Questions/observations....

not yet

1st How much would be saved if every working person in the state gave a weeks wage say in march,

2nd How did we arrive at 100,000 people from outside the state on the dole......

3rd Why cant we increase our corporation tax to say 17.5%, we'd still be attractive to big U.S companies and maintain the lowest rate in the E.U.

4th Why are we letting some of our brightest young people leave the country, having spent 70,000 to put them through 3rd level.

And finally would anyone agree savings of around 3 billion could be made on welfare fraud.

RichardAnd

My own take...

1st How much would be saved if every working person in the state gave a weeks wage say in march,

This I can't answer but I suppose an estimate could be gleaned by dividing a yearly income tax intake by 52. Someone might have these figures?

2nd How did we arrive at 100,000 people from outside the state on the dole......

Foreigners who have paid tax here for a certain length of time (2 years I think) are entitled to the dole.

4th Why are we letting some of our brightest young people leave the country, having spent 70,000 to put them through 3rd level.

A degree by no means makes someone bright, especially in this country. I've known people with honours and masters coming out their ears but who are, to be frank, un-fit to wire a plug. Personally, I don't buy the line that the best graduates are emigrating. Lots of graduates still get jobs, it's not like every college goer will be emigrating after they remove their mortar-boards. I also don't know where you're getting 70k from.

However the reason graduates are emigrating in numbers is because it's a matter of supply and demand. We flooded the employment market with graduates during the boom and the focus was, sadly, on quantity and not quality. Hence, with a drop in the demand for graduates, it's only natural there will be a surplus. Graduate unemployment would not be such a problem if we had left fees in place.

3rd Why cant we increase our corporation tax to say 17.5%, we'd still be attractive to big U.S companies and maintain the lowest rate in the E.U.

Big companies like intel and google have given jaded warnings about raising crop tax. Our low tax rates somewhat make up for our high wages, average infrastructure and other short comings. Corp tax brings us in a nice sum of money each year whilst still keeping us competitive. No need to cut off our noses to spite our faces.

And finally would anyone agree savings of around 3 billion could be made on welfare fraud.

I honestly don't know here. I imagine it would be alot but 3 billion seems a little too high. Honestly, I'd actually hope the extent of fraud in ireland isn't as bad as that

zig

RichardAnd wrote: »

My own take...



This I can't answer but I suppose an estimate could be gleaned by dividing a yearly income tax intake by 52. Someone might have these figures?

Its kind of confusing cause tax intake includes money from vat etc. So if none of that is spent it would be all weekly salarys combined - vat, probably a huge sum of money either way.

zig

not yet wrote: »

3rd Why cant we increase our corporation tax to say 17.5%, we'd still be attractive to big U.S companies and maintain the lowest rate in the E.U.

I think also , in addition the first response, 17.5% is ok NOW, but then alot of companies start seeing uncertainty, so its a case of 'ok these guys are willing to bring this tax up, whats gonna happen next year?'.

Anonymous1987

not yet wrote: »

2nd How did we arrive at 100,000 people from outside the state on the dole......

They paid their taxes, they are entitled to the dole. The latest figure (page 12) for non-nationals on welfare is 74,782, 17,598 of which were UK nationals.

not yet wrote: »

3rd Why cant we increase our corporation tax to say 17.5%, we'd still be attractive to big U.S companies and maintain the lowest rate in the E.U.

If you increase the corporation tax to 17.5%, what is there to say it won't be raised further in the future? This is how Multinational Enterprises will see this policy change, it introduces uncertainty not to mention reduces the attractiveness of Ireland with respect to competitors such as Bulgaria (10%), Romania (16%), Cyprus (10%) and Latvia (10%). Regardless current figures show tax revenue from corporate tax is up 19.1%.

not yet wrote: »

4th Why are we letting some of our brightest young people leave the country, having spent 70,000 to put them through 3rd level.

If there is no employment for them in Ireland, better they emigrate and not burden the welfare system.

not yet wrote: »

And finally would anyone agree savings of around 3 billion could be made on welfare fraud.

Hasn't the government already introduced measures to tackle welfare fraud?

tenchi-fan

not yet wrote: »

1st How much would be saved if every working person in the state gave a weeks wage say in march,

2nd How did we arrive at 100,000 people from outside the state on the dole......

3rd Why cant we increase our corporation tax to say 17.5%, we'd still be attractive to big U.S companies and maintain the lowest rate in the E.U.

4th Why are we letting some of our brightest young people leave the country, having spent 70,000 to put them through 3rd level.

And finally would anyone agree savings of around 3 billion could be made on welfare fraud.

1st. Zero. Because I'd make sure I didn't work that week. It would make more sense to increase tax but.. oh wait, we did. Income levy and health levies. And of course, your idea only hits PAYE workers so it's a horrible idea.

2nd. Because of a ridiculous welfare system combined with a ridiculous asylum and immigration system. They should have been rounded up and deported.

In the case of eastern europeans, the EU permitted us to limit immigration from these countries but the Irish government let them in for cheap labour thus driving down low wages while allowing companies and developers to continue making high profits.

3rd. No we wouldn't. We're already competing with countries who have 0% corporation tax.

4th. Most of them really aren't that bright. They stumbled through degrees in areas such as cultural studies & have no work experience. Many might as well have been on the dole for 4 years although this would have resulted in a ridiculous high number of people signing on the live register. In the case of junior doctors, as the HSE pays a good part of their wages the money simply isn't there to pay them.

Finally, no we couldn't save €3bn by cutting down on welfare fraud. It is already been investigated at a high cost.

Anonymous1987

tenchi-fan wrote: »

2nd. Because of a ridiculous welfare system combined with a ridiculous asylum and immigration system. They should have been rounded up and deported.

Only 12,751 non EU citizens claim welfare at present, only 3% of the total people signed onto welfare. They have a negligible effect on the exchequer not to mention they likely paid taxes, hardly warranting mass deportations if anything would.

tenchi-fan wrote: »

In the case of eastern europeans, the EU permitted us to limit immigration from these countries but the Irish government let them in for cheap labour thus driving down low wages while allowing companies and developers to continue making high profits.

The unemployment rate from 1999-2008 was under 5% hardly an employers market, more like a shortage of labour.

tenchi-fan

Anonymous1987 wrote: »

Only 12,751 non EU citizens claim welfare at present, only 3% of the total people signed onto welfare. They have a negligible effect on the exchequer not to mention they likely paid taxes, hardly warranting mass deportations if anything would.

The unemployment rate from 1999-2008 was under 5% hardly an employers market, more like a shortage of labour.

That's 12,751 too many. 3% is much too many. Bar the cost of bank guarantees, any other source of money squanderment could be considered "negligible" on it's own.

12751 x say €20,000 = €255,020,000 per year. = 1,275,100,000 over 5 years. That's over a billion euros. And you call that negligible?

Regarding the "shortage" of labour, we had people building houses which are now empty. It was just a disastrous government policy. The developments failed, the money's gone, and now who's paying the price for it? We might as well have paid one person to dig a hole and the other to fill it if we wanted full employment- it would have worked out cheaper.

Anonymous1987

tenchi-fan wrote: »

That's 12,751 too many. 3% is much too many. Bar the cost of bank guarantees, any other source of money squanderment could be considered "negligible" on it's own.

12751 x say €20,000 = €255,020,000 per year. = 1,275,100,000 over 5 years. That's over a billion euros. And you call that negligible?

When considering that every immigrant must have spent at least two years working and thus paying tax into the system yes I imagine the effect is negligible.

tenchi-fan wrote: »

Regarding the "shortage" of labour, we had people building houses which are now empty. It was just a disastrous government policy. The developments failed, the money's gone, and now who's paying the price for it? We might as well have paid one person to dig a hole and the other to fill it if we wanted full employment- it would have worked out cheaper.

The governments disastrous policy regarding development tax incentives is a separate argument to the one on immigration policy. Perhaps if the government did not feed the bubble then we would not have had the need to import labour.