Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Survey-new movement
Options
Comments
-
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)
Etc0 -
This post has been deleted.0
-
He seems to embrace right wing liberalism, just nowhere near to the same degree as you have.donegalfella wrote: »This post has been deleted.
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
Yes, I never claimed that the above was exclusive to the right, I was saying that the above was not exclusive to the left.donegalfella wrote: »This post has been deleted.0 -
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 answer0 -
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 studentsdonegalfella 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 better0 -
Advertisement
-
This post has been deleted.0
-
i agree with you 100% on this pointIt 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'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.But why should the state provide services at all? Why isn't that the role of the private sector?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 heard0 -
Even if they know what's best for the country, it doesn't mean they will act on it.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.
It sounds extremely subjective on what constitutes a track record. Really takes the power out of democracy to be honest.
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 earning2.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.
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.
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.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.
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?
A minimum wage between 5 and 7 euro?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.
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.
Do you have any evidence for this at all?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.
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.
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.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.
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.
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.10. abolishing the social partnership...that would be the ultimate answer0 -
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'.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.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 direction0 -
Grand but you havn't answered my point; who decides what constitutes an expert? This sounds way too open to abuse.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'.
Neither have you answered how they would further the interests of the country as a whole.
Then you do not advocate abolishing the welfare state.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.
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 themRegarding 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.
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.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.
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.
Travelling countries every so often=great.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!
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.
Cutting it in proportion to deflation is grand. Cutting it to €5 will cause uproar.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.
Tell me you're plan for combatting the high standard of living first.
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?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.
Can you back up your claim with a source? I am extremely sceptical that a multinational will sign a contract promising not to move.
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.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.
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)
Source?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
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.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
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.0 -
Advertisement
-
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..0 -
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.:D0 -
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...0
-
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)
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.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 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 me0 -
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.0 -
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...0 -
If there is no concrete definition of what the expert would be, how can there be one in the government?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.
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"
If Jan Fisher is an expert and a member of government; grand.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...
Making it a requirement for a minister to also be an expert wouldn't work. It's too open to interpretation.
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.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.
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?
Do you mean to say it isn't ideal? If you meant what you said, I disagree for the reasons listed above.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.
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.
Grand; you've explained how you'd raise the capital.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.
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.
Linky?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)
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.
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.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.
Students and intellectuals wouldn't be much help; students are surprisingly apathetic (as I found out when I started college)0 -
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.htmlI 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:D0 -
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 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.
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)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.
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.
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.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.
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.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)
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.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.
Free movement of people is a great thing, but forcing them to move due to economic necessity.
I agree that companies should be unable to just up and leave (especially when the area provided so much for them)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.
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.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.)0 -
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.
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 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.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 greatly0 -
Advertisement
-
to anyone who might be interested in the ideas I've proposed here, I have set up a blog in which the policies that I advocate will be fully explained. If you want to follow on this please visit http://mario-breakthrough.blogspot.com/0
-
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.
I fully agree with structured continuous assessment at secondary level. Continuous assessment does take place in primary schools but it just isnt suitable to do leaving cert style continuous assessment with children who are 5-12 years old.
In my own case, as a primary teacher, assessment happens every minute of every day, with a number of more structured tests along the way to help form a professional opinion on the strengths and weaknesses of the child.
Have you read the guidelines on assessment for the existing primary curriculum?
I would also ask where you saw the statistics that show the level of knowledge of children is among the lowest in the EU?
Is the idea of increasing the selection of subjects available to primary school age children based on a solid study of the subjects already taught?
I have no problem with a more structured assessment of teaching performance. It would show that many of us are doing our best, and it would reveal those who aren't. I would not assess teachers based on results in exams though. The backgrounds and ability levels of different classes vary massively.
I would love to see education prioritised as you have suggested though. Again from a primary school point of view (my expertise is in that area) our new curriculum is brilliant; hands on, exciting, extensive, and based around discovery learning. It becomes next to impossible to implement however when you have 33 children in a classroom as opposed to 22.
Our future productivity depends on teaching our children maths and science well, and educating the child as a person within a society. I don't see that prioritised by this government as statistics do show that we are so far behind in terms of class sizes.0 -
The electorate doesn't really listen to the media much in political scandals.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.
No matter how much sleaze occurs, you can bet it'll often be forgotten about if the candidate is viewed as a sound lad.
Bertie Ahern's finances, Bev Flynn, hell even Michael "The Stroke" Fahy topped the poll in the local elections despite being found guilty of fraud.
THe Presidency has very little power; their role is largely ceremonial. They wouldn't really be able to stop the appointment of the
GIven that the TDs would be members of the Taoiseach's party, I highly doubt they would really rock the boat over ministerial appointments.
How are they determined experts? Again, this comes down to my point; the classification for an expert is almost impossible to define, if it came about by statute then the government could just amend it to whatever suits them.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.
But how does this stop the employer from abusing the system?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.
My last job paid €9 an hour, so yearly wage would be around €17300. If I knew I would always end up with at least 20k, what would be the incentivisation for me to work overtime, or for someone on minimum wage to accept a job paying €9? THey'd always end up with the same cash below a certain threshold.
You might end up with a higher take home pay, but you'll be seeing much less public services (given the tax reductions and government expenditure on equilising pay to 20k a year) so you could end up with less pay after paying for services which were previously paid for by the State.
Al Franken gives a very good account of tax cuts affecting the rich and poor in his short play "The waitress and the lawyer" It's very easy to read and explains things better than I can.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.
I'm really not a fan of Friedman, too close to Pinochet for my liking.
Well, originally this came about with you saying people could be incentivised to work by cutting the dole and that if there wasn't enough work, then they could emigrate. It's possibility and desirabilty are two different things.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.
Well infrastructure is extremely expensive and you must remember that a key way of attracting companies is tax breaks (as well as bizarre things like offering to teach foreign managers English/ agreeing to buy all state cars from the company etc) These do not come cheap and companies in the US have been all too eager to agree to come to a place only to up and leave when they felt like itall 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.
Of course the State cannot afford to employ so many people, (my own plans for joining the defence forces have to be put on hold for at least the next two years as they have put in a moriatorium on recruitment), however the workforce can increase as where there were shortages in places before, there will now be enough applicants to fill the positions.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 greatly0 -
I fully agree with structured continuous assessment at secondary level. Continuous assessment does take place in primary schools but it just isnt suitable to do leaving cert style continuous assessment with children who are 5-12 years old.
In my own case, as a primary teacher, assessment happens every minute of every day, with a number of more structured tests along the way to help form a professional opinion on the strengths and weaknesses of the child.
Have you read the guidelines on assessment for the existing primary curriculum?
I would also ask where you saw the statistics that show the level of knowledge of children is among the lowest in the EU?
Is the idea of increasing the selection of subjects available to primary school age children based on a solid study of the subjects already taught?
I have no problem with a more structured assessment of teaching performance. It would show that many of us are doing our best, and it would reveal those who aren't. I would not assess teachers based on results in exams though. The backgrounds and ability levels of different classes vary massively.
I would love to see education prioritised as you have suggested though. Again from a primary school point of view (my expertise is in that area) our new curriculum is brilliant; hands on, exciting, extensive, and based around discovery learning. It becomes next to impossible to implement however when you have 33 children in a classroom as opposed to 22.
Our future productivity depends on teaching our children maths and science well, and educating the child as a person within a society. I don't see that prioritised by this government as statistics do show that we are so far behind in terms of class sizes.
I'm glad, first of all, that you share my idea of prioritizing education. I also agree that we need a good school system, structured along the way, to help to create graduates who are able to survive in the working world and help the country to prosper.
I am more then delighted to learn that you are one of the primary school teachers who does subject his pupils to assessment. What I had in mind was a couple of small tests during the year along with some oral examination in front of the board with the results being recorded and averaged at the end of the year from second class. Of course as a teacher you know, that really testing children in second class is not entirely possible as they are still very young. but this would provide the children with the chance to get used to the continuous assessment, while the test in second class will not be carried out often but this would increase as the pupils progress into third, fourth, fifth and sixth class.
I have read the curriculum just a few moments ago, and to me it seems a bit too vague to be quite honest. that might be because i do actually know how to interpret it since i am not a teacher. however i would advocate that each year in the primary and secondary school should have its own curriculum rather than splitting it into cycles(primary, junior and senior).
the statistic was something we found in our english book in school as an extract from irish times in 2006 so i am unfortunately unable to provide you with any links. however i can provide you with a link to OECD database where it states we're only above OECD average in reading, science and religion with regards to the time being devoted to these subjects in primary school.
http://www.oecd.org/document/30/0,3343,en_2649_39263238_39251550_1_1_1_37455,00.html#howto
hope this answers your questions regarding the primary education. i will sit down this summer and write down what is my idea of improving the system and making it even more effective as school reform would be among the three main tiers to my political movement(should it be created). I can send you a PM when i'll be publishing these ideas on my blog?0 -
kickoutthejams wrote: »The electorate doesn't really listen to the media much in political scandals.
No matter how much sleaze occurs, you can bet it'll often be forgotten about if the candidate is viewed as a sound lad.
Bertie Ahern's finances, Bev Flynn, hell even Michael "The Stroke" Fahy topped the poll in the local elections despite being found guilty of fraud.
true, true sometimes the electorate is blinded by everything on the basis of their candidate being the 'nice chap'. however i would trust an apolitical nominee much more than a political one when it comes to being given the power to nominate the cabinet. besides the apolitical nominee wouldnt be the 'nice chap' that the electorate voted for, so they might not be as forgiving to him, should his nominations smell of simony and nepotism.kickoutthejams wrote: »THe Presidency has very little power; their role is largely ceremonial. They wouldn't really be able to stop the appointment of the
that is why presidency should be given the power to decline to appoint the cabinet or a Taoiseach, if what you say is true. the president is the last defenceman of the peoples' will, if one can term it that way.kickoutthejams wrote: »GIven that the TDs would be members of the Taoiseach's party, I highly doubt they would really rock the boat over ministerial appointments.
the Taoiseach would not have a party. he would be a dail majority nominee, therefore it would a dail majority giving him the power to create the cabinet, but he would not be a member of any party.kickoutthejams wrote: »How are they determined experts? Again, this comes down to my point; the classification for an expert is almost impossible to define, if it came about by statute then the government could just amend it to whatever suits them.
Fisher was a head of czech CSO, foreign minister Kohout is a career diplomat, Janote-the finance minister- was a minister for state at the ministry for finance and a adviser to various ministers for finance. That is why they are determined experts. Yes the technicality is very very hard to define, but generally technical engineers, doctors of social science and leading figures of non-profit organizations are ones to be considered for the job, given that their track record is good.kickoutthejams wrote: »But how does this stop the employer from abusing the system?
My last job paid €9 an hour, so yearly wage would be around €17300. If I knew I would always end up with at least 20k, what would be the incentivisation for me to work overtime, or for someone on minimum wage to accept a job paying €9? THey'd always end up with the same cash below a certain threshold.
You might end up with a higher take home pay, but you'll be seeing much less public services (given the tax reductions and government expenditure on equilising pay to 20k a year) so you could end up with less pay after paying for services which were previously paid for by the State.
Al Franken gives a very good account of tax cuts affecting the rich and poor in his short play "The waitress and the lawyer" It's very easy to read and explains things better than I can.
no, no. if the threshold would be 20 000, flat tax is 20% and you're earning 17300 you would not get 2700 to make up for the difference, but you'd get the 20% of the 2700 which is 540. If someone is earning 19 000 he'd get 20% of 1000 which is 200. So you would end up with a pay of 17840 while the other person gets 19200. This way you are still motivated to work those overtimes and move up in work as you would indeed get more money.
with regards to the services, it is not certain that they would be greatly reduced, maybe marginally but i cannot say for sure as i do not posses the figures to work it out.however should they be more expensive, it is still up to you to decide whether you want to use those services, whereas now you give the government money and they decide on the services to which they'll donate your money.
thanks for the tip i will be certain to look up the book!:)kickoutthejams wrote: »I'm really not a fan of Friedman, too close to Pinochet for my liking.
i do not know pinochet, i must admit. i must look him upkickoutthejams wrote: »Well, originally this came about with you saying people could be incentivised to work by cutting the dole and that if there wasn't enough work, then they could emigrate. It's possibility and desirabilty are two different things.
yes i do admit that there was certain arrogance from my comment when i said they can always immigrate. now i see that while being single moving is quite easy and in fact i still hold the view that people without children or at least people who are single should move to find work even to other countries. however when it comes to couples and families with children they have it much harder.kickoutthejams wrote: »Well infrastructure is extremely expensive and you must remember that a key way of attracting companies is tax breaks (as well as bizarre things like offering to teach foreign managers English/ agreeing to buy all state cars from the company etc) These do not come cheap and companies in the US have been all too eager to agree to come to a place only to up and leave when they felt like it
yes i know. the tax breaks actually are a very nice thing that the government can use to be honest. if you say the company has tax breaks for 10 years and then put a clause that these ten years must be fulfilled by the company you are binding the company to stay in ireland for 10 years.
however i do know the legality of this in ireland, but i will surely find out next year in college when i'll be doing law.kickoutthejams wrote: »Of course the State cannot afford to employ so many people, (my own plans for joining the defence forces have to be put on hold for at least the next two years as they have put in a moriatorium on recruitment), however the workforce can increase as where there were shortages in places before, there will now be enough applicants to fill the positions.
i agree that there will be enough applicants to fill the positions, but we must ask ourselves should the state provide for 400 000+ places? and i believe the answer is simply no0 -
I think your overstating the case for having an expert as number one in each state department. Our problem in Ireland is that the higher echelons of the civil service aren't necessarily experts in their field of work. This is singly the most important issue. These are the men and women who provide the ideas and options to the individual ministers.0
-
I think your overstating the case for having an expert as number one in each state department. Our problem in Ireland is that the higher echelons of the civil service aren't necessarily experts in their field of work. This is singly the most important issue. These are the men and women who provide the ideas and options to the individual ministers.
i agree that is also a problem, but i do believe that having a government which has experts in each department would help to restore more sober and progressive ideas as well as restoring the public's confidence in the government. with regards to civil servants not being experts, i would be inclined to lean back to the idea of cosgraves of having to complete an examination in order to be taken into the civil service0 -
Appointing someone who is not a member of a political party will not solve much, first of all it would make the government extremely strange; removing politcal alliegance will just result in a government of widely different political opinions who will spend too much time clashing with one another over issues. At least political party loyalty ensures some coherency in the government.true, true sometimes the electorate is blinded by everything on the basis of their candidate being the 'nice chap'. however i would trust an apolitical nominee much more than a political one when it comes to being given the power to nominate the cabinet. besides the apolitical nominee wouldnt be the 'nice chap' that the electorate voted for, so they might not be as forgiving to him, should his nominations smell of simony and nepotism.
Secondly, what is to stop someone just resigning from the party the day before an election/appointment time and taking the post then.
You also cannot pay for political appointments. Simony isn't a problem.
The president has extremely little power for a reason; we can't have power struggles within the executive. The president basically acts as a figurehead and embodiment of the nation and is supposed to be above petty party politics, allowing them to choose to decline the appointment of democratically elected taoiseachs isn't a good idea as it would allow a president to act against the interests of the Irish people. Having a non-partisan and ceremonial head of state allows them to be a rallying point for the nation rather than besmirched by the pettiness of politics.that is why presidency should be given the power to decline to appoint the cabinet or a Taoiseach, if what you say is true. the president is the last defenceman of the peoples' will, if one can term it that way.
We already have a defender of the people's will; the taoiseach. They are elected as the party leader of the party(ies) with the Dáil majority.
Having such a president would also be unconstitutional.
Expecting the Dáil majority to agree on a candidate who isn't a member of a political party would not work. You'd just end up with the same problems of political appointees as detailed above.the Taoiseach would not have a party. he would be a dail majority nominee, therefore it would a dail majority giving him the power to create the cabinet, but he would not be a member of any party.
Presumably you'd just end up with someone out of the Gene Pools.
But are they experts who got their jobs because of being experts or just ministers who can be deemed experts? Is there a requirement to be an expert in Czech politics?Fisher was a head of czech CSO, foreign minister Kohout is a career diplomat, Janote-the finance minister- was a minister for state at the ministry for finance and a adviser to various ministers for finance. That is why they are determined experts. Yes the technicality is very very hard to define, but generally technical engineers, doctors of social science and leading figures of non-profit organizations are ones to be considered for the job, given that their track record is good.
Determining what constitutes an expert smacks of elitism to me. You could be brilliantly suited but unless you meet the classifications of an expert, then a decent career in politics is closed to you; terrible given that politics is meant to be open to all citizens.
So in other words, people below the poverty will not get the government help needed to reach this standard of living?no, no. if the threshold would be 20 000, flat tax is 20% and you're earning 17300 you would not get 2700 to make up for the difference, but you'd get the 20% of the 2700 which is 540. If someone is earning 19 000 he'd get 20% of 1000 which is 200. So you would end up with a pay of 17840 while the other person gets 19200. This way you are still motivated to work those overtimes and move up in work as you would indeed get more money.
What is the point in giving them anything at all if they will still not reach the poverty line with governmental aid, while simultaneously recieving no help in things like the minimum wage.
I don;t see how you could expect service standars to only drop marginally if you intend to cut taxes while giving out corporate welfare.with regards to the services, it is not certain that they would be greatly reduced, maybe marginally but i cannot say for sure as i do not posses the figures to work it out.however should they be more expensive, it is still up to you to decide whether you want to use those services, whereas now you give the government money and they decide on the services to which they'll donate your money.
Many people on the lowest incomes don't pay taxes anyway so cutting services would give them no benefits as they would get no income rebate anyway.
It's in a book called Lies and Lying Liars Who Tell them. The play is only around 10 pages long so it'd be easy to read in a bookshop without having to buy it.thanks for the tip i will be certain to look up the book!:)
Or just read it here.
http://www.skeptically.org/curpol/id24.html
Ardent free marketeer who went on a privatising spree in Chile after siezing power, before having the engage in widescale nationalisation when the economy went belly up.i do not know pinochet, i must admit. i must look him up
Heavily influenced by the Chicago Boys (who studied under Friedman)
But even when given extremely generous concessions in many US states, they still just upped and left. Why would they come to Ireland for concessions when they can recieve them elsewhere with none of the legal bindings?yes i know. the tax breaks actually are a very nice thing that the government can use to be honest. if you say the company has tax breaks for 10 years and then put a clause that these ten years must be fulfilled by the company you are binding the company to stay in ireland for 10 years.
however i do know the legality of this in ireland, but i will surely find out next year in college when i'll be doing law.
That depends on the positions.i agree that there will be enough applicants to fill the positions, but we must ask ourselves should the state provide for 400 000+ places? and i believe the answer is simply no
We always need more gardai, teachers, nurses etc. The more qualified ones of them we have, the better.0 -
i agree that is also a problem, but i do believe that having a government which has experts in each department would help to restore more sober and progressive ideas as well as restoring the public's confidence in the government. with regards to civil servants not being experts, i would be inclined to lean back to the idea of cosgraves of having to complete an examination in order to be taken into the civil service
Another potential problem is that single figure-head experts in each department may not ideologically agree with one another and this will cause even more policy problems. Countries like Czech Rep. have a clear left right divide and each side appoints ideologically coherent experts. This may be an impossibility in a party system like Ireland0 -
Advertisement
-
Another potential problem is that single figure-head experts in each department may not ideologically agree with one another and this will cause even more policy problems. Countries like Czech Rep. have a clear left right divide and each side appoints ideologically coherent experts. This may be an impossibility in a party system like Ireland
that is a very interesting point, i must admit. in ireland its all pretty much center, which might seem a bit of an obstacle. i must admit i havent actually looked into this kind of problem as it didnt occur to me at all and i cannot provide you with any form of satisfactory answer.
i suppose all of them being picked by the taoiseach and in turn the TDs would insure some ideological stability, that is the only answer i have as now. but then again in the czech republic the cabinet of experts is being backed by the two biggest parties, one being a ring wing party and the other a social democratic one....0
Advertisement