who, two years ago were pleased with having a factory in ireland and couldnt be more happy to continue the production here, and now are packing off.

Linky?
At any rate this doesn't add to your point; that the PS is almost impossible to be fired from.
I can see why PS would increase during recessions, given how often recessions have the government creating new initiatives ; IDA/Coras Trachtala in Ireland for example.

it does add to my point because, since there was an increase it shows that not many people were fired. in fact the PS numbers have risen only over the past number of years.
i cant find the link to the article i was refering to, but here's a link to an article about PS wages increasing
http://www.independent.ie/breaking-news/national-news/average-public-sector-earnings-up-34-in-past-year-1796456.html

I doubt you'd have much success with the middle class as many rely on the public sector, and the remainder/businessmen already have FF/FG to rely on.

Students and intellectuals wouldn't be much help; students are surprisingly apathetic (as I found out when I started college)

i would disagree with you that businessmen would go for FF and with regards to FG, it seems to me its more of a 'who else are we to turn to?' at any rate the policies i would be advocating would be fully right wing-something that would separate me from FG who are more center than on the right. and since no political party is covering the solemn right wing position i could win voters there. however, that is irrelevant as of now, because this movement, should it form, would not be seeking elections unless necessary, ie its ideas would not be getting across. i was told by a man creating his own political party that it takes about 15 years of work to achieve financial freedom to set up a political party- i still have a long way to go:D

Lockstep

Mario007 wrote: »

i can see your concern, however the taoiseach would be the only nominee of the dail majority. it would be his role only to select the other expert candidates to work as his/hers cabinet. and there would, i suppose, need to be a requirement that the taoiseach nominees would not have to be members of the given political party.

There is still no definition of what an expert would be; it's would make almost no difference as the taoiseach would just end up just selecting his buddies.

Mario007 wrote: »

the thing is Jan Fisher is not the only expert and a member of the government, the whole government is consigned of experts. each ministry has an expert in its field as the minister and there is no problem with that. the government is efficient and takes actions it does quickly, without thinking of the political merit.

Ireland is the same; we have experts in each ministry (although not my kind of experts). The government is far from perfect but there are members of each ministry who know what they are doing (rather than being completely unsuited for the job)
Even so, Jan Fisher is an expert who is also a member of the executive. This doesn't really prove anything as it is entirely possible under our system for an expert to be a minister. It just isn't always the case.

Mario007 wrote: »

those figures are just set as an example. there would, if NIT was proposed, have to be precise workings to establish such thresholds.
the government will cough up the difference taxed. it allows for minimum wage to be abolished as the poverty should not increase. the employers, however, can't just give the employees ridiculously low wages, you know that. the unions would not allow that, i know i do say that union power should be decreased, but as you can see i dont want to abolish the trade unions.
the capital would be raised, because of the greater power of the population to buy new stuff, which would be in fact cheaper, given the no minimum wage. the VAT figures would rise, and more demand means more people can be employed etc.

This sounds way too theoretical (that the economy will pick up to pay for the government filling the breach), you'd need to be extremely prepared for what would happen if the economy doesn't; an incredibly costly structure.
What#s to stop employers paying the workers €1 per hour as they know that they the government will just pay the difference? It also could disincentivise promotions as even if you move to a higher paying job (if still below the threshold) you will see absolutely no personal benefits as the only beneficary would be the government.

Mario007 wrote: »

here's a quote from wikipedia about it:[/quote
I'm really not trying to be patronising or anything like that (a young person with such a keen interest in politics is extremely commendable) but you'd need to look into things far beyond Wikipedia. The article on NIT seems extremely biased (administering the payment of so many workers would be extremely costly, which the article skates over)

Mario007 wrote: »

yes i meant it isnt ideal, sorry for the typo. it does open new doors, you learn a new language, new way of life that you can incorporate into your own, new culture etc. it also opens up new ways of life for people.
take all the people from easter europe that came over here(me being one of them:D). Ireland provided new opportunities, new challenges, new language, new jobs, new people. i wont say all was for the better, because i would be lying, but suddenly for example for me i am able to pick between colleges that are ranked in the first 100 of the university rankings rather than 200-300.

These are all very valid points, (I benefited in many ways from living abroad) but it doesn't suit everyone. I've seen people who've been damaged by all the moving they had to do.
Free movement of people is a great thing, but forcing them to move due to economic necessity.

Mario007 wrote: »

of course there would be legal difficulty with the company not cutting jobs even in recession times or not decreasing the wages. that i admit. however you can keep companies signed to be in ireland for x years when you sign a stimulus deal-it's something along the lines of you 'you want my money, well here's what to do to get them'. and if we were a market with no minumum wage as i propose under NIT it would give even more reasons for the company to pick ireland. we wouldnt get dell who, two years ago were pleased with having a factory in ireland and couldnt be more happy to continue the production here, and now are packing off.

I agree that companies should be unable to just up and leave (especially when the area provided so much for them)
But it'd be extremely hard for them to agree to do so. I just can't see it happening unless the perks were so beneficial to them that it negates the jobs gained.

Mario007 wrote: »

it does add to my point because, since there was an increase it shows that not many people were fired. in fact the PS numbers have risen only over the past number of years.
i cant find the link to the article i was refering to, but here's a link to an article about PS wages increasing
http://www.independent.ie/breaking-news/national-news/average-public-sector-earnings-up-34-in-past-year-1796456.html
I can see why PS numbers increase during recessions; it's secure employment so the demand is there. Some of my friends are in the army/teachers/nurses. All of them say that applications went through the root during recessions and down again during the Celtic Tiger due to the money that could be made in the private sector.
(I'm sorry; I know it's inductive reasoning but I can definetely see the logic in this case.)

Mario007

kickoutthejams wrote: »

There is still no definition of what an expert would be; it's would make almost no difference as the taoiseach would just end up just selecting his buddies.

i know this will sound extremely naive, but thats why we have our media. if the taoiseach would nominate all his good bodies the media would, not doubt pick up on it. then it is upon the TDs to either accept such a cabinet or not, and even after that the president would have to appoint them, so you have double control on the nominees and both the TDs and the President are deputies of the people, so they risk the electorate's anger if a cabinet where simony and nepotism are evident.

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Ireland is the same; we have experts in each ministry (although not my kind of experts). The government is far from perfect but there are members of each ministry who know what they are doing (rather than being completely unsuited for the job)
Even so, Jan Fisher is an expert who is also a member of the executive. This doesn't really prove anything as it is entirely possible under our system for an expert to be a minister. It just isn't always the case.

sorry I think i didn't make myself clear. The experts under Fisher's cabinet are all ministers. I know there are many people in the ministries that do a very good job, in fact in the Czech republic some people from the ministry got the job of a minister as their expertise was recognized(sorry for always mentioning the Czech government, but it is this government that inspired my thougths of an expert cabinet).
Yes it it possible to be an expert and a minister, but to do that you need to enter a political party and start political fights to get you up the career ladder, and thats where you become more of a politician than an expert in that area from which you were coming from. That is why I was proposing the expert nominees.

kickoutthejams wrote: »

This sounds way too theoretical (that the economy will pick up to pay for the government filling the breach), you'd need to be extremely prepared for what would happen if the economy doesn't; an incredibly costly structure.
What#s to stop employers paying the workers €1 per hour as they know that they the government will just pay the difference? It also could disincentivise promotions as even if you move to a higher paying job (if still below the threshold) you will see absolutely no personal benefits as the only beneficary would be the government.

There is nothing stopping the employer paying €1, true, but you see the state does not pay the difference, he pays the tax on the difference. This means that of course people will pass over a job with €1 wage, because it will be extremely low paid. knowing the irish people even without the minimum wage the wages wont fall under €5 an hour, just because of the cost of living. I believe that a market will make sure of this.
With regards to a higher paying jobs, this system actually makes sure that you get more money to take home, as opposed to the progressive tax when there might come a time when, due to two different taxes, you might decide to stay on lower wages as you bring more money home that way.

kickoutthejams wrote: »

here's a quote from wikipedia about it:[/quote
I'm really not trying to be patronising or anything like that (a young person with such a keen interest in politics is extremely commendable) but you'd need to look into things far beyond Wikipedia. The article on NIT seems extremely biased (administering the payment of so many workers would be extremely costly, which the article skates over)

yes i know wikipedia isnt the best source. I have already requested a book from the library written by Friedman where he advocates the NIT. I have also spoken with one slovakian economist on the matter(he is just setting up a party in slovakia, so he was quite happy to reply to my emails) on the issue of NIT.

kickoutthejams wrote: »

These are all very valid points, (I benefited in many ways from living abroad) but it doesn't suit everyone. I've seen people who've been damaged by all the moving they had to do.
Free movement of people is a great thing, but forcing them to move due to economic necessity.

i must agree that forcing a move is bad thing, but to force anything really means that it is not right. however to come back to the original point i would still advocate that moving abroad to find work is something that this world has made much easier thanks to globalization, especially for people without children. But I do see the concern that families might suffer indeed and that is why i will look for a policy to support families to avoid such moving.

kickoutthejams wrote: »

I agree that companies should be unable to just up and leave (especially when the area provided so much for them)
But it'd be extremely hard for them to agree to do so. I just can't see it happening unless the perks were so beneficial to them that it negates the jobs gained.

all the perks you need is state guarantee of support and state building infrastructure with a stimuli, as far as I know. Of course just offering this itself does not attract the companies but it is a great improvement in irish chances of gaining more investment.

kickoutthejams wrote: »

I can see why PS numbers increase during recessions; it's secure employment so the demand is there. Some of my friends are in the army/teachers/nurses. All of them say that applications went through the root during recessions and down again during the Celtic Tiger due to the money that could be made in the private sector.
(I'm sorry; I know it's inductive reasoning but I can definetely see the logic in this case.)

i know the demand is there, all i need to do is to look at the cao choices and primary school teaching is high up for example. I see the logic too, but to put it economically the state cannot afford to be employing so many PS workers. But I suppose the discussion on the PS is actually irrelevant as the An Board Snip Nuo report will most likely reduce the PS greatly