Is anyone else disturbed by the refusal to increase income tax?

munkifisht

Over the past number of weeks this "government" has time and again floated the terrifying prospect to some of the population of cutting off their only support line. Daily we hear stories on the news of how Kenny and his cronies (Labor included) has reversed their election pledges and now Social Welfare, Child Benefit, Medical Cards, the Prescription Levy, Vat, and Pensions are all on the chopping block. We are also hearing that the number of beds in public hospitals and state funded nursing homes are also going to be under threat, and there is going to be a tax introduced on fatty or sugary foods. What I personally find disturbing about all this is that many people are already on the breadline, and any further tightening of their purse strings is going to push them over the edge. These cuts seem to be targted directly at them. What I find even more disturbing is that while the basis of almost everything the parties we elected stood for before February 25th has been eroded, the one principle they have staunchly stuck to is the stubborn refusal to hit those in our society who can afford it by increasing income tax.

I am not on the dole queue, nor am I earning in the higher tax bracket. I am pretty much your average working schmo. I don't work or volunteer for any charity, and until now I have never been politicised. But as more and more of our citizens are been pushed out of the working world and into the desolation of unemployment should these not be the first people we should protect first? Are we by not increasing income tax explicitly protecting those in our society, the bankers and the politicians who brought us to this state? Would it not be much fairer to everyone to place at least some of the burden on the shoulders of the working population rather than on those of the destitute? Can someone please give me the valid reasons that our sniveling German dashhund TDs will not bring this to the table?

Icepick

Taxes have been increasing for the employed. But high earners (e.g. 60k+) should be hit with a higher tax. But keep in mind that high earners already pay most of income taxes.
High earners in PS should have their salaries cut. Universally paid benefits should be means tested too.

nesf

The problem with increasing income tax is that it increasing the disincentives to work. Which is a bad thing.

We have a serious problem in this country with an over focus on transaction taxes and a lack of non-transaction taxes. Non-transaction taxes are not nice but they're essential to keep public income stable during a downturn or recession. Otherwise we face our current problems over and over again.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

munkifisht

@icepick, 100% agree with the idea of a higher tax, perhaps even a super tax. Means testing is also great in an ideal world, but I can only imagine that a) it's too late in respect of this budget to introduce and b) when/if it is introduced, it will drive up public sector spending as someone will have to either do the means testing or program and maintain the programs that will do it.

@nesf, can you explain in simple terms what you mean by transaction and non-transaction taxes. Also the myth that those on the dole are better off than when they work was disproven by the ESRI pole some months ago. The same pole confirmed what I see from those I know who have been made redundant in the past few months.

ardmacha

Transaction taxes means that if people stop buying something government revenue declines, as happened with stamp duty. An annual property tax is preferable as it doesn't vary much.

Income taxes are fine up to a point, but at some point they reduce the incentive to earn more or encourage people to divert income to avoid them. Up to a point, other taxes can encourage people to earn more in order to pay for things.

munkifisht

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

To clarify, I did not say that every person on social welfare is destitute, but there are many who are. There are 4000 homeless in Dublin alone. My point is that the mistakes of bankers and politicians and property developers (thanks, how could I have forgotten the property developers) is being visited almost exclusively on those for whom the celtic tiger never existed.

Chucky the tree

munkifisht wrote: »

To clarify, I did not say that every person on social welfare is destitute, but there are many who are. There are 4000 homeless in Dublin alone. My point is that the mistakes of bankers and politicians and property developers (thanks, how could I have forgotten the property developers) is being visited almost exclusively on those for whom the celtic tiger never existed.

Getting €180(more during the Celtic tiger boom and that's before you even count rent reflief) for doing nothing and then claiming they got nothing from the Celtic tiger is laughable. I can also only assume you live in some sort of fantasy land when you use the word exclusively.

nesf

munkifisht wrote: »

@nesf, can you explain in simple terms what you mean by transaction and non-transaction taxes. Also the myth that those on the dole are better off than when they work was disproven by the ESRI pole some months ago. The same pole confirmed what I see from those I know who have been made redundant in the past few months.

A transaction tax is a tax on a transaction. It's like the difference between stamp duty and household charges. The first only applies when a house is bought or sold, the latter is always applicable. As ardmacha said, the key is that they don't go down in a recession which keeps taxation higher than if you had the same amount of taxation in VAT, Excise Duty and so on.

munkifisht

Chucky the tree wrote: »

Getting €180(more during the Celtic tiger boom and that's before you even count rent reflief) for doing nothing and then claiming they got nothing from the Celtic tiger is laughable. I can also only assume you live in some sort of fantasy land when you use the word exclusively.

Nah mate, I live in pinko Russia with Lenin and Marx.

Guardian 2004

"But the gap between rich and poor has grown so much that the UN said recently Ireland had the highest levels of inequality of all western countries except the US. In spite of its new-found prosperity, Ireland has the highest proportion of people at risk of poverty in the EU. Some single parent families survive on less than €150 a week. Many say they can't pay for their children to go to the doctor when they are sick."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/oct/07/ireland

munkifisht

nesf wrote: »

A transaction tax is a tax on a transaction. It's like the difference between stamp duty and household charges. The first only applies when a house is bought or sold, the latter is always applicable. As ardmacha said, the key is that they don't go down in a recession which keeps taxation higher than if you had the same amount of taxation in VAT, Excise Duty and so on.

Council tax in the UK for example, or motor tax?

Good loser

munkifisht wrote: »

To clarify, I did not say that every person on social welfare is destitute, but there are many who are. There are 4000 homeless in Dublin alone. My point is that the mistakes of bankers and politicians and property developers (thanks, how could I have forgotten the property developers) is being visited almost exclusively on those for whom the celtic tiger never existed.

Quite wrong there.

The burden of income tax has increased drastically in the last three years.

That's why the Govt is shifting to other taxes these years.

With high income tax high earning workers will leave and multi national

sector workers will be slow to come here.

I think quite a good idea would be to have, say, a 25% tax rate on all

earnings over €1m per annum.

munkifisht

Good loser wrote: »

I think quite a good idea would be to have, say, a 25% tax rate on all

earnings over €1m per annum.

Do you mean increasing the number of tax bands, coming more inline with the likes of NZ AUS or US, for example, tax in NZ is split into 5 bands

$0 – $14,000 10.5%
$14,001 – $48,000 17.5%
$48,001 – $70,000 30%
Over $70,000 33%
No-notification rate 45%

nesf

munkifisht wrote: »

Council tax in the UK for example, or motor tax?

Yup, exactly. Water charges, Poll Tax (shudder) and so on.

jimmycrackcorm

I've no objection to paying more taxes but not until our outrageous budget deficit position is brought into line. If I have to pay more tax I either want to get something in return or have a choice to pay those taxes such as reduced vat via reduced spending. I object to increased taxes to sustain public service and social welfare spending that has not matched the reduction in the economic situation.

p.s. Paying for your pension via a levy doesn't count as a real reduction.

waitingforBB

we cant increase income taxes indefinately..
as mentioned, disincentive to work, disincentive to reside are all factors along with the lessening of spend in the real economy..

elephant in the room is still PS costs...and Im not inviting another Public v private debate, but fact remains that the PS bill is too high...

There is an inability to pay, but the gov are afraid of the unions so I guess CPW will remain intact...until 2014...

Reality will bite, we cannot pay what we are paying (salaries and pensions) in the public sector. Thats the elephant...

SBWife

No, the marginal tax including the USC and other charges for higher incomes is above 50%. Time and again it's been proven that increases above this level result in less incentives to innovate and create value and more energies devoted into avoiding taxes. Increasing from present levels runs a high risk of raising less income for government not more.

avalon68

Are you willing to pay more income tax yourself? Its all well and good to indicate others should pay more, as long as you remain unaffected What we should be doing is broadening the tax base, ensuring that every worker pays some tax. This incessant call to tax the high income earners is getting tiresome - its not their job to carry the whole country, and they arent all bankers/developers etc. The majority of these people have probably worked hard, contributed to the economy, created jobs etc. Why punish them for that. They already contribute a large proportion of the tax take. I dont know the figures but I would imagine that taxing all those who currently fall below the taxable threshold would raise more money than increasing taxes on the super wealthy (of which there probably are not that many).

femur61

munkifisht wrote: »

Nah mate, I live in pinko Russia with Lenin and Marx.

Guardian 2004

"But the gap between rich and poor has grown so much that the UN said recently Ireland had the highest levels of inequality of all western countries except the US. In spite of its new-found prosperity, Ireland has the highest proportion of people at risk of poverty in the EU. Some single parent families survive on less than €150 a week. Many say they can't pay for their children to go to the doctor when they are sick."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/oct/07/ireland

Whats an article from 2004 relevant, even though I agree the gap is huge between the rich and poor but what relevance has an article that is 7 years old?

WalterMitty

The problem in this country rather than income taxes not being high enough on high earners ( they are after the rises of last 3 years) it is that despite a high GDP per capita Irish citizens dont actually own that GDP.

A large chunk of the GDP is owned by foreign multinationals operating here and in order to get them here and keep them here we have had to give them 12% corporation tax and also not put income taxes and likes of PRSI taxes too high as it increases their costs of attracting highly paid high skilled workers here for their businesses(ireland doesnt produce enough people of caibre required by google,apple etc for their irish operations as we are too small and education system isnt ideal for producing the grads needed)
Now giving the foreign multinationals a low tax rate means all Irish businesses have to get it under EU law AFAIK so Irish corporations are paying lower tax rates than they would in say UK.

I dont know if it is possible under EU law to increase the tax rate for corporations but allow 12% tax for profits from exports only as that could raise several billion more in revenue but could undermine our wider industrial policy . Also many foreign corporations dont even pay 12% with the "double Irish" so maybe you could make them pay an effective tax rate of 12% but that too could be a disincentive to attractign new corporations that could create employment here.
Also as indigenous irish corporations benefit significantly from this 12% tax rate maybe there is a way of targeting dividends paid by or capital gains made from indigenous corporations to its shareholders again without affecting the foreign multinationals.
There is also the problem that a lot of people and corporations in Ireland have significant amounts of debt and the servicing of this debt on top of taxation reduces their incomes to the point where going bankrupt becomes more and more likely. Any personal (under new legislation on way) or business failures ultimately results in cost to banks which we largely own and to little tax take from these entities in years following bankrupcy

WalterMitty

femur61 wrote: »

Whats an article from 2004 relevant, even though I agree the gap is huge between the rich and poor but what relevance has an article that is 7 years old?

yeah even vincent Brown admitted that inequality has lessened in past few years of the recession and the loony lefties would have us all equally poor in no time if they were in power.
The 2004 figures are irrelevant now, that wealth was only based on massive asset price bubble which by definition benefits owners of assets who are overwhelmingly the richer members of society but if its any consolation a significant amount of those who were the richest individuals in 2004 are now worth a fraction (or nothing) of the 2004 wealth level.

robd

SBWife wrote: »

No, the marginal tax including the USC and other charges for higher incomes is above 50%. Time and again it's been proven that increases above this level result in less incentives to innovate and create value and more energies devoted into avoiding taxes. Increasing from present levels runs a high risk of raising less income for government not more.

Very true.

Someone earning 30k takes home 24,945 which is an effective tax rate of only 16.5%. 50k takes home 35,133 which is 29.7%. 70k takes home 70k takes home 44,733 which is 36%. 100k takes home 59,133 which is 41%

Problem is that during recession lots of people dropped back to earning only 30k and hence are not paying near enough tax to fund the country. 16.5% needs to be 30% for tax system to work.

FreudianSlippers

Icepick wrote: »

Taxes have been increasing for the employed. But high earners (e.g. 60k+) should be hit with a higher tax. But keep in mind that high earners already pay most of income taxes.
High earners in PS should have their salaries cut. Universally paid benefits should be means tested too.

That makes you a "high earner" now? :eek:

ilovelamp2000

waitingforBB wrote: »

we cant increase income taxes indefinately..

Exactly.

I've heard quite a few economists advise that any further increases in tax here will result in a lower tax take.

nesf

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

That makes you a "high earner" now? :eek:

It's not far off double the average wage, so yeah it'd be pretty high.

beeftotheheels

ilovelamp2000 wrote: »

Exactly.

I've heard quite a few economists advise that any further increases in tax here will result in a lower tax take.

Hmmmm, this is a difficult one. Economists talk about the Laffer curve and then point to irrelevant data such as the CGT take going up when the rates came down, or various corporation tax takes going up when lower rate flat taxes were introduced as support for their argument. 1970s Britain with is 98% top rate is also a favorite to be wheeled out.

The reality is that if you introduced a 98% top rate then I can see people taking their kids out of school to emigrate to Switzerland to avoid working almost entirely for the benefit of the State.

A 1 or 2% increase on higher salaries (UK went 10% in 2009 remember with the 50% top rate of income tax and had a 55% marginal rate on salaries between £100k and £150k), a 5-10% increase on PS salaries in excess of €x00,000 is not going to cause people to uproot their lives.

Didn't happen in the UK, wouldn't happen here (especially the tax on the upper echelons of the PS who couldn't get comparable jobs elsewhere).

Wouldn't raise an awful lot of money mind, but if it made people feel better, if it made getting changes through elsewhere easier then it shouldn't be dismissed out of face because Constantin Gurdgiev prefers to refer to a Laffer curve rather than the real life experience of our nearest neighbor and chooses to believe that higher rate taxpayers owe no loyalty to their country.

Read this piece from Michael O'Leary

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/oleary-ill-quit-ireland-if-they-raise-income-tax-2853865.html

He's saying his tipping point for getting irked is somewhere above 60%, and his tipping point for becoming a tax exile is 75% meaning that he'd probably take an extra 1 or 2 percent on the chin. There are not many would accuse the bould Michael of being a card carrying, public sector supporting socialist.

Benny_Cake

ilovelamp2000 wrote: »

waitingforBB wrote: »

we cant increase income taxes indefinately..

Exactly.

I've heard quite a few economists advise that any further increases in tax here will result in a lower tax take.

There probably is room for a higher tax band for top earners but 60k is too low to impose it at.Increasing income tax at the current bands would be inadvisable-a lot of guff is spoken about people being better off on the dole,but if you increase income tax much more it could become a reality.

Mister Dread

The low incomes are hte ones who need to be hit hard. The tax take on these is miniscule in comparison to other countries. Of course the social welfare will need to be hit even harded to make working attractive.

Benny_Cake

Mister Dread wrote: »

The low incomes are hte ones who need to be hit hard. The tax take on these is miniscule in comparison to other countries. Of course the social welfare will need to be hit even harded to make working attractive.

Aside from the moral argument,you do realise that this would have a disproportionate effect on the retail sector,not to mention it would hit VAT revenues?

irishh_bob

waitingforBB wrote: »

we cant increase income taxes indefinately..
as mentioned, disincentive to work, disincentive to reside are all factors along with the lessening of spend in the real economy..

elephant in the room is still PS costs...and Im not inviting another Public v private debate, but fact remains that the PS bill is too high...

There is an inability to pay, but the gov are afraid of the unions so I guess CPW will remain intact...until 2014...

Reality will bite, we cannot pay what we are paying (salaries and pensions) in the public sector. Thats the elephant...

croke park covers public sector wages but AFAIK the sheltered sectors of the economy like GP,s , dentists and energy suppliers dont fall under the croke park agreement , if the goverment were to remove the cap on the number of GP,s that can practice , the cost to the hard up customer would fall sharply thus negating any cuts in minimum wage , child support etc , the goverment are not without options and some of them would be popular with the majority of people , i dont believe that any seats would be lost by removing the cotton wool from ESB workers , GP,s , dentists and the like

Blisterman

A disproportionate amount of the tax revenue is generated by the top 1% of earners, who also tend to be the major employers.

So increasing taxes too much could end up shooting ourselves in the foot.

irishh_bob

WalterMitty wrote: »

yeah even vincent Brown admitted that inequality has lessened in past few years of the recession and the loony lefties would have us all equally poor in no time if they were in power.
The 2004 figures are irrelevant now, that wealth was only based on massive asset price bubble which by definition benefits owners of assets who are overwhelmingly the richer members of society but if its any consolation a significant amount of those who were the richest individuals in 2004 are now worth a fraction (or nothing) of the 2004 wealth level.

has vincent browne said that inequality has decreased , he,s usually screaming the opposite

flutered

did not that valdaker bloke say on tv before the election that the poor would have to be hardest hit as the rich would not stand for it, my mantra has always been, the poor always pay.

Tea drinker

flutered wrote: »

did not that valdaker bloke say on tv before the election that the poor would have to be hardest hit as the rich would not stand for it, my mantra has always been, the poor always pay.

1. middle class are the only ones who can pay. the bulk powerhouse of the economy.
2. The poor have nothing, and cannot (legally for unemployed) /will not produce anything
3. The rich have a house of cards that can be deconstructed overnight leaving the individual with only his watt-hour output in labour as his value, same as middle class

Middle class are easiest to hit as they are the true output of the economy and so the tax systems are constructed to attack them. Legally they are the most vulnerable also, with the poor and rich being somewhat invulnerable, as they are outside a lot of legal reach.

A further rise in tax against the powerhouse means it decreases the efficiency of this sector, it costs more to do the same output of work whilst reducing input to the economy from this sector. Unfortunately no one else has money, hence the reduction on spending on the given tax take from the productive side of the economy rather than increasing spending to keep up PS increments and increase dole etc.
The middle class engine may not be able to haul the amount of debt that's hitched to it, and where else will the ££££ come from?
That's why tax needs careful tuning otherwise it's total goodnight for Ireland inc in it's current iteration.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

flutered

i have to disagree with the op, who has had their income slashed for the past few years, the widows, the blind, the disabled, their income can not keep up with the cost of living, the vat rise will hit them, as will the increase in carbon taxes in a few weeks, it looks like their pensions will also be hit once again, house hold tax etc, if they some how manage to own a car, how can the afford to keep it in the new year, home heating costs are about to go through the roof, add in esb or gas, necessary items are going only one way up, at least the worker has a job, some income, to claim that a working person has it worse than any of these is not correct.

anymore

munkifisht wrote: »

Over the past number of weeks this "government" has time and again floated the terrifying prospect to some of the population of cutting off their only support line. Daily we hear stories on the news of how Kenny and his cronies (Labor included) has reversed their election pledges and now Social Welfare, Child Benefit, Medical Cards, the Prescription Levy, Vat, and Pensions are all on the chopping block. We are also hearing that the number of beds in public hospitals and state funded nursing homes are also going to be under threat, and there is going to be a tax introduced on fatty or sugary foods. What I personally find disturbing about all this is that many people are already on the breadline, and any further tightening of their purse strings is going to push them over the edge. These cuts seem to be targted directly at them. What I find even more disturbing is that while the basis of almost everything the parties we elected stood for before February 25th has been eroded, the one principle they have staunchly stuck to is the stubborn refusal to hit those in our society who can afford it by increasing income tax.

I am not on the dole queue, nor am I earning in the higher tax bracket. I am pretty much your average working schmo. I don't work or volunteer for any charity, and until now I have never been politicised. But as more and more of our citizens are been pushed out of the working world and into the desolation of unemployment should these not be the first people we should protect first? Are we by not increasing income tax explicitly protecting those in our society, the bankers and the politicians who brought us to this state? Would it not be much fairer to everyone to place at least some of the burden on the shoulders of the working population rather than on those of the destitute? Can someone please give me the valid reasons that our sniveling German dashhund TDs will not bring this to the table?

I am distrubed by not earning enough to have to pay income tax !:eek:

Mister Dread

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I did that same excercise last year comparing inflation, dole, public sector pay and the industrial average wage. Both wages were a bit above inflation over the last decade but welfare was out on its own. If 100 euro was good enough for people in 2000 then 120 is good enough now in a country with a 20 billion deficit.

Villa05

Did we not create far more jobs during the real "Celtic Tiger" (1995 to 2000).

Please correct me if I'm wrong but, were income tax rates higher then and bench-marking was a positive word to assist positive change.

zero_hope

Anyone with a bit of common sense knows that it is necessary to both increase taxes and cut down on spending. Why should public sector salaries in Ireland be higher than in Germany or Finland?

femur61

zero_hope wrote: »

Anyone with a bit of common sense knows that it is necessary to both increase taxes and cut down on spending. Why should public sector salaries in Ireland be higher than in Germany or Finland?

Berrtie = unions given evertyhing they asked for = CPA = we're broke

johnnyskeleton

Benny_Cake wrote: »

Mister Dread wrote: »

The low incomes are hte ones who need to be hit hard. The tax take on these is miniscule in comparison to other countries. Of course the social welfare will need to be hit even harded to make working attractive.

Aside from the moral argument,you do realise that this would have a disproportionate effect on the retail sector,not to mention it would hit VAT revenues?

It would also be deflationary, thus relieving the harsher effects of the cuts.

irishh_bob

zero_hope wrote: »

Anyone with a bit of common sense knows that it is necessary to both increase taxes and cut down on spending. Why should public sector salaries in Ireland be higher than in Germany or Finland?

yes indeed and the cost of living is higher in finland than in ireland aswell so that old arguement cant be used

bamboozle

zero_hope wrote: »

Anyone with a bit of common sense knows that it is necessary to both increase taxes and cut down on spending. Why should public sector salaries in Ireland be higher than in Germany or Finland?

+1, income tax has been squeezed far enough, any further & people will emigrate, the cost of our public service needs to be addressed, unfortunately it wont, sure we're paying an extra 250m a year in increments to public sector workers.

if income tax isnt to be touched, and public sector wages are not to be touched then the burden falls on the poor and vunerable through all these stealth taxes and reductions in certain SW payments.

munkifisht

avalon68 wrote: »

Are you willing to pay more income tax yourself? Its all well and good to indicate others should pay more, as long as you remain unaffected

I am absolutely prepared to pay, because 2% of my pay does not mean the difference between me eating or not, but it might mean I can only have 5 pints on a Friday rather than 6.

femur61 wrote: »

Whats an article from 2004 relevant, even though I agree the gap is huge between the rich and poor but what relevance has an article that is 7 years old?

In reference to your comment, "more during the Celtic tiger boom and that's before you even count rent reflief"

bamboozle wrote: »

+1, income tax has been squeezed far enough, any further & people will emigrate, the cost of our public service needs to be addressed, unfortunately it wont, sure we're paying an extra 250m a year in increments to public sector workers.

if income tax isnt to be touched, and public sector wages are not to be touched then the burden falls on the poor and vunerable through all these stealth taxes and reductions in certain SW payments.

I think that many people have given good arguments both for and against tax hikes. The argument against increases seem to lie with a) over taxing the rich so they become tax exiles and b) over taxing the middle class so they spend less. My own opinion has changed somewhat, I have been somewhat convinced by the arguments, however what I now feel is that a more progressive tax system could be established, with tax bands ranging from around 17% to 55% and we could do away with tax free allowance. The downside of this would be that some would then be paying more in tax, but the upside of this would probably be it would be a fairer more representative system. I also think that a 1% increase in the corporate tax would most certainly be absorbed by the multinationals and would still leave us as an attractive option (although the downside would be that the certainty of low corporate tax in the future might then be called into question).

HellFireClub

Does it really matter whether the money is taken out of your pocket via an increase in car tax, the introduction of a property tax or whether it is taken off you through income tax!?! Either way, it's money you haven't got to spend so you are worse off...

bamboozle

HellFireClub wrote: »

Does it really matter whether the money is taken out of your pocket via an increase in car tax, the introduction of a property tax or whether it is taken off you through income tax!?! Either way, it's money you haven't got to spend so you are worse off...

of course it does, why should the middle class be the main source of tax revenue for the state through income tax when there are plenty of people outside the tax band who are still able to run cars, take holidays etc

income tax has been squeezed far enough, its time for all in the state to be affected in a more equitable manner, the fairest way i can think of is by means testing children's allowance and stoping pay increments in the public sector, we're paying out 2b a year in childrens allowances, surely 500m of this could be saved through means testing, 250m a year in PS pay increments, there is 750m in savings without the poorest in society being hit.

munkifisht

bamboozle wrote: »

of course it does, why should the middle class be the main source of tax revenue for the state through income tax when there are plenty of people outside the tax band who are still able to run cars, take holidays etc

income tax has been squeezed far enough, its time for all in the state to be affected in a more equitable manner, the fairest way i can think of is by means testing children's allowance and stoping pay increments in the public sector, we're paying out 2b a year in childrens allowances, surely 500m of this could be saved through means testing, 250m a year in PS pay increments, there is 750m in savings without the poorest in society being hit.

Well I agree with you in one sense, it does of course matter. Increases in income tax effect everyone in a much more proportional sense than say a rise in motor tax, increases in the cost of refuse collection etc. The burden is shared by everyone in a proportional sense. It's like that bible story of the woman in the church who gives her only 2 coins to the beggar when the merchants who could more easily afford it gave more.

On why the middle class has to be is because politicians are to week to tax the rich and they fear the rhetoric spouted by these guys that if they do they will leave the country. The poor do not have any money to tax, so all that is left is the middle class, or suckers as the government knows them.

Re pay increments in the public sector, I agree 100% that if a fair way of incentivising public sector work could be devised, rewarding good work rather than time spent in a position then I would say hey, great go for it, but this is exactly what Gordon Brown tried to effect in the UK by empowering the public service with targets, but rather than driving the workers to excel, it had the exact opposite effect. It emerged that hospitals were ordering that only minor operations were treated, police re branded many crimes as suspicious events and the school league tables, rather than democritising the school system only served to drive local property prices through the roof. I saw this exact same thing when I worked in a call center. When they introduced call time targets (finish your call within a time), people started to hang up on callers, leave them on mute etc to get the bonus. People in all walks of life are devious, esp when they work in a big faceless organisation.

Privetisation has its advocates, but the fear here is that corners might be cut and companies might only operate while it is profitable (VHI, prime example). You cannot have public service workers working at a stagnant wage when their contracts state that they get an increment every x number of months, and if no better solution can be found, they at least deserve more money the longer they are there because like any in position, people who hold a post longer would be expected to have more experience and therefore more talent in their roles than new people, however it is very very much a flawed system.

Re means testing, as I mentioned earlier, while it is good in principle, means testing will take time to establish and it will require more public servants (either to carry out the means testing or to establish and maintain the computer system to do it) so figures like 750 million are spurious before the real costs are considered.

The point remains that there are those in society who are going to be pushed over the edge by this budget. I am not one of them, thank God, and not everyone claiming dole or child benefit or using medical cards is either, but the slow erosion of the welfare state due to the mistakes of those who have not and it seems will never be held to account, while those same people have their ample incomes protected smacks to me of massive inequality. I know many people on the dole, and it is not all holidays and fast cars for them. They find it amazingly tough, but of course I've heard of the guys who screw the system too. How they have 8 houses, 53 kids and so much money under the mattress that their arse gets burnt on the light when they roll over at night, thing is I've never met this guy, I only know the guys I know on the dole, and I wouldn't choose to be in their position in a month of Sundays

Re the middle class (not responsible either for the times we find ourselves in) I think they can shoulder tax increases, at least better than those who are being asked to shoulder the cuts. It might mean that your spoiled brat kid doesn't get a Vetec Innotab from Santa, but at least they will eat. How changes in tax will effect spending I'm not sure, but I sincerely doubt those who can afford to spend at the moment are doing so.

hmmm

While we have Mary McAleese retiring on a pension of 160k, thousands of administrators in the HSE with nothing to do, bosses of state companies getting paid 250k, RTE & TnaG fighting to see who can hand the most taxpayers money over to the RFU and people like Tubridy being paid 500k a year, there is no justification for asking any taxpayer for a single penny of extra tax.

And by the way, I pay the higher rate of tax. For every extra euro I earn, I hand over more than 50p to the "government". I haven't worked hard all my life only to see the results of my efforts hoovered up by a bloated state and handed over to overpaid public service workers, quango queens and long term dole layabouts who've never worked a day in their life. The "rich" (which seems to include those of us who work for a living) are not going to put up with carrying the rest of you on our shoulders for much longer - which is why FG got the vote it got, but unfortunately needing the "help" of Labour who protect the unionised elites and the "entitlements" class. The next election might see a different result, and it will be the middle classes returning a government that will really slash and burn this time around.

passarellaie

The reality is what we are seeing all over Europe is the death of the European welfare state.With the rise of the giant emerging countries:China,Brasil,India,Russia,Argentina South Africa with huge natural resources and rapidly growing industry and small welfare/pensions Europe is every day less competitive.
One can debate all day as to why this situation is wrong and people deserve high welfare but the reality of globalization will put ever more pressure on Europeans and North Americans used to a high standard of living

munkifisht

hmmm wrote: »

While we have Mary McAleese retiring on a pension of 160k, thousands of administrators in the HSE with nothing to do, bosses of state companies getting paid 250k, RTE & TnaG fighting to see who can hand the most taxpayers money over to the RFU and people like Tubridy being paid 500k a year, there is no justification for asking any taxpayer for a single penny of extra tax.

And by the way, I pay the higher rate of tax. For every extra euro I earn, I hand over more than 50p to the "government". I haven't worked hard all my life only to see the results of my efforts hoovered up by a bloated state and handed over to overpaid public service workers, quango queens and long term dole layabouts who've never worked a day in their life. The "rich" (which seems to include those of us who work for a living) are not going to put up with carrying the rest of you on our shoulders for much longer - which is why FG got the vote it got, but unfortunately needing the "help" of Labour who protect the unionised elites and the "entitlements" class. The next election might see a different result, and it will be the middle classes returning a government that will really slash and burn this time around.

A very Oorish attitude, everyone's taking your cash and what are you getting for it. "But apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh-water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?". I suppose the Celtic Tiger allowed us all to become moral bankrupts.

Re Mary McAleese's pension is pretty inconsequential in terms of the trouble the backs got us in. In fact, the bailout of Anglo cost us 70 Billion, so for that money we could support 43,750 presidents on retirement. Her pension is dictated by the current legislation. That is what she signed up to, and like it or not, that's the way it is. That's a contract, legally binding on both sides. Probably needs to be changed before Bilbo, I mean Micky D retires, but it will won't effect McAleese unless she agrees to accept less.

I agree with you 100% about RTE and TV3, we should all of us be content to watch 2 and a half men on comedy central and interspace it with episodes of QI and Top Gear on Dave. Bliss.... or perhaps not. Perhaps the cultural benefit of having a national broadcaster that does make shows like prime time, hands, reeling in the years, love hate, and has had a fantastic history of broadcasting sport is something we should be trying to protect. Maybe, filling our eyes with the diuretic tosh from the States erodes our national identity (and you don't have to point out that RTE shows this exact stuff, the point is Prime Time's not on Dave).

Re the public service. It might be a bloated whale, but 310,000 people are employed in the public service. So if you consider there are 1.4 million households in the country, this means that (with a conservative estimate that 10% of public servants live together) alterations to the pay of public servants effects 20% of households in the state. I found this to be a pretty significant and surprising figure, both in terms of the number working in the public sector (obviously too many) but also showing how the much of an effect the Croke park agreement had on the country as a whole.

Have you worked hard all your life? I don't know you so I can't judge, and I don't know any "long term dole layabouts who've never worked a day in their life" (although as I said before, I do have many friends on the dole who were previously employed that spend all their unwanted free time trying to get back into an ever dwindling job market, people who can't afford to meet me for a pint any more and are miserable beyond reckoning at a time of the year when people are made feel inadequate if they don't spend spend spend).

I think you've kinda missed the point entirely. No normal Irish person is rich anymore. With much thanks to the bankers, we are burdened with €44,000 for every man woman and child on this island. We are all lumbered with their mistakes, but the simple fact is that cutting services that are already stretched will see people suffer. Who should be the ones who suffer most? I know if it was me, if I ran the country, I would issue warrants for the arrest of the irresponsible bankers who got us into this mess in the first place like Iceland did and it would be them who would be made to pay first for this disaster, but that isn't going to happen. The burden should be shared by all in as equal a measure as possible.