Should Ireland Leave the EU?

EUSSR · 07-01-2012 4:20pm

Benny_Cake wrote: »

You still haven't answered my question about what you mean by socialist. If you mean a social market economy (capitalism with limited government involvement and a safety net in the form of public health and social welfare) then every western democracy is to some extent, socialist.

Socialist is a broad term. It generally means wealth redistribution through draconian tax methods. Not every western democracy is socialist leaning.

EUSSR · 07-01-2012 4:22pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

Last time I checked Dáil Éireann approved said agreements, so it is neither unconstitutional nor illegal.

Sources?

EUSSR · 07-01-2012 4:33pm

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Secondly, can you show me how this agreement is an "international agreement"? We have entered into a credit facility with non-state bodies (EFSF and IMF) where we are borrowing money to run the country. The ECB have nothing to do with the bank bailout... it still wouldn't be an international agreement.

Thirdly, how does any agreement involve a "charge upon public funds"?

Finally, I will say that your question is answered very well here

non-state implies that the deals are foreign. They sure as hell ain't national. The IMF really are the loansharks in this story, but the ECB is responsible for initially lending out these loans under false pretense, namely that there was no real authorization for these loans in the first place.

If I walk into a bank and take out a loan, do I not have to provide evidence to show I am capable of paying back the loan? Why wasn't this the actual case with those central ECB loans? Oh yeah, because maybe they intentionally wanted to create a situation whereby mass amounts of debt are repayed back at extortionate interest rates.

The ECB is the real enemy here. The IMF is an agent simply to deflect the blame from the real beneficiaries, namely, the ECB/IMF and their cronies. The actual Irish Government should never have recieved all that money without proof of the ability to pay it all back. A prime example of fraud If I may say so.

Bertie and the lads didn't just pull all this money out of their arsecracks. The money had to come from a foreign entity. This is simply economic treason from my point of view.

The Corinthian · 07-01-2012 5:11pm

EUSSR wrote: »

Not in the traditional sense, no

In other words simply no and you are using the term in an emotional term to deceive the reader.

A bailout would never happen in Switzerland.

The Swiss did not need a bailout because their finances are much better than Ireland's have ever been. UBS did require a bailout however, back in 2008/9, which the Swiss government carried out without referendum.

No, my primary point was that because they are outside of the EU, they have basically full control over their economic policies.

That is factually incorrect. They are subject to economic constraints as a result of bilateral treaties with the EU, just as EU members are within the EU framework. Additionally they have been de facto limited in their full control over their economic policies by dint of their heavy reliance on Eurozone trade.

Would the EU allow their taxation policies if the Isle of Man joined the European Union? I think not. That was my point. The distinction you pointed out is secondary.

This too is false. Most fiscal policies (except duty) within the EU are governed on a national level. Many countries can also gain opt-outs with regard to various policies (not just fiscal) when they join, as Ireland has with corporation tax.

Swiss people aren't angels by any means, but at least they stand by their principles.

Again, you don't appear to understand the Swiss. Their principles are historically based on survival, and in this regard they have been capable of pretty amoral u-turns in the past.

But what would happen if they adopted the Euro?

Stop changing the subject. It is one thing to suggest they may join the EU, but suggesting that they would have to abandon the Franc to do so is ridiculous.

At the moment yes. I hope this won't be the case in the future. An Ireland without the EU will eventually lead to a better Ireland.

Historically Ireland was worse without the EU though. And socialist. These are points you seem to be repeatedly ignoring.

Mostly direct taxes. Which are largely immoral. Indirect taxation should be the priority. Look at Hong Kong - feck all regulation and direct taxation, yet they seem to be doing ok.

Which taxes? Name them.

And Hong Kong, FFS? Another 'fully-sovereign' nation, by your definitions, I take it?

Some moreso than others. The EU is one of the best examples at present. The Communist parties of both the Republiic of China and Cuba are worse however.

And how is this economic planning by Brussels being imposed on member states exactly?

Article 29.5.2 - “The State shall not be bound by any international agreement involving a charge upon public funds unless the terms of the agreement shall have been approved by Dáil Éireann.”

Which I have already refuted in an earlier post. Which leads me to your subsequent demand for sources, so here you go:

http://www.thejournal.ie/dail-gives-approval-to-irelands-eu-imf-bailout-2010-12/

Looks constitutional to me.

This is intentional on their part. The swiss don't like competition in these areas. The EU policies would not allow them to protect their agri sector.

So 'socialist' policies are ok as long as they're not part of the EU?

What would you consider to be their main political ideology?

Pragmatic conservatism. Switzerland is a country that does not need ideology. It does not care about ideology. The Swiss are a socially conservative nation who will adopt any solution that works and not really care about the labels.

Benny_Cake · 07-01-2012 5:13pm

EUSSR wrote: »

Not in the traditional sense, no, but the rules and regulations handed down from the Eurokrauts is akin to cental planning of communist states, just a less extreme version. Fits in perfectly with the social democratic position of the EU. The EU plan centrally, but are simply more discrete and less severe than the Soviet Union. USSR Lite:)

You should run this theory past an Estonian who lived under Soviet rule, but I'd stand well back while you do. It is simply ludicrous to compare the EU and Soviet Union, and you know little about either if you think the two are similar.

You state that Norway is a socialist country, whereas Switzerland is "right-libertarian". Both are wealthy democracies with a strong welfare state. How, then, can one be libertarian and one socialist?

The Corinthian · 07-01-2012 5:16pm

Benny_Cake wrote: »

How, then, can one be libertarian and one socialist?

I think his definition of socialist is income tax over 20%.

TBH, he's been misusing labels throughout this discussion for the purposes of soapboxing. None have been correct.

EUSSR · 07-01-2012 6:09pm

More specifically, why didn't the Irish Parliament members who were in bed with the European Union address this decision to the nation? This decision is against the Constitution. Does the previous IMF vote even stand without representation from the people over their own Sovereign fiscal matters

Like many other Irish people, I never agreed to this bull****, so why wasn't this put before the people of Ireland? This Constitutional point I raised earlier has not yet been addressed in relation to the IMF bailout deal, which I believe is still illegal without representation from the people. i.e - the deal does not stand without both Ministerial AND citizen representation. I didn't hear anything from the Dail to myself about this.

THE REFERENDUM
Article 47
1. Every proposal for an amendment of this Constitution which is
submitted by Referendum to the decision of the people shall,
for the purpose of Article 46 of this Constitution, be held to
have been approved by the people, if, upon having been so
submitted, a majority of the votes cast at such Referendum
shall have been cast in favour of its enactment into law.
[B]2. 1&#176; Every proposal, other than a proposal to amend the
Constitution, which is submitted by Referendum to the
decision of the people shall be held to have been vetoed by
the people if a majority of the votes cast at such Referendum
shall have been cast against its enactment into law and if the
votes so cast against its enactment into law shall have
amounted to not less than thirty-three and one-third per cent.
of the voters on the register.[/B]
2&#176; Every proposal, other than a proposal to amend the
Constitution, which is submitted by Referendum to the
decision of the people shall for the purposes of Article
27 hereof be held to have been approved by the people
unless vetoed by them in accordance with the provisions
of the foregoing sub-section of this section.
[B]3. Every citizen who has the right to vote at an election for
members of D&#225;il &#201;ireann shall have the right to vote at a
Referendum.[/B]
4. Subject as aforesaid, the Referendum shall be regulated by
law.

This IMF/ECB deal is fishy to say the least. Why were these loans given out in the first place? You can't take a loan of substance legally without proof of the ability to pay it back, generally speaking.

EUSSR · 07-01-2012 6:14pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

I think his definition of socialist is income tax over 20%.

TBH, he's been misusing labels throughout this discussion for the purposes of soapboxing. None have been correct.

A Socialist Democracy is a liberal political position. That is a less extreme but still valid form of socialism in my book. 20% is too high for the lower and even the higher end of the scale. At least in my opinion;)

Looks correct to me.

FreudianSlippers · 07-01-2012 6:30pm

EUSSR wrote: »
More specifically, why didn't the Irish Parliament members who were in bed with the European Union address this decision to the nation? This decision is against the Constitution. Does the previous IMF vote even stand without representation from the people over their own Sovereign fiscal matters

Like many other Irish people, I never agreed to this bull****, so why wasn't this put before the people of Ireland? This Constitutional point I raised earlier has not yet been addressed in relation to the IMF bailout deal, which I believe is still illegal without representation from the people. i.e - the deal does not stand without both Ministerial AND citizen representation. I didn't hear anything from the Dail to myself about this.
THE REFERENDUM
Article 47
1. Every proposal for an amendment of this Constitution which is
submitted by Referendum to the decision of the people shall,
for the purpose of Article 46 of this Constitution, be held to
have been approved by the people, if, upon having been so
submitted, a majority of the votes cast at such Referendum
shall have been cast in favour of its enactment into law.
[B]2. 1&#176; Every proposal, other than a proposal to amend the
Constitution, which is submitted by Referendum to the
decision of the people shall be held to have been vetoed by
the people if a majority of the votes cast at such Referendum
shall have been cast against its enactment into law and if the
votes so cast against its enactment into law shall have
amounted to not less than thirty-three and one-third per cent.
of the voters on the register.[/B]
2&#176; Every proposal, other than a proposal to amend the
Constitution, which is submitted by Referendum to the
decision of the people shall for the purposes of Article
27 hereof be held to have been approved by the people
unless vetoed by them in accordance with the provisions
of the foregoing sub-section of this section.
[B]3. Every citizen who has the right to vote at an election for
members of D&#225;il &#201;ireann shall have the right to vote at a
Referendum.[/B]
4. Subject as aforesaid, the Referendum shall be regulated by
law.
This IMF/ECB deal is fishy to say the least. Why were these loans given out in the first place? You can't take a loan of substance legally without proof of the ability to pay it back, generally speaking.

There is no constitutional amendment though. Nor is there any charge on public funds. Nor is there an international agreement.

EUSSR · 07-01-2012 6:47pm

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

There is no constitutional amendment though. Nor is there any charge on public funds. Nor is there an international agreement.

This is still open to dispute. I remain skeptical. This isn't an issue to consign to the history books just yet. Hopefully the EU will go the way of the Soviet Union if the debt crises is much to go by. Ridiculous situation for all nation states involved.

The Corinthian · 07-01-2012 6:57pm

EUSSR wrote: »

More specifically, why didn't the Irish Parliament members who were in bed with the European Union address this decision to the nation? This decision is against the Constitution. Does the previous IMF vote even stand without representation from the people over their own Sovereign fiscal matters

Like many other Irish people, I never agreed to this bull****, so why wasn't this put before the people of Ireland? This Constitutional point I raised earlier has not yet been addressed in relation to the IMF bailout deal, which I believe is still illegal without representation from the people. i.e - the deal does not stand without both Ministerial AND citizen representation. I didn't hear anything from the Dail to myself about this.

OK, now we're 'through the looking glass' and entering tin-foil hat territory.

The Dail did their job, as elected representatives of the people in a democracy. Once elected they don't need to come back to us every time there's a big decision to be made, only in the case of a small number of specific decisions.

You might not like that, but that is how democracy and, importantly, Irish democracy works. It really has very little to do with the EU.

EUSSR wrote: »

A Socialist Democracy is a liberal political position. That is a less extreme but still valid form of socialism in my book. 20% is too high for the lower and even the higher end of the scale. At least in my opinion;)

You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, do you?

EUSSR · 07-01-2012 7:08pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

OK, now we're 'through the looking glass' and entering tin-foil hat territory.

The Dail did their job, as elected representatives of the people in a democracy. Once elected they don't need to come back to us every time there's a big decision to be made, only in the case of a small number of specific decisions.

You might not like that, but that is how democracy and, importantly, Irish democracy works. It really has very little to do with the EU.

You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, do you?

Still, there should have asked the fine people of our nation. I doubt I am the only person pissed over this cronyism. It's still an overrule of our own Constitutional due process in favor of centrally planned EU law.

If you really believe I don't know what I am talking about, I suggest you read the definition of a Socialist Democracy.

I don't agree with any form of Socialism, neither extreme authoritarian forms, or even less extreme "socially democratic" flavors. Any form of central planning for economic matters is to be avoided. They won't fool me with their mild socialistic practices.

FreudianSlippers · 07-01-2012 7:16pm

EUSSR wrote: »

This is still open to dispute. I remain skeptical. This isn't an issue to consign to the history books just yet. Hopefully the EU will go the way of the Soviet Union if the debt crises is much to go by. Ridiculous situation for all nation states involved.

I just don't think so: I think it is clear there is no constitutional amendment here.

In regard to the question of compliance with Article 29.5.2 (which is what I think you're getting at), it is manifestly clear from the Memorandum of Understanding and Letters of Intent that there has been absolutely no contractual relationship made between the IMF/EFSF and Ireland under international law. I cannot make that more clear.

What has been made are political assurances referred to as stand-by standby arrangements. These are standard form assurances created by the IMF that the state (in this case Ireland) will receive money from the IMF for specific purchases of general resources for an arranged period. In exchange for the assurance, the state gives the IMF 2 documents (the aforementioned memorandum of understanding and letters of intent) - it is CLEAR international law that these documents are not considered agreements in the legal sense (see here)

I don't think it can be put to you any more clearly than that in all honesty.

EDIT: Just so there is absolutely no doubt that this post should put your theory to bed, read this quote:

Turning to direct Irish domestic precedent on the meaning of an international “legal agreement”, it would appear that the IMF arrangement would fall within the category of comparable to the Sunningdale Agreement which was challenged before the Irish Supreme Court in the 1971 case of Boland v An Taoiseach. The Supreme Court found that the ‘agreement’ was not a true treaty, as, in particular, its clause 6, provided that at a later date, a formal agreement would be signed and lodged with United Nations. It seems quite possible therefore, that Article 29.5.2 does not require that the Memorandum of Understanding be approved by a Dáil vote.

EUSSR · 07-01-2012 7:16pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

The Dail did their job, as elected representatives of the people in a democracy.

It's not a Socialist Democracy without representation from the people. Therefore, the decision was bordering on/was illegal. I never got to voice my opinion on this matter.

Isn't Ireland supposed to be a Republic? Democracy is majority rule of the ignorant. I am a minority, so why should I be subjected to the whims of the uninformed masses?

FreudianSlippers · 07-01-2012 7:20pm

EUSSR wrote: »

It's still an overrule of our own Constitutional due process in favor of centrally planned EU law.

NO. IT. ISN'T.

The Corinthian · 07-01-2012 7:21pm

EUSSR wrote: »

Still, there should have asked the fine people of our nation. I doubt I am the only person pissed over this cronyism. It's still an overrule of our own Constitutional due process in favor of centrally planned EU law.

But they didn't overrule of our own constitutional due process! When are you going to realize this?

If you really believe I don't know what I am talking about, I suggest you read the definition of a Socialist Democracy.

I really believe you don't know what you are talking about because you've been doing nothing but making wild allegations based upon false definitions throughout this discussion.

Additionally you've made false claims of anti-constitutional actions, unsubstantiated allegations of 'centralized planning' (and not actually presented any evidence of this) and seemingly hinted at some EU conspiracy that employs the Irish government as it's willing footsoldiers.

An EU, I might add, where the French, Italian and German governments (to name a few) are absolutely not social democrats.

You're just coming out with nonsense - pure and simple.

EUSSR · 07-01-2012 7:21pm

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I just don't think so: I think it is clear there is no constitutional amendment here.

In regard to the question of compliance with Article 29.5.2 (which is what I think you're getting at), it is manifestly clear from the Memorandum of Understanding and Letters of Intent that there has been absolutely no contractual relationship made between the IMF/EFSF and Ireland under international law. I cannot make that more clear.

What has been made are political assurances referred to as stand-by standby arrangements. These are standard form assurances created by the IMF that the state (in this case Ireland) will receive money from the IMF for specific purchases of general resources for an arranged period. In exchange for the assurance, the state gives the IMF 2 documents (the aforementioned memorandum of understanding and letters of intent) - it is CLEAR international law that these documents are not considered agreements in the legal sense (see here)

I don't think it can be put to you any more clearly than that in all honesty.

EDIT: Just so there is absolutely no doubt that this post should put your theory to bed, read this quote:

It's still unconstitutional, because I was not given a say on the matter, along with the other citizens of this nation. Therefore I am operating under the assumption this "decision" was misinformed at best, illegal at worst. The reference to citizen representation I made applies to categories other than the ones mentioned as basically Constitutionally representative.

FreudianSlippers · 07-01-2012 7:27pm

Firstly, I will point you again to post #332. Secondly, Ireland is a Constitutional Republic governed as a parliamentary democracy, so we elect a government to make decisions for us.

07-01-2012 7:31pm

Why anyone is bothering to argue EU policy and legislative functions with someone called 'EUSSR' from "little USSR - EU" is beyond me.

What outcome does anyone expect from such a debate? The definition of pointlessness, my friends.

EUSSR · 07-01-2012 7:32pm

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Firstly, I will point you again to post #332. Secondly, Ireland is a Constitutional Republic governed as a parliamentary democracy, so we elect a government to make decisions for us.

Then why did we have the Lisbon deal? A parliamentary Republic was ok back in the day, but I think Ireland has morphed into something not quite what the original forefathers intended to be. A welfare state essentially.

So what is it, a Social Democracy, or a Parliamentary Republic? The EU isn't quite sure.

EUSSR · 07-01-2012 7:37pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

But they didn't overrule of our own constitutional due process! When are you going to realize this?

Of course they did. If they had not, the IMF/ECB deal would not have been signed into law. I know what I would have voted on that matter...

The Corinthian wrote: »

Additionally you've made false claims of anti-constitutional actions, unsubstantiated allegations of 'centralized planning' (and not actually presented any evidence of this) and seemingly hinted at some EU conspiracy that employs the Irish government as it's willing footsoldiers.

They are only false, if they have not been proven to be true. The EU is a prime example of a centrally planned superstate. A single centrally controlled currency spread among many nations is one of many examples.

The Corinthian wrote: »

An EU, I might add, where the French, Italian and German governments (to name a few) are absolutely not social democrats.

You're just coming out with nonsense - pure and simple.

There is a large social democratic representation in all of these countries. Besides, it's all moot. The EU takes precedence over their own affairs and pulls the strings anyway.

Benny_Cake · 07-01-2012 7:45pm

EUSSR wrote: »

It's not a Socialist Democracy without representation from the people. Therefore, the decision was bordering on/was illegal. I never got to voice my opinion on this matter.

Isn't Ireland supposed to be a Republic? Democracy is majority rule of the ignorant. I am a minority, so why should I be subjected to the whims of the uninformed masses?

The mind boggles.

Firstly, if you're in the minority, had a referendum been held on the bailout (which, as others have demonstrated repeatedly, isn't required in this instance) , it would have been approved.

Secondly, you've spent the last few hours complaining about a lack of democracy but now it appears you're against the very concept of democracy.

You've also been throwing around labels such as socialist, liberal and libertarian while apparently having no idea of what any of them mean. I'm calling troll on this.

The Corinthian · 07-01-2012 7:57pm

EUSSR wrote: »

Of course they did. If they had not, the IMF/ECB deal would not have been signed into law. I know what I would have voted on that matter...

When will it enter your skull that it is perfectly constitutional for the government to make such decisions without referring them to referrenda? You even quoted the article that proves this.

They are only false, if they have not been proven to be true. The EU is a prime example of a centrally planned superstate. A single centrally controlled currency spread among many nations is one of many examples.

Ergo, all states that have a single centrally controlled currency must be centrally planned - like the USA. Do you not see how ridiculous your arguments are?

There is a large social democratic representation in all of these countries. Besides, it's all moot. The EU takes precedence over their own affairs and pulls the strings anyway.

What is moot, that you've been shown up again?

The EU does not take precedence, that is yet another unsubstantiated allegation - and easily dispelled; remember the EU Constitution? Proof that the EU does not take precedence.

Benny_Cake wrote: »

I'm calling troll on this.

I'd tend to agree.

EUSSR · 07-01-2012 8:40pm

I think it's time to agree to disagree. I would consider myself a right wing Libertarian, so naturally I am opposed to any form of Socialist practice, most notably, the European Union. This is my opinion, no matter how crazy it may appear to be. I can't shake the similarity between the Soviet Union and the EU.

I hope someday to live on an island, as far away from mainstream society as humanly possible. 21st century life is a joke. We live in an age of information warfare. We all have our own individual political leanings, each of which are open to both praise and criticism at the same time:)

Time to end this, unless you wish to point out exactly where I have "shown myself up". It is merely my own informed opinion, one of which I am entitled to speak. The European Union is fundamentally derived from Socialist ideals. This is the truth.

EUSSR · 07-01-2012 8:44pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

Ergo, all states that have a single centrally controlled currency must be centrally planned - like the USA. Do you not see how ridiculous your arguments are?

The USA is a Federal Constitutional Republic of individual states, not a socialist super state like the EU. Each state is free to direct their own monetary policy, unlike members of the eurozone. Far less red tape, though it's open to abuse at present.

The Corinthian · 07-01-2012 8:58pm

EUSSR wrote: »

The USA is a Federal Constitutional Republic of individual states, not a socialist super state like the EU. Each state is free to direct their own monetary policy, unlike members of the eurozone. Far less red tape, though it's open to abuse at present.

Again incorrect. The Federal Reserve oversees US monetary policy, not the individual states, and as such it is centralized:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monetary_policy_of_the_United_States

The ECB is similar, as is the SNB.

EUSSR wrote: »

Time to end this, unless you wish to point out exactly where I have "shown myself up".

QED above. As I said, I don't think you know what you're talking about.

EUSSR · 07-01-2012 9:44pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

Again incorrect. The Federal Reserve oversees US monetary policy, not the individual states, and as such it is centralized:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monetary_policy_of_the_United_States

The ECB is similar, as is the SNB.

QED above. As I said, I don't think you know what you're talking about.

Monetary is a pretty loose word. It's ambiguous given the right context. You interpreted my wording to mean something for which I did not intend.

No, the Federal Reserve controls the monetary rates and creation, but the fiscal management of monetary resources is controlled at the local level, unlike the European Union.

Unlike individual states, eurozone countries cannot generally dictate their own fiscal arrangements, as these affairs have been rubber stamped by unelected officials at the Central level. We basically have no proper control at all.

For example, both New Hampshire and Texas have a great deal of control over their distribution of federal funding. They can choose to cut taxes, pour more money into schools, eradicate waste and more. No EU member state has the same degree of loose control afforded to individual American states.

Boskowski · 08-01-2012 5:30am

EUSSR wrote: »

For example, both New Hampshire and Texas have a great deal of control over their distribution of federal funding. They can choose to cut taxes, pour more money into schools, eradicate waste and more. No EU member state has the same degree of loose control afforded to individual American states.

Since when?

EUSSR · 08-01-2012 7:12am

Boskowski wrote: »

Since when?

“A nice state with medium-to-high taxes” is how pollster David Hill recently described Texas. Contrary to the state’s reputation as a domestic tax haven, Hill claims, in reality Texas’ tax burden is nothing to write home about.

To a certain degree, Hill is right. But step back and you quickly realize that most states have it a lot worse than Texas.

Taxes don’t cease to exist the moment you step foot on Texas soil. Although there is no state income tax, various other forms of revenue generation exist in Texas that quickly dispel the myth that the state is some sort of tax-free mecca. But after looking at overall spending and revenue levels, Hill’s assertion that Texas taxes and spends as much as anyone sounds pretty far off-base.

Both sales and property taxes are significant in Texas. Combined state and local sales taxes averaged 8.14 percent last year, while the median property tax rate of 1.84 percent was the country’s 3rd-highest (yet only 12-highest as a percentage of income due to low property values). Together, these taxes make up 73% of total revenue in Texas, the 2nd-highest proportion in the nation. When you look at the big picture, however, Texas still maintains one of the nation’s lightest tax burdens.

According to the nonpartisan Tax Foundation, Texas’ combined state and local tax burden is 7.9 percent of income (45th nationally), considerably lower than the national average of 9.8 percent. No other major state comes close.

Even more laudable is Texas’ per-capita expenditures. Per-resident, the state spends just $3,630, the lowest level in the nation. New York, a state with a similarly sized population, spends over $6,000 per person annually, while Alaska, the country’s most generous state, spent nearly $20,000 on each resident in 2009. Low per-capita spending shields states from unrecoverable debt and lessens financial demands on taxpayers and businesses, encouraging economic growth and promoting employment.

David Hill is correct to believe some taxes in Texas are too high. “Charging 8 percent or more” in sales taxes probably wouldn’t be considered taxpayer-friendly, but neither would California’s 11 percent top income tax rate or Illinois’ 11.5 percent combined sales tax rate. It might be fun to pick on Texas, but if Hill was being objective in his critique of state tax burdens, he would have started with one of the 44 higher-taxed states."

Original Source - http://www.texaspolicy.com/commentaries_single.php?report_id=4086

The part in bold is the important bit. Now I could paraphrase and waffle for some time about this, but it comes down to the fact that Texas as a local state has quite a great deal of control over both State and Local Taxes within the state. Imagine allowing EU countries to direct their own fiscal matters, it would be a nightmare for the EU Commission.

The Corinthian · 08-01-2012 11:57am

EUSSR wrote: »

Monetary is a pretty loose word. It's ambiguous given the right context. You interpreted my wording to mean something for which I did not intend.

No, the Federal Reserve controls the monetary rates and creation, but the fiscal management of monetary resources is controlled at the local level, unlike the European Union.

There was no ambiguity in your claim that "each state is free to direct their own monetary policy", it's simply wrong. Pretending now that monetary is a loose word that somehow also refers to fiscal is simply uninformed nonsense and an attempt by you to cover up another factual error on your part.

Fiscal and monetary policy are two completely different things; if you actually knew anything about economics you would recognise this.

Unlike individual states, eurozone countries cannot generally dictate their own fiscal arrangements, as these affairs have been rubber stamped by unelected officials at the Central level. We basically have no proper control at all.

This is false. Countries that have received bailouts from the EU may have had their freedom to implement fiscal policy curtailed, but this is to do with the terms of the bailout, not EU membership. Argentina had the same issue with the IMF.

For example, both New Hampshire and Texas have a great deal of control over their distribution of federal funding. They can choose to cut taxes, pour more money into schools, eradicate waste and more. No EU member state has the same degree of loose control afforded to individual American states.

Please supply sources on both of the above as all you are doing is making a wild claim without details, let alone proof.

Should Ireland Leave the EU?

Comments