Gormley opposes low-tax economy

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

ei.sdraob

comparing Ireland to Germany, France and Scandinavian countries

Talk about delusions and aspirations of grandeur

someone quickly remind him that if it wasn't for the low corpo tax, we would still be a backwater on the arse side of Europe

i suppose thats where Gormley and his green fundamentalists want Ireland to end-up, right back at digging turf (oh wait scrap that )

inforfun

Sure I felt so much better when working in Holland and knew that after 13.30 I actually started to collect pay for my work. Everything from 09.00 till 13.30 ended up in the pockets of the minister of finances.

Typical leftwing thinking, tax the **** out of the few people who still work in order to give hand outs like Santa Claus on speed.

Count Dooku

I presume it is his reply to Hungarians, who introduced flat tax yesterday
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6571UY20100608

George Orwell 1982

No matter what way you look at it taxes will have to go up if this country is to pay off its debts.

ei.sdraob

Count Dooku wrote: »

I presume it is his reply to Hungarians, who introduced flat tax yesterday
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6571UY20100608

wow thanks, I missed that in the news

Orban said he would enact a flat 16 percent income tax over two years, effectively cutting the rate

time to move to Hungary me thinks

hinault

Gormley has delusions of grandeur.

The German and French economies are far far bigger than our humble 4.1m
population holding.

They're also situated slap bang in the middle of a +300m land mass.
they're not a little bitty island on the western seaboard.

Riskymove

hinault wrote: »

Gormley has delusions of grandeur.

The German and French economies are far far bigger than our humble 4.1m
population holding.

They're also situated slap bang in the middle of a +300m land mass.
they're not a little bitty island on the western seaboard.

He loves Germany though, thats why he is so much in favour of systems like theirs......but why he cannot see the underlying issues with this nation trying to be like them is incredible

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Jaysoose

Your only beginning to wonder, this goverment dont have the slightest clue as to what they are doing....

RichardAnd

This is just another part of the big problem here. I'm not going to use the live-line slogan and say Michael O'Leary should run our finances but I think matters of money should not be in the hands of people who only got into power by promising to fix pot-holes and mend fences.

invinciblePRSTV

Lol it might upset the ever precious Austrian/Chicago school fanboys on here but high taxation is here to stay. We've tried Boston and look how that turned out...

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Most of the main players in the Banking & Political spheres who bankrupted this country and internationally were people who had a background in economics or received advice from those who had.

In fact this was the main problem, 'small government' fanboys who worshipped at the altar of a 'free' market and citing ideologically blinkered economists like your Hayeks & Friedmans who in turn ripped apart the regulatory system over the decades, in turn this took its toll and now we live with the consequences.

In short you reap what you sow and we are now all paying for it.

ei.sdraob

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

Lol it might upset the ever precious Austrian/Chicago school fanboys on here but high taxation is here to stay. We've tried Boston and look how that turned out...



Most of the main players in the Banking & Political spheres who bankrupted this country and internationally were people who had a background in economics or received advice from those who had.

name one minister with an economics degree

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

In fact this was the main problem, 'small government' fanboys who worshipped at the altar of a 'free' market and citing ideologically blinkered economists like your Hayeks & Friedmans who in turn ripped apart the regulatory system over the decades, in turn this took its toll and now we live with the consequences.

In short you reap what you sow and we are now all paying for it.

If we followed Hayek

the the banking **** would not have been socialized on the people of the country

and the people responsible paid dearly for their failures and gambles and sort out their own mess

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Count Dooku

ei.sdraob wrote: »

wow thanks, I missed that in the news

Can you imagine PRAVDA RTE headline that Hungary decided to reduce taxes, cut public pay and no PS strikes followed after that announcement?

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

In fact this was the main problem, 'small government' fanboys who worshipped at the altar of a 'free' market and citing ideologically blinkered economists like your Hayeks & Friedmans who in turn ripped apart the regulatory system over the decades, in turn this took its toll and now we live with the consequences.

Their bigger mistake that they decided to combine free market with socialists spending.

Nijmegen

The difference between Germany, Sweden or France and Ireland is that, far more than we do, they manage to spend the money they take off of their citizens in a fashion that provides good value for money.

I don't trust our government to spend the money it does get off of me wisely. I'm against a high tax, big government country in general, but if they must have such a thing, I'd want a state that works, not one that can't spend most of its budget (health, education and social welfare) without huge questionmarks over the effectiveness of that spending... And that's before we get into general waste, white elephant projects and so forth.

If Ireland was run like Germany, we could likely have better services and tax cuts once the waste is discounted... Let's deal with that before we jack up the taxes to, essentially, make up for and increase the waste.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

danbohan

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

that would be ultimate nightmare of fianna fail/gombeen + green/lunatics , a country that works ,a public service that works heaven forbid

eoinbn

The debate over a low or high tax economy is over. Taxes will increase rapidly over the next few years but it won't be to improve services it will be to pay off our debt and to maintain our very average public services.

paraletic

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Ambulance driver?

sorry but i'm a paramedic, not an ambulance driver.

the 'finnish' issue has been discussed on previous threads, as has our wages.

how junior is this junior consultant, and is the 'ambulance driver' actually an Advanced Paramedic, with a HDip from UCD,
to even apply to train as an advanced paramedic you now need at least two years as a student paramedic, and at least 3 years qualified (and a Diploma from UCD or the royal college of surgeons), then if you are selected for training, you must complete 2 years (including internship) to qualify. so these 'ambulance drivers' are VERY experienced and VERY qualified.

.... so, how junior was the finnish consultant?

anybody can pick and choose facts to strengthen an argument, but it doesn't mean those 'facts' are in context!

Welease

paraletic wrote: »

so these 'ambulance drivers' are VERY experienced and VERY qualified.

And as per the previous thread.. VERY overpaid in comparison to their European counterparts.. (was it ~20% more than the UK on salary alone (not counting pension)?);)

danbohan

paraletic wrote: »

Ambulance driver?

sorry but i'm a paramedic, not an ambulance driver.

the 'finnish' issue has been discussed on previous threads, as has our wages.

how junior is this junior consultant, and is the 'ambulance driver' actually an Advanced Paramedic, with a HDip from UCD,
to even apply to train as an advanced paramedic you now need at least two years as a student paramedic, and at least 3 years qualified (and a Diploma from UCD or the royal college of surgeons), then if you are selected for training, you must complete 2 years (including internship) to qualify. so these 'ambulance drivers' are VERY experienced and VERY qualified.

.... so, how junior was the finnish consultant?

anybody can pick and choose facts to strengthen an argument, but it doesn't mean those 'facts' are in context!

agh i understand now , our ambulance drivers are really consultants ,that explains it , so really they are totally underpaid . we must do something quickly or they will all be resigning and going to countrys that pay them properly !!!!!!!!!!!!

Nijmegen

Lads, let's leave the wages out of this debate about high or low taxes.

Eoinbn hit the nail on the head. I'd like to see anyone who disagrees with the general notion that we waste tonnes of our public money on waste before we get to paying off debts.

I'd love to see a detailed report on how much over the past decade. I'd bet we could have wasted a full years budget at the very least in that time... A year we could have all had off tax!

Chiparus

I wonder what level the tax comes in at- would it be on all income so everyone pays income tax or would you have a large tax free base income like here.

View

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

The high taxes in the 80's went to pay the interest on the national debt - it literally took all of the entire PAYE tax income to service it at one stage if I remember correctly.

As such the comparasion with the Nordic countries isn't relevant. Plus, also they have this strange idea that public services paid for by public taxes should be run for the benefit of the public. And, they are prepared to be quite ruthless (for want of a better word) with anyone who tries to stop that from happening...

Amhran Nua

Just on the Nordic countries, Finland has slipped back into recession, as has Sweden, and Norway has massive reserves of oil and gas. Denmark was the first European country to enter recession (described as being of "historic dimensions"). So no, high tax economies aren't a great idea in the teeth of financial turmoil, especially not with the nimrods we have in power. If we cut expenditure to 2004 levels we'd be breaking even right about now, its quite doable.

View

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Just on the Nordic countries, Finland has slipped back into recession, as has Sweden, and Norway has massive reserves of oil and gas. Denmark was the first European country to enter recession (described as being of "historic dimensions"). So no, high tax economies aren't a great idea in the teeth of financial turmoil, especially not with the nimrods we have in power. If we cut expenditure to 2004 levels we'd be breaking even right about now, its quite doable.

Very true about them but our "low tax" model didn't save us from recession though. I'd say that whatever about how much you tax, your spending has to actually match it. Wanting to have Dubai levels of income taxes and Nordic levels of public services while treating vested interests with kid gloves just doesn't work.

Amhran Nua

View wrote: »

Wanting to have Dubai levels of income taxes and Nordic levels of public services while treating vested interests with kid gloves just doesn't work.

Thats not the point - expenditure went through the roof over the last ten years, while service levels didn't. Cutting back to a level we can afford makes a lot more sense than trying to prop up the whole affair via higher taxes and crippling the real economy (DIFFERENT FROM the revenue coffers) in the process.

kuntboy

Democracy has failed in Ireland. We need Singapore-style benign dictatorship.

Bits_n_Bobs

We have not had 'low tax' in Ireland over the last few years. We had a tax take that was hugely supplemented from the property boom rather than the 'old reliables' such as income tax.

cson

In terms of taxes, certainly one area I feel that needs to be urgently looked at is the streaming of revenue from specific taxes. Remember that any Motor Insurance products [indeed any insurance products?] you purchase will have an inclusive tax as a result of the collapse of PMPA. That was over two decades ago yet the tax abides; where did revenue from this tax go? Who knows. Properly managed; it would have gone into it's own profit centre for want of a better word and it could have been exercised over the past 20 years which would have come in handy for a shock like the Quinn Group saga. But no, it's likely been ****ed away on election promises.

Macha

cson wrote: »

In terms of taxes, certainly one area I feel that needs to be urgently looked at is the streaming of revenue from specific taxes. Remember that any Motor Insurance products [indeed any insurance products?] you purchase will have an inclusive tax as a result of the collapse of PMPA. That was over two decades ago yet the tax abides; where did revenue from this tax go? Who knows. Properly managed; it would have gone into it's own profit centre for want of a better word and it could have been exercised over the past 20 years which would have come in handy for a shock like the Quinn Group saga. But no, it's likely been ****ed away on election promises.

I don't think limiting the Irish Exchequer like that is a good idea. Whatever about mitigating regressive elements of particular taxes, reducing flexibility with tax revenue streams, particularly at a time when our current tax base is being seriously eroded, would be folly.

cson

Point taken, but surely you would agree that streaming it all into the one pot to be pissed away as is currently the case is surely folly too? The answer likely falls between the stools.

Riskymove

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Jimmmy returns???? :eek:

Macha

cson wrote: »

Point taken, but surely you would agree that streaming it all into the one pot to be pissed away as is currently the case is surely folly too? The answer likely falls between the stools.

If the problem is inefficiencies in public spending (and I would agree that gross inefficiencies exist), I don't think the suggested measure would necessarily help address the problem.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

paraletic

danbohan wrote: »

agh i understand now , our ambulance drivers are really consultants ,that explains it , so really they are totally underpaid . we must do something quickly or they will all be resigning and going to countrys that pay them properly !!!!!!!!!!!!

i never said we were consultants, sorry if it comes across that way.
but people have been picking and choosing 'facts' to argue a point,
the finnish consultants are at a differant level than irish consultants, it is a differant system in finland. but you can choose to ignore the differances in european standards and pay levels - if you want to.

http://www.worldsalaries.org/finland.shtml
we dont earn even near what a finish general doctor makes, so how can we even make close to a finish consultant? somewhere along the way that fact was made up!

danbohan

paraletic wrote: »

i never said we were consultants, sorry if it comes across that way.
but people have been picking and choosing 'facts' to argue a point,
the finnish consultants are at a differant level than irish consultants, it is a differant system in finland. but you can choose to ignore the differances in european standards and pay levels - if you want to.

http://www.worldsalaries.org/finland.shtml
we dont earn even near what a finish general doctor makes, so how can we even make close to a finish consultant? somewhere along the way that fact was made up!

people are picking and choosing facts to argue a point because they know we have a grossly overpaid overstaffed and inefficient public service which is still been protected at a great cost to the country by this government and probably by next one too , we are just sick of it.

paraletic

i am a tax payer too.
i use the public service too.
and i am pro reform

but i don't like my profession being used as a lever in an argument, especially when we are being lied about, even comparing us to the british paramedics doesn't hold water, although our basic pay is about 5k more, the uk paramedics have higher allowances, etc,,

if people want to use a sector of the pub service to highlight as inefficient, don't use paramedics, because despite some lies in some the papers and on the net, we are not overpaid and underworked!!

anyway, sorry to go off topic so much.

(again:don't call us ambulance drivers, because we don't just drive an ambulance)

paraletic

paraletic wrote: »

i am a tax payer too.
i use the public service too.
and i am pro reform

but i don't like my profession being used as a lever in an argument, especially when we are being lied about, even comparing us to the british paramedics doesn't hold water, although our basic pay is about 5k more, the uk paramedics have higher allowances, etc,,

pro reform but are you pro pay cut? Its got to happen whether in the form of higher taxes or actual cuts.

Lower cost of living in UK too so the 5k difference is more in reality. Spending more than we earn. Cutting current expenditure is the only way out of this and that means we cut public sector workers and or social welfare payments and or increase taxes. If we go bankrupt these things will be forced.

Personally I think bankruptcy for Ireland will be better in the long run if it cleared out Irish politics.

Pittens

people are picking and choosing facts to argue a point because they know we have a grossly overpaid overstaffed and inefficient public service which is still been protected at a great cost to the country by this government and probably by next one too

You are picking the wrong targets when attacking paramedics and ambulance drivers.

I have the heretical idea that GPs are less useful than paramedics, call me crazy.

But I still think the PS is overstaffed. Not frontline troops though.

Macha

Pittens wrote: »

I have the heretical idea that GPs are less useful than paramedics, call me crazy.

But I still think the PS is overstaffed. Not frontline troops though.

Actually, GPs act as the front line to the rest of the health service for the vast majority of us. If the health service were properly structured, GPs would act as filters to ensure that only those who really need to access other services would get through and they would also work on preventative medicine to again, ensure minimal pressure on other health services.

I see the role of GPs as vital.

View

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Thats not the point - expenditure went through the roof over the last ten years, while service levels didn't. Cutting back to a level we can afford makes a lot more sense than trying to prop up the whole affair via higher taxes and crippling the real economy (DIFFERENT FROM the revenue coffers) in the process.

The point was expenditure has to be matched by "real" tax income (i.e. not one-off property boom-based income).

It is possible to have high levels of public services if you are willing to pay the high taxes for them (i.e. the Nordic model). It is also possible to have low taxes provided you are willing to accept that means low levels of public services. What doesn't work is thinking you can fund high levels of public services with low levels of taxes - the math just doesn't add up.

View

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I agree. Although I think Ireland can't afford not to cut both capital spending and current spending.

View

taconnol wrote: »

I don't think limiting the Irish Exchequer like that is a good idea. Whatever about mitigating regressive elements of particular taxes, reducing flexibility with tax revenue streams, particularly at a time when our current tax base is being seriously eroded, would be folly.

Actually, I disagree. Yes, I admit it would be hard to implement in full at this moment but ultimately we need a situation where spending on education is paid for solely by an education tax (i.e. a broken-out part of your current income tax). Then the debate becomes "Okay, more spending on education means we'll pay more education tax - All in favour, say "Yes""). That way the debate becomes centred on "Are we willing to pay for this?" rather than the current situation where for the public there is no direct linkage between increased expenditure and increased taxation.

paraletic

Deleted User wrote: »

pro reform but are you pro pay cut? Its got to happen whether in the form of higher taxes or actual cuts.

Lower cost of living in UK too so the 5k difference is more in reality. Spending more than we earn. Cutting current expenditure is the only way out of this and that means we cut public sector workers and or social welfare payments and or increase taxes. If we go bankrupt these things will be forced.

Personally I think bankruptcy for Ireland will be better in the long run if it cleared out Irish politics.

obviously no body wants to take a cut in income, but i have no huge problem with reduction in wages (to a point)- if it is done fairly, which up to now it has not been.
if higher taxes is fair then why would i argue (much)., i don't know the format these taxes or savings would take,

lower cost of living in uk actually means that you can buy more nappies and milk etc in uk with 5k than in ireland. but i also mentioned in my post that the uk ambo staff get higher allowances than irish, which you may have missed.

Head The Wall

paraletic wrote: »

obviously no body wants to take a cut in income, but i have no huge problem with reduction in wages (to a point)- if it is done fairly, which up to now it has not been.
if higher taxes is fair then why would i argue (much)., i don't know the format these taxes or savings would take,

lower cost of living in uk actually means that you can buy more nappies and milk etc in uk with 5k than in ireland. but i also mentioned in my post that the uk ambo staff get higher allowances than irish, which you may have missed.

Define what would have been a fair way to cut every ones wages so far then. The levels should probably start to increase substantially after your wage level, correct

CrackisWhack

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

But those years have turned out to be a bit hollow really? and unsustainable.

Macha

View wrote: »

Actually, I disagree. Yes, I admit it would be hard to implement in full at this moment but ultimately we need a situation where spending on education is paid for solely by an education tax (i.e. a broken-out part of your current income tax). Then the debate becomes "Okay, more spending on education means we'll pay more education tax - All in favour, say "Yes""). That way the debate becomes centred on "Are we willing to pay for this?" rather than the current situation where for the public there is no direct linkage between increased expenditure and increased taxation.

I think that concept is entirely unworkable if not entirely undesirable. Never mind the fact that there are much more sources of revenue than just income tax - there are hundreds of types of tax.

We simply cannot hamstring our governments financing of the public sector in this way. You can bring in all the financial modellers you want and you will still not be able to accurately predict revenue from a particular place nor the exact costs. If the government is only able to spend say 10% of revenues from income tax and for whatever reason this level drops, our education funding could take a massive hit - with serious consequences.

I understand what you're getting at and I agree that it's key people understand how much these services cost (we have been spoiled over the last decade with everything being funded by stamp duty, etc) but I think the solution is a far less sexy and far more mundane route of drastically improve our education system, particularly in the area of politics and governance.

Het-Field

At the end of the day Mr Gormley doesnt know what he wants.

This is articulated by his proferens of the electric car and solar energy systems as the way of the future. The costs are astronomical, and in practice they are unworkable, unless they are subsidised by the state. As a result, Mr Gormely will naturally be disposed to a high-tax economy, which can then be ringfenced, and used to pay for his Green Schemes.

It doesnt really matter though. The man is a sitting duck, and is on the Green Mile as far as the composition of the next Oireachtas is concerned

Macha

Het-Field wrote: »

This is articulated by his proferens of the electric car and solar energy systems as the way of the future. The costs are astronomical, and in practice they are unworkable, unless they are subsidised by the state. As a result, Mr Gormely will naturally be disposed to a high-tax economy, which can then be ringfenced, and used to pay for his Green Schemes.

Actually, the electrification of transport has been highlighted by the International Energy Agency as one of the three main actions that every country will have to do in order to transition to a prosperous low-carbon economy.

As for state subsidies, the fossil fuel industry has received massive subsidies through its entire history, not just in terms of actual money but also in terms of preferential state support etc. The IEA has just released a report showing that world-wide, fossil fuels still receive €550 billion per annum, never mind the fact that a plethora of externalised costs, including carbon, are ignored.

Renewable energy is the second action on the IEA's list and if you look at where state efforts are going, it's actually the more mature wind industry that has the government's attention, not solar collectors or PVs that receive a small percentage of SEAI's annual budget.