We Should Abolish Income Tax

RockinRolla wrote: »

Income Tax, like much of the badly thought out legislation brought forward by modern day governments, was initially "sold" to the public as a temporary tax, something that was needed simply to deal with a specific pressing problem—the financing of the Napoleonic Wars.

However, as governments over the years became accustomed to having the tax provide a useful revenue stream, all pretence at hypothecation vanished—the Income Tax became a part of our daily lives, which most people now accept unthinkingly.

At the end of the 18th century, Britain was facing a serious threat from French military forces under the control of Napoleon. In 1799, they introduced the first national Income Tax, as "a temporary measure" in order to fund those wars.

After the war, they got rid of it and it remained that way, largely unchanged, until the First World War. At the outbreak of hostilities, the standard rate of tax was still a modest 6% but, just 4 years later, this had risen to 30%. The modern Income Tax regime has altered little since.


And the most worrying part of this is that the poorest in our society are the hardest hit. Not only would we slash public spending, but the abolition of personal Income Tax would be a lasting achievement; it would be a brave or foolhardy government indeed that would attempt to reintroduce it (Fianna Fail anyone? :rolleyes:). It is a policy which makes sound economic sense, would benefit everyone in our society—and in particular the poorest—and would help curb future government excesses both in spending and the amount of control that the State could exercise over us.
(This does not have to include the super wealthy of course.)

First of all, abolishing income tax won't help the poorest in society. They don't pay income tax anyway due to tax credits.

Secondly, your claims on the history of taxation are bogus.

After the war, they got rid of it and it remained that way

Wrong, it was brought in permanently by Peel in 1842. Well before WWI. In addition, the reason it was brought in by Peel was that Britain was reducing its tarriffs so the government needed new forms of revenue.


You also quoted Libertarian principles which reference Adam Smith; you do realize he felt that taxation should be linked to ability to pay (in his 4 Tenets of Taxation; "It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more in proportion.")

It would be almost impossible to run a State without income tax without rapidly raising indirect taxation which is why previous governments relied heavily on things like tariffs and indirect taxation like sales tax.

RockinRolla wrote: »

+1.

For a country the size of Ireland and currently, still in the European Union, why should we need to spend taxpayers money on such a defensive source when a) we are a neutral country and b) we are already being defended by Europe.

Seriously? We have a tiny armed forces and spend less than 1% of GDP on it.

You're ignoring:
1) We're not actually neutral. This is a longstanding assumption. "Heavily biased military non-intervention" is a much better way of putting it.
2) You're ignoring that Ireland has, and has had, a strong internal stability threat from the likes of dissident republicanism.

You've put forward a lot of theory and statements, without saying *how* abolishing income tax would really help.
My thoughts on the matter are summed up by a Conservative of all people:

Robert Lock wrote:

"And is society really wrong to protect people against the negative consequences of some of their free choices? While it is obviously fair to let people enjoy the benefits of their wise choices and suffer the costs of their stupid ones, decent societies set limits on both these outcomes. People are allowed to become millionaires, but they are taxed. They are allowed to go broke, but they are not then forced to starve. They are deprived of the most extreme benefits of freedom in order to spare us the most extreme costs. The libertopian alternative would be perhaps a more glittering society, but also a crueler one."

irishguy wrote: »

Ireland is a very small country and has a relatively high population density. People should realise that they dont need a hospital outside there house. A GP can deal with most issues and if its serious you can be taken to a hospital slightly further away. We should also have an air ambulance.

As for people in remote locations they will get lower levels of services, they really shouldnt have been allowed to build there in the first place.
This whole one off housing idea in Ireland is madness, how do you expect the same level of services if you live in the middle of the countryside.

What a gross oversimplification and a sterling example of Dublino-centrism.
Try telling that to the men and women of Donegal who have to take 6 hour bus journey to get their breast cancer treatment in Galway.
You don't seem to realize that there are a myriad of jobs that couldn't practically be done in urban/suburban areas; farming, fishing, tourism, green technology etc, along with the services needed to cater for rural areas; post offices, pubs, shops and so on.