Dog Man Star wrote: » I live in Australia. My income tax is about 35% on average. With that we get free healthcare, free home visits if kids are ill (just dial a number anytime). Public transport is expensive, but great and policed. Rates are ok, nothing is expensive, as my salary is high. All public areas have gardeners on a weekly basis. There is no litter and no graffiti (WA). It is a beautiful place to live for families.
blanch152 wrote: » You are correct. There was a more in-depth comparison a couple of years ago which looked at something like 70% of average income, average income, and 120% of average income, and we went from nearly the lowest to nearly the highest as we changed categories.
blanch152 wrote: » In other countries, they don't spend as much on child benefit, but they spend an awful lot more on state-supported child-minding, school uniform and school books for all, school meals etc. .
FreudianSlippers wrote: » Legal costs have absolutely nothing to do with the taxpayer... the vast majority are private costs and in comparison to like jurisdictions (UK, USA, Canada) legal fees here are much lower.
johnnyskeleton wrote: » Can you recall who did this study or where it was published by any chance?
Geuze wrote: » https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/caveat-emptor-the-soaring-cost-of-legal-services-36222383.html The Medical Protection Society (MPS), which provides indemnity cover for most Irish hospital consultants, told Review it had encountered cases where barristers' brief fees in Ireland were twice those in the UK. It cited one short trial where a brief fee of €30,000 was charged, double the amount a queen's counsel would seek in England. The MPS also said it had been involved in cases where the award made was dwarfed by the legal fees charged. "For example, in a recent case relating to a misdiagnosis of malignant sarcoma where damages settled at €100,000, legal costs of €268,885 were sought," said MPS director of claims policy Emma Hallinan. "In another case relating to a delayed diagnosis of osteoarthritis where damages settled at €17,500, legal costs of €46,159 were sought. This is simply not right."
Geuze wrote: » https://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/legal-costs-in-ireland-are-now-highest-in-western-world-1.2053218 The UK-based Medical Protection Society (MPS), which provides indemnity cover for most Irish consultants, says Irish legal costs are far higher than anywhere else in the western world. The society, which is pressing for legal changes to limit the rising cost of medical negligence, has drawn up a report which contains many examples of what it claims is excess billing by lawyers. These include: A recent case where general damages for unsatisfactory plastic surgery were assessed at €200,000, when the appropriate award for a similar injury in England would be €50,000- €101,000. A case where a judge ordered general damages of €300,000 when the MPS was “reasonably advised” they should have been assessed at €150,000 In one recent case, involving a settlement of €1.1 million, legal costs came to €630,000 when, according to John Tiernan of the MPS, its estimate of the true costs was €350,000. In another case in which liability was admitted from the start, costs came to €160,000, rather than the €90,000 estimated. The MPS’s own costs amounted to €30,000.
FreudianSlippers wrote: » Australia also has property tax and water charges.
screamer wrote: » No we pay too much tax to pay for welfare and pensions and there’s nothing much left for services, hence they’re ****ty...
blanch152 wrote: » The consequence of these three factors - welfare, pensions and health - taking up too much of the expenditure budget is that other areas such as security, education, defence and most importantly, capital expenditure are severely affected as a result and are under-resourced.
Matt Barrett wrote: » An idea might be to work towards less people depending on welfare/state aid. If we're creating them, we have to continue to support them.
facehugger99 wrote: » That's not 'an idea' - it's a meaningless platitude. Do you have any actual proposals for how we end up having less people depending on social welfare?
Matt Barrett wrote: » How would you like to see things change, less money to welfare so we can build roads? Can you expand on that 'idea'?
facehugger99 wrote: » It's not a terribly complicated idea. If you're actually interested in counter-cyclical economic policies and why they work, there's plenty of literature out there on it for you to read up on.
blanch152 wrote: » screamer wrote: » No we pay too much tax to pay for welfare and pensions and there’s nothing much left for services, hence they’re ****ty... This is the crunch of the issue, though I would add a third reason to welfare and pensions, and that is health. We have one of the youngest populations in Europe, yet we have one of the highest spends on health. We have one of the highest nurse to population ratios, yet we are always short of nurses. Everyone involved in the health service from the CEO of the HSE to the ordinary nurse, together with the vested interests such as the INMO, the consultants groups and the private health insurers share the blame for this. Our health services are well-staffed and well-resourced, but they are not delivering. The consequence of these three factors - welfare, pensions and health - taking up too much of the expenditure budget is that other areas such as security, education, defence and most importantly, capital expenditure are severely affected as a result and are under-resourced.
Matt Barrett wrote: » I'm pointing out that curtailing treatment of a symptom won't stop the problem. If you had everyone living on a tin of beans in cargo containers we'd still have more to add to the number year on year. There is obviously something flawed in the way we do business. So you do believe cutting welfare/state aid will solve things, or you don't? You're not clear here. Your suggestion we take discussion off boards and go read up on google or somewhere is odd. Defeats the whole point of Boards IMO.
facehugger99 wrote: » I've already said what my position is quite clearly. Sticking €5 on SW payments and €5 on the pensions as we have done in the last couple of budgets is ridiculous - these are un-targeted costs, introduced to curry political favour, that will likely increase year-on-year. Do we need a SW system that protects the vulnerable? - of course we do but how many pensioners need an extra €5 a week? - the answers to that is 'I haven't a clue', and neither do you and neither do the Government, yet here we are spending an extra €300 million and rising. That's money that we now no longer have to invest in infrastructure.
Matt Barrett wrote: » I guess it keeps them at bay while the important people make money
christy c wrote: » Did you ever manage to come up with a motive for this conspiracy theory of why the government want the "important people" to make money? If that were true, surely it would be easier to just favour the majority and they'd never get voted out?
Matt Barrett wrote: » But what would be the point in remaining in, the pension? Any comment on the topic at hand?
ZilkyG wrote: » It seems to me that compared to other European countries, we pay an eye-watering amount of tax for a transport system that would fit in perfectly in the less affluent neighborhoods of Nairobi. Dublin Bus is not fit for purpose, the Luas has just been shoe-horned in without any proper planning. Besides that, transport is stupidly expensive. Is this just me, or do other people think that they're getting fleeced.
christy c wrote: » Just dodge my question, still no motive?
Matt Barrett wrote: » while the important people make money until the bottom falls out again
Matt Barrett wrote: » Money Christy. I dodged nothing. Money, 'Loadsa Money (ten grand would be a start)'. I am saying they use government to enrich themselves and their friends/backers. Again, money. I see you dodged mine.
