Offsetting Tax increases for the Working people.

keithclancy

Of course everyone is talking about increases in Taxes and the Burden on the Tax payer.

With the Tax increases a way to ease the burden could be with offsets, i.e. saying, look we need to increase taxes but we'll abolish X to offset this.

E.G. Abolishing Child Allowance and also banning custom school uniforms with only one or two suppliers.

At the moment people are stuck buying Uniforms for Kids which cost upto 100 euro / child, whereas in the UK your paying a quarter of that, on the continent kids are allowed to wear their own clothes and no school uniform is required.

Also, since the Department of Education set the curriculum, a book rental scheme should be setup with a centralised rental system, allow people below a certain threshold of joint income to enter the rental scheme.

I think there are a number of areas where this could be done, its not enough for the Government ot just impose this extra burden on the people, like anything it should be a give and take scenario, fixing problems that exist before lumping on extra burden.

uncle_sam_ie

No wearing your own clothes can be more expensive. I went to school in California were we had no school uniforms. My sister would spend over thousand dollars each year on clothes. For me it was band name stuff all the way because that's what the other kids had. Only the poor dorks bought from K-Mart. Having school uniforms makes you all equal and doesn't put pressure on parent to fork out even more money.

keithclancy

uncle_sam_ie wrote: »

No wearing your own clothes can be more expensive. I went to school in California were we had no school uniforms. My sister would spend over thousand dollars each year on clothes. For me it was band name stuff all the way because that's what the other kids had. Only the poor dorks bought from K-Mart. Having school uniforms makes you all equal and doesn't put pressure on parent to fork out even more money.

Thats the parents problem,
In the current system they have no choice.

The prices were and still are nuts, e.g.:
http://direct.asda.com/george/kid-s-clothing/schoolwear/0305,default,sc.html

I can think of one school in Cork at least where the Jumper is 50 euros and you only have the choice of one shop to purchase it from.

On the Continent it works anyway, the US is a Capitalist consumer state, perhaps that needs to change in Ireland also.

uncle_sam_ie

In the end it's cheaper on parents to buy the uniform. We got all the uniforms from dunnes and its was like 90 euros for the lot. That's a lot cheaper then going out and buying brand name clothes for the year.

Lockstep

As soon as I saw 'working people' in the title, I thought it'd be a Joe Higgins thread.

RichardAnd

uncle_sam_ie wrote: »

No wearing your own clothes can be more expensive. I went to school in California were we had no school uniforms. My sister would spend over thousand dollars each year on clothes. For me it was band name stuff all the way because that's what the other kids had. Only the poor dorks bought from K-Mart. Having school uniforms makes you all equal and doesn't put pressure on parent to fork out even more money.

I agree with this. Having a uniform for school is a fine idea as if the parents of certain children can't afford the brand names, the football shirts or whatever it is children wear these days, the said children will not be marked out from their peers by this.

It's also removes the need to think about what one should wear, I wish we had uniforms in work!

keithclancy

uncle_sam_ie wrote: »

In the end it's cheaper on parents to buy the uniform. We got all the uniforms from dunnes and its was like 90 euros for the lot. That's a lot cheaper then going out and buying brand name clothes for the year.

Thats great, but for allot of schools you cannot buy the uniform from Dunnes, only from one specific retailer.

View

uncle_sam_ie wrote: »

In the end it's cheaper on parents to buy the uniform. We got all the uniforms from dunnes and its was like 90 euros for the lot. That's a lot cheaper then going out and buying brand name clothes for the year.

So, with a school uniform, parents don't buy brand name clothes at all? The school pupils must wear their uniforms all the time then even after school or at the weekends, right?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

uncle_sam_ie

keithclancy wrote: »

Thats great, but for allot of schools you cannot buy the uniform from Dunnes, only from one specific retailer.

It's still cheaper. Yeah, you could kit them out with Tesco's attire or stitch some coal bags together with some wooded shoes. But, I think most parents will buy the brand names so their kid doesn't get teased and made to look poor. Kids should be concerned with school work not with what they're wearing. This was a big deal for my sister at the time. It would have been a lot easier on her (and my parents pocket book) if she only had to buy the uniform.

Liam Byrne

keithclancy wrote: »

Of course everyone is talking about increases in Taxes and the Burden on the Tax payer.

With the Tax increases a way to ease the burden could be with offsets, i.e. saying, look we need to increase taxes but we'll abolish X to offset this.

Crazy idea, especially if related to uniforms, since that only affects people with kids.....people who are already getting child benefit.

Also, increasing taxes but offsetting the tax is essentially pointless if the need is to increase revenue.

There are only a few areas where tax changes are anywhere equitable :

1) income tax
2) VAT
3) fuel tax (a combination of direct costs and delivery costs affect everyone)

....and even then they're not completely equitable, because someone on €10,000 a year paying out €100 extra is losing required income, whereas someone on €100,000 is losing completely discretionary (what I would call disposable, but the economists phrase otherwise) funds.

keithclancy

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Crazy idea, especially if related to uniforms, since that only affects people with kids.....people who are already getting child benefit.

Also, increasing taxes but offsetting the tax is essentially pointless if the need is to increase revenue.

There are only a few areas where tax changes are anywhere equitable :

1) income tax
2) VAT
3) fuel tax (a combination of direct costs and delivery costs affect everyone)

....and even then they're not completely equitable, because someone on €10,000 a year paying out €100 extra is losing required income, whereas someone on €100,000 is losing completely discretionary (what I would call disposable, but the economists phrase otherwise) funds.

And do you think that its fair someone on 100000 euros recieves child benefit ?

When someone on 20000 euro without children doesn't ?

Liam Byrne

keithclancy wrote: »

And do you think that its fair someone on 100000 euros recieves child benefit ?

When someone on 20000 euro without children doesn't ?

Personal opinion is that no-one should have children unless they can afford to provide for them without being subsidised by the rest of us.

So I'm not even sure where that question came out of.....you're basically asking me about the nitty-gritty of something that I'm fundamentally opposed to.

Welease

keithclancy wrote: »

And do you think that its fair someone on 100000 euros recieves child benefit ?

When someone on 20000 euro without children doesn't ?

Define fair..

Person A (100k) gets paid 5 times the amount of Person B (20k), but has to pay almost 10 times that amount of tax via income and USC...

One could argue they are far more entitled to get something out of the system than those who contribute little..

Icepick

Child allowance should not be paid in cash anyway.

thebman

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Personal opinion is that no-one should have children unless they can afford to provide for them without being subsidised by the rest of us.

So I'm not even sure where that question came out of.....you're basically asking me about the nitty-gritty of something that I'm fundamentally opposed to.

I think the same except that the Irish state has an obligation to pay for the problem which is that abortion is illegal in this country because politicians are afraid of the issue.

So I'd have no problem with abolishing child benefit altogether if the state introduces abortion.

keithclancy

Welease wrote: »

Define fair..

Person A (100k) gets paid 5 times the amount of Person B (20k), but has to pay almost 10 times that amount of tax via income and USC...

One could argue they are far more entitled to get something out of the system than those who contribute little..

The Social System is based on need, not entitlement for a very good reason.

If thats the case why not just privatise everything, have lower taxes and end up with a system like in the US.

Welease

keithclancy wrote: »

The Social System is based on need, not entitlement for a very good reason.

If thats the case why not just privatise everything, have lower taxes and end up with a system like in the US.

But thats the point.. Define fair.

You are throwing terms like "fair" about.. but "fair" means very different things to different people.. There are many people who believe that the US system is fair.. they are many people who believe that it is unfair.. neither is necessarily correct.. There opinions and value judgements will be based on their own beliefs and experiences..

keithclancy wrote: »

The Social System is based on need, not entitlement for a very good reason.

????

If our system was based on need then you wouldn't be complaining about someone earning 100K and claiming child benefit..
Our system is roughly based on entitlements.. You only need to meet specific criteria to obtain many benefits in this country as very few are actually means tested.

keithclancy

Welease wrote: »

But thats the point.. Define fair.

You are throwing terms like "fair" about.. but "fair" means very different things to different people.. There are many people who believe that the US system is fair.. they are many people who believe that it is unfair.. neither is necessarily correct.. There opinions and value judgements will be based on their own beliefs and experiences..

Fair meaning that when people hit upon hard times (unemployment/disability etc) that they are supported by the state to maintain a basic quality of life.

Are you saying that hundreds of thousands of people unable to attain basic medical healthcare and education are being treated fairly ?

If our system was based on need then you wouldn't be complaining about someone earning 100K and claiming child benefit..
Our system is roughly based on entitlements.. You only need to meet specific criteria to obtain many benefits in this country as very few are actually means tested.

Exactly my point, Welfare is going to people who do not 'need' it and treat it as extra income.

Whereas people that have it as part of their income and need it are in a different situation.l

Back on Topic though, any other suggestions for a give an take scenario ? The Government seems to be already enacting my idea

Welease

keithclancy wrote: »

Fair meaning that when people hit upon hard times (unemployment/disability etc) that they are supported by the state to maintain a basic quality of life.

Are you saying that hundreds of thousands of people unable to attain basic medical healthcare and education are being treated fairly ?


Exactly my point, Welfare is going to people who do not 'need' it and treat it as extra income.

Whereas people that have it as part of their income and need it are in a different situation.l

Back on Topic though, any other suggestions for a give an take scenario ? The Government seems to be already enacting my idea

But you can't decide who needs it unless we start actually doing proper means testing.. Just assuming that someone on 100K shouldn't be entitled and someone on lower income should be entitled is equally as unfair.

An example..

Person A earns about 80K per year.. Works their ass off paying off their mortgage and bills. Their child has autism, and is not provided any support by the HSE. In order to give the child some chance of starting school, they have to pay for private speech therapy etc. at a cost of €80 per hour.. The bills come to hundreds/thousands of Euro's per month, which in conjunction with their mortgage/bills etc. leaves them on the breadline

Person B has 5 children, never worked a day in their life. Provided free council house, medical card, fuel suppliments, and child benefit for all their kids etc. Parent spends most evenings down the pub..

Your example of fairness would be to cut child benefit from Person A and continue to give to Person B... just because Person A earns a considerable amount of money..

That's "fair"?

As per my original point.. there can be no level of fairness when people look at headline amounts (€100K) and make no attempt to understand the potential complexity and uniqueness of each situation..

RichardAnd

Welease wrote: »

But you can't decide who needs it unless we start actually doing proper means testing.. Just assuming that someone on 100K shouldn't be entitled and someone on lower income should be entitled is equally as unfair.

An example..

Person A earns about 80K per year.. Works their ass off paying off their mortgage and bills. Their child has autism, and is not provided any support by the HSE. In order to give the child some chance of starting school, they have to pay for private speech therapy etc. at a cost of €80 per hour.. The bills come to hundreds/thousands of Euro's per month, which in conjunction with their mortgage/bills etc. leaves them on the breadline

Person B has 5 children, never worked a day in their life. Provided free council house, medical card, fuel suppliments, and child benefit for all their kids etc. Parent spends most evenings down the pub..

Your example of fairness would be to cut child benefit from Person A and continue to give to Person B... just because Person A earns a considerable amount of money..

That's "fair"?

As per my original point.. there can be no level of fairness when people look at headline amounts (€100K) and make no attempt to understand the potential complexity and uniqueness of each situation..

Good post. I would just add that person B is the exception to the rule and not the normal person on welfare.

Welease

RichardAnd wrote: »

Good post. I would just add that person B is the exception to the rule and not the normal person on welfare.

Absolutely.. each case needs to be taken individually.

keithclancy

Welease wrote: »

But you can't decide who needs it unless we start actually doing proper means testing.. Just assuming that someone on 100K shouldn't be entitled and someone on lower income should be entitled is equally as unfair.

An example..

Person A earns about 80K per year.. Works their ass off paying off their mortgage and bills. Their child has autism, and is not provided any support by the HSE. In order to give the child some chance of starting school, they have to pay for private speech therapy etc. at a cost of €80 per hour.. The bills come to hundreds/thousands of Euro's per month, which in conjunction with their mortgage/bills etc. leaves them on the breadline

Person B has 5 children, never worked a day in their life. Provided free council house, medical card, fuel suppliments, and child benefit for all their kids etc. Parent spends most evenings down the pub..

Your example of fairness would be to cut child benefit from Person A and continue to give to Person B... just because Person A earns a considerable amount of money..

That's "fair"?

As per my original point.. there can be no level of fairness when people look at headline amounts (€100K) and make no attempt to understand the potential complexity and uniqueness of each situation..

Your contradicting yourself, if you means test person B, they'll get the maximum benefit possible because they have no income.

How can you means test laziness ?

Welease

keithclancy wrote: »

Your contradicting yourself, if you means test person B, they'll get the maximum benefit possible because they have no income.

How can you means test laziness ?

No contradiction, you are not understand the concept of "fair".

Proper or "fair" means testing would not solely look at the headline income and assume because someone makes X they are either rich or poor.. Which is what a lot of posts like yours assume..

In the case I presented, Person A would get no child benefit and have to cut treatment desperately needed for their child.. Person B would continue to be paid child benefit and spend it down the pub...

Please explain to me how that is "fair"?

keithclancy

Welease wrote: »

No contradiction, you are not understand the concept of "fair".

Proper or "fair" means testing would not solely look at the headline income and assume because someone makes X they are either rich or poor.. Which is what a lot of posts like yours assume..

In the case I presented, Person A would get no child benefit and have to cut treatment desperately needed for their child.. Person B would continue to be paid child benefit and spend it down the pub...

Please explain to me how that is "fair"?

Well actually in the Current system for Special Needs assistance, the assistance is the same regardless of whether you earn 100k or 20k, look at the Centre for Independant Living as an example (HSE Funded)

My idea of fair would be that if you can pay for it you should pay for it.

In your idea of fair, we should scrap the idea of universal healthcare and social services altogether and you should get services based on your level of payment into the system, which in principal is a good idea, but in reality creates lots of social problems because a small percentage of society have a large amount of Wealth.

So if someone has a Child with a Disability and they earn 20k and another Family that earns 100k is in the same boat, should they not get the same amount of support from Social Services regardless of their income ?

My point being from the OP that if Tax Increases are made then it has less of a burden on the individual if there is a cost saving introduced elsewhere.

Welease

keithclancy wrote: »

So if someone has a Child with a Disability and they earn 20k and another Family that earns 100k is in the same boat, should they not get the same amount of support from Social Services regardless of their income ?

They should..

And that is why I was disagreeing with your previous point. hence my posting.

You said

keithclancy wrote: »

And do you think that its fair someone on 100000 euros recieves child benefit ?

You seem to be proposing that someone on 100K should NOT receive payments which is contrary to what you are stating above..

As per my post there are many children with disabilities who do not get support from the HSE, and that money is used to provide the specialist care they require.. Your post indicates that you have an issue with that because of the higher than average income of the parent irrespective of their outgoings.

keithclancy wrote: »

In your idea of fair, we should scrap the idea of universal healthcare and social services altogether and you should get services based on your level of payment into the system, which in principal is a good idea, but in reality creates lots of social problems because a small percentage of society have a large amount of Wealth.

I don't believe I proposed any such system, nor do I support such a system.

sarumite

thebman wrote: »

So I'd have no problem with abolishing child benefit altogether if the state introduces abortion.

I think you need to be careful with this kind of thinking. We shouldn't dehumanise a child based on the poor decisions of their parents. There needs to be a balance between disincentivising having children if there is not the proper financial situation required to properly care for the child and ensuring the child recieves basic human needs such as housing, clothing, food education etc.

fliball123

sarumite wrote: »

I think you need to be careful with this kind of thinking. We shouldn't dehumanise a child based on the poor decisions of their parents. There needs to be a balance between disincentivising having children if there is not the proper financial situation required to properly care for the child and ensuring the child recieves basic human needs such as housing, clothing, food education etc.

Instead of childrens allowence parents should be given a tax credit towards a creche same with the unemployed instead of childs allowence...We need to incentivise people to work before anything else..