Kerrigan: Rich have been left alone for too long

Manco · 16-09-2012 01:43PM #1

Some common sense from one of the Sindo's few sane columnists. Hayes's kite-flying comments are looking increasingly out of step. http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/gene-kerrigan/gene-kerrigan-rich-have-been-left-alone-for-too-long-3230006.html

woodoo · 16-09-2012 02:27PM

Yes the rich have been left alone and i would love to see them taxed a little more. But the really rich can now move their wealth wherever they want. The days of being able to tax people at 90% are long gone.

There must be a way to get the super rich to pay more. We live in hope.

I don't subscribe to the notion that all the pensioners are vulnerable and should be left alone. They should face a moderate cut like the rest of us, 5% or so. And some of the free stuff should be taken off the rich pensioners. I'd love to see the semi states face a cut too. They have rode this recession on the pigs back. No paycut no pension levy nothing.

Diarmuid · 16-09-2012 02:48PM

So according to Gene if you are paying marginal tax rate, you're rich

"marginal tax rate is 52 per cent".

Aw, gee. Those poor rich guys.

And he points to the US as a example of how to do it

By 1945, it was 94 per cent. And, you know what it was on top incomes through the 1950s and right up to 1964? Around 90 per cent"

Earn more than €36,000? Welcome to your future tax rate if Gene has his way. I, and my job, will be on a plane to some nice sunny country if that happens.

hidinginthebush · 16-09-2012 05:47PM

This is a notion that has always confused me. I'm far from being one of "the rich", but I've never seen why they should be get the bejaysus taxed out of them. Sure, they earn more, but why does that mean they should have to hand 60, 70, 90% of their hard earned cash over to the government just for doing well for themselves?

While I can see the reasoning behind encouraging lower tax rates for people on lower incomes, the astronomical tax rates proposed for high earners just never made sense to me. Can someone tell me why this is a good / necessary thing?

I know that my question might come across as ignorant/ childish. but I've never understood why the rich should have some social obligation to give an awful lot of their money to the government purely because they are rich.

avalon68 · 16-09-2012 06:10PM

I feel that more people need to pay tax, not that people need to pay more tax. Just plucking numbers out of the air, but lets assume you take 20% of someones income in tax - then the person that earns 100,000 is still paying a lot more than the person that earns 40,000. The person on 100,000 can probably afford to pay more - but do they get anything extra in return for that? No....and as has been mentioned, they are far more mobile.

goose2005 · 16-09-2012 06:41PM

hidinginthebush wrote: »

This is a notion that has always confused me. I'm far from being one of "the rich", but I've never seen why they should be get the bejaysus taxed out of them. Sure, they earn more, but why does that mean they should have to hand 60, 70, 90% of their hard earned cash over to the government just for doing well for themselves?

While I can see the reasoning behind encouraging lower tax rates for people on lower incomes, the astronomical tax rates proposed for high earners just never made sense to me. Can someone tell me why this is a good / necessary thing?

I know that my question might come across as ignorant/ childish. but I've never understood why the rich should have some social obligation to give an awful lot of their money to the government purely because they are rich.

Because we're living in a society?

Count Dooku · 16-09-2012 06:51PM

goose2005 wrote: »

Because we're living in a society?

"there is no such thing as society"(c)

KyussBishop · 16-09-2012 07:52PM

hidinginthebush wrote: »

This is a notion that has always confused me. I'm far from being one of "the rich", but I've never seen why they should be get the bejaysus taxed out of them. Sure, they earn more, but why does that mean they should have to hand 60, 70, 90% of their hard earned cash over to the government just for doing well for themselves?

While I can see the reasoning behind encouraging lower tax rates for people on lower incomes, the astronomical tax rates proposed for high earners just never made sense to me. Can someone tell me why this is a good / necessary thing?

I know that my question might come across as ignorant/ childish. but I've never understood why the rich should have some social obligation to give an awful lot of their money to the government purely because they are rich.

There are multiple reasons for it really; one is that they have a lot more income which is discretionary, thus is more justifiable to tax, another is that a lot of their earnings aren't commensurate with the benefit they provide to society.

If someone is earnings millions a year, what exact benefits are they providing to society that justify a wage up to 20x that of an average worker?

It is the case that a lot of wages (past a certain, hard-to-define, point) are excessive, particularly within the non-meritocratic hierarchy of most corporations, and a lot of unethical practices and corporate corruption are associated with obtaining such wages (just look at the state of the financial industry), so if you tax the shít out of them past a point, you dissuade a lot of those practices as well.

There's a lot more to arguments in favour of it as well, but those are some off the top of my head. It is very important though, not to set the tax bands too low, and to avoid punishing genuinely beneficial behaviour, where high payments are justified.

It is a good question, which probably doesn't get discussed enough.

Supermensch · 16-09-2012 08:39PM

hidinginthebush wrote: »

This is a notion that has always confused me. I'm far from being one of "the rich", but I've never seen why they should be get the bejaysus taxed out of them. Sure, they earn more, but why does that mean they should have to hand 60, 70, 90% of their hard earned cash over to the government just for doing well for themselves?

While I can see the reasoning behind encouraging lower tax rates for people on lower incomes, the astronomical tax rates proposed for high earners just never made sense to me. Can someone tell me why this is a good / necessary thing?

I know that my question might come across as ignorant/ childish. but I've never understood why the rich should have some social obligation to give an awful lot of their money to the government purely because they are rich.

There is no reasonable justification for higher taxation for high earners from an ethical stand point, which is the angle a lot of people try to come from. The only justification for higher taxes is that the government needs money, and the wealthy have more money that the less wealthy. Which is an arguably valid justification, don't get me wrong.

If we were to look at the arguments posed by KyussBishop (and I'm not attacking you or anything, I just like a good debate :P ). The first point made is that the higher wages earned by high-earners is of no benefit to society. Ignoring the non-essential markets created by disposable income (off the top of my head, jewelry and restaurants), the question that has to be asked is what obligation those who earn high-wages have to fund society. As for there wage being justified, really that's irrelevant. A company can pay someone millions to pick their nose, so long as it isn't my money that's being spent (as in, if a civil servant was being paid millions to pick his or her nose) I don't mind, and moreover it's none of my concern, and my opinion on the matter would be inconsequential.

As for the second point, this argument assumes that most high wages are gained from corruption, and that the most efficient way of dealing with this is through taking this 'dirty' money off of the corrupt. Where this falls down is it punishes those who earn a high wage from being hard working, or from having an esoteric skill, or from being in someway entrepreneurial, simply because corporate regulations are not efficient enough at preventing corruption, thus discouraging pretty much the driving force of this capitalist society of ours. I'm not saying capitalism is the only way to organise society, I'm not even saying that it's a terribly good way to run society, but if we are to keep instated our current economic model, we cannot argue that higher taxation will cure the ails of corporate corruption while simultaneously being of no detriment to entrepreneurship. In short, you cannot have you're cake and eat it.

tl;dr: The only argument for higher tax is that the government needs money, which is a perfectly valid reason. There is nothing intrinsically wrong or heinous about being rich.

KyussBishop · 16-09-2012 09:05PM

Supermensch wrote: »

The first point made is that the higher wages earned by high-earners is of no benefit to society.

Well not quite

More that it's not necessarily proportional.

Supermensch wrote: »

As for there wage being justified, really that's irrelevant. A company can pay someone millions to pick their nose, so long as it isn't my money that's being spent (as in, if a civil servant was being paid millions to pick his or her nose) I don't mind, and moreover it's none of my concern, and my opinion on the matter would be inconsequential.

It depends on how you look at it I guess (specifically, how you view money); in the end, what money comes down to is it is societies debt to the person holding that money.

So, if a person is earning a significantly larger amount of money than everyone else, it is worthwhile asking if the debt society then owes to him, is proportional to the benefits he provides to society in his work.

Supermensch wrote: »

As for the second point, this argument assumes that most high wages are gained from corruption, and that the most efficient way of dealing with this is through taking this 'dirty' money off of the corrupt. Where this falls down is it punishes those who earn a high wage from being hard working, or from having an esoteric skill, or from being in someway entrepreneurial, simply because corporate regulations are not efficient enough at preventing corruption, thus discouraging pretty much the driving force of this capitalist society of ours. I'm not saying capitalism is the only way to organise society, I'm not even saying that it's a terribly good way to run society, but if we are to keep instated our current economic model, we cannot argue that higher taxation will cure the ails of corporate corruption while simultaneously being of no detriment to entrepreneurship. In short, you cannot have you're cake and eat it.

You're definitely right that it's wrong to assume most wages come from corruption, and so it would be better to tackle the causes of the corrupt income instead, through laws/regulations.
Some of the unethical practices netting money though, can't easily be tackled through strictly-defined laws, so I think extra dissuasion's against these practices from high taxes (reducing the reward/incentive from them) is justified too.

It is important though, to accurately determine at what income brackets these unethical/corrupt practices become dominant; it is also important to balance out the potential impact on genuinely hard-earned profits, against the potential harm to society from incentivizing the unethical/corrupt practices.

So yes, good points all-round

These are all pretty important things to consider when implementing a high-earnings tax.

PeadarCo · 16-09-2012 09:21PM

KyussBishop wrote: »

It is important though, to accurately determine at what income brackets these unethical/corrupt practices become dominant; it is also important to balance out the potential impact on genuinely hard-earned profits, against the potential harm to society from incentivizing the unethical/corrupt practices.

Is that not just assuming that only the rich are potentially corrupt. It can happen at all levels. For example a person on the dole my be doing jobs on the side and not declaring that income. That is corrupt behaviour and may potentially account for over half a persons income meaning it would dominant for that particular person even though they would not be rich.

Surely the opportunity for corruption exists at all levels of society. Taxation is about raising money for the services the public wants/is prepared to pay the government to operate not dealing with corruption. Laws that promote openness and accountability and are properly enforced are the way to deal with corruption.

Manach · 16-09-2012 09:29PM

The monies raised is to support the state, which historically is a entity aside from society. Extra monies go to buying off the plebian orders and ensuring that their supporters are rewarded. Has been so since the time of Caesars and continues to be so today.

Supermensch · 16-09-2012 09:49PM

KyussBishop wrote: »

Well not quite More that it's not necessarily proportional.

It depends on how you look at it I guess (specifically, how you view money); in the end, what money comes down to is it is societies debt to the person holding that money.

So, if a person is earning a significantly larger amount of money than everyone else, it is worthwhile asking if the debt society then owes to him, is proportional to the benefits he provides to society in his work.

You're definitely right that it's wrong to assume most wages come from corruption, and so it would be better to tackle the causes of the corrupt income instead, through laws/regulations.
Some of the unethical practices netting money though, can't easily be tackled through strictly-defined laws, so I think extra dissuasion's against these practices from high taxes (reducing the reward/incentive from them) is justified too.

It is important though, to accurately determine at what income brackets these unethical/corrupt practices become dominant; it is also important to balance out the potential impact on genuinely hard-earned profits, against the potential harm to society from incentivizing the unethical/corrupt practices.

So yes, good points all-round These are all pretty important things to consider when implementing a high-earnings tax.

I think, regardless of the ideal, we're both overall of the same opinion that money should more efficiently be directed to the greater betterment of society

Eod100 · 16-09-2012 10:00PM

In the Irish Times article Kerrigan is referring to, Brian Hayes also states that “It’s not sustainable in my view that nearly 50 per cent of all kids going to college at the moment are getting a grant.” Source: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2012/0915/1224324050036.html

I would be very interested to know where he sourced this figure from. To be honest I'd be very surprised if this was true. Anyone know where he might've got it from? I've tried the HEA, Department of Education and Dept. of Finance's websites to no avail. Perhaps it's just not publicly available?

KyussBishop · 16-09-2012 10:20PM

PeadarCo wrote: »

Is that not just assuming that only the rich are potentially corrupt. It can happen at all levels. For example a person on the dole my be doing jobs on the side and not declaring that income. That is corrupt behaviour and may potentially account for over half a persons income meaning it would dominant for that particular person even though they would not be rich.

Surely the opportunity for corruption exists at all levels of society. Taxation is about raising money for the services the public wants/is prepared to pay the government to operate not dealing with corruption. Laws that promote openness and accountability and are properly enforced are the way to deal with corruption.

It really depends on whether the unethical behaviour can be covered by laws/regulation, as some of it simply can't.

If you take solely, the situation where a company executive drives a company towards high short-term profits (and the litany of ethically-questionable practices that might encourage), in order to please stockholders/investors, so they will reward those execs with higher pay and bonuses, there are limited options you can take.

I'm not sure it's possible to regulate such practices, or to specifically disincentivize them, so the use of a wide-ranging high-income tax may be justifiable to target that, past a certain point of income.
That is not necessarily an instance of corruption either, so it wouldn't be assuming all high-earners (distinguishing from rich here, since it's more about income) are corrupt, it would be attempting to disincentivize potentially unethical behaviour.

You want to do this while affecting as few genuinely ethical and innocent people as possible though, so the income level at which the disincentive would begin, would need to be appropriately high to minimize affected people (even if proportionally, percentage wise, a lot of innocent people may still be affected at that tax band).

Supermensch wrote: »

I think, regardless of the ideal, we're both overall of the same opinion that money should more efficiently be directed to the greater betterment of society

Indeed

I guess to sum-up my take on tax, is I'm also advocating using it to disincentivize potentially undesirable behaviour, which goes beyond this somewhat and is far more debatable.

Farmer Pudsey · 16-09-2012 10:31PM

At present a single person earning 150K pay's 45% of there income in tax,USC and PRSI and any money earned above that is at 52%. Now if you tax them at a higher rate at what rate should it be. When a worker (in this case a well paid worker) sees over half there money going in tax and there is also a perception that they should receive no other transfers from the state such as CB and be made pay 3rd level fees and also we have no medical benefit package for workers that is available in other EU countries.. How long is it before we also force them to contribute towards primary and post primary education and also refuse them the OAP.

In the state we are developing a section of society that are being looked after from cradle to grave but people who work and save will receive nothing from the state. In it last few submissions on Ireland the trioka seem to be adapting this strategy as well encouraging the means testing of CB and the elimination of the difference between contributory and non contributory pensions.

If we do raise marginal rates of tax to 65% or greater then a high earner will be more likely to move abroad ( all of them will not). Micheal O'Leary could run Ryan Air from any other country and companies like Kerry Group and Glanbia could be ran from anywhere in the world.

You see at a marginal rate of 52% it is quite possible if earning 500K it may be worth 100K to go abroad but at a marginal rate of 70% suddenly it becomes worth 200K to move abroad even for a person earning 250K it may well be worth 80-90K to go abroad.

It would also encourage wealthy pensioners to move to sunnier climates. I would have no ideological issues with what Gene Kerrigan is proposing however it would be unlikely to work. Also there is no way a sole trader would pay a marginal rate of 70% the black economy would become widespread as cash would be king.

Godge · 16-09-2012 10:35PM

KyussBishop wrote: »

There are multiple reasons for it really; one is that they have a lot more income which is discretionary, thus is more justifiable to tax, another is that a lot of their earnings aren't commensurate with the benefit they provide to society.

If someone is earnings millions a year, what exact benefits are they providing to society that justify a wage up to 20x that of an average worker?

It is the case that a lot of wages (past a certain, hard-to-define, point) are excessive, particularly within the non-meritocratic hierarchy of most corporations, and a lot of unethical practices and corporate corruption are associated with obtaining such wages (just look at the state of the financial industry), so if you tax the shít out of them past a point, you dissuade a lot of those practices as well.

There's a lot more to arguments in favour of it as well, but those are some off the top of my head. It is very important though, not to set the tax bands too low, and to avoid punishing genuinely beneficial behaviour, where high payments are justified.

It is a good question, which probably doesn't get discussed enough.

Your main point is that earnings should be commensurate with the benefit provided to society.

Now let us extend that analogy downwards. It makes a compelling argument for cuts in social welfare to ensure that anyone working and providing a benefit to society with the sweat of their work should be better off than
someone on welfare who is not contributing anything.

woodoo · 16-09-2012 10:36PM

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

In the state we are developing a section of society that are being looked after from cradle to grave but people who work and save will receive nothing from the state.

The class of society that haven't worked in many years and some that have probably never worked should be on an absolute basic rate of dole. Basics such as a roof over their head, basic medical care and enough food is all they should be entitled to. No more than €100 per week and basic accommodation. Why are they endlessly getting the same as people who have worked, contributed and lost their job.

KyussBishop · 17-09-2012 12:02AM

Godge wrote: »

Your main point is that earnings should be commensurate with the benefit provided to society.

Now let us extend that analogy downwards. It makes a compelling argument for cuts in social welfare to ensure that anyone working and providing a benefit to society with the sweat of their work should be better off than
someone on welfare who is not contributing anything.

Social Welfare is based on completely separate ideological roots to those used to justify taxation on high-earners; although I do totally advocate that those on social welfare, be put back into a position where they benefit society as soon as possible (I've much discussed a job guarantee as of late, but am not sold on that idea).

Though that doesn't mean I support cutting people off welfare while it's their only potential income; again, the reasons for it (welfare) have completely separate ideological roots to high-income taxation.

Good loser · 17-09-2012 12:20AM

I find Gene Kerrigan's articles invariably, and this week's egregiously, to be economically and politically directed at the whingers and begrudgers in Irish society.

Nothing constructive but specious and tendentious in the extreme.

As a public service pensioner I agree with Brian Hayes's views and found nothing in GK's piece to vary my position. Further I can see no reason whatsoever why all pensions are not cut by 5% in the budget.
There is no reasoning worth talking about in the article to rebut in detail.

The public pensions currently paid are merely a result of FF's largesse with cash from the construction boom - no science whatsoever involved in their design.

Eod100 · 17-09-2012 01:28AM

I don't think Hayes said anything that radical re wealthy pensioners. A lot of the various responses I've read have simply fixated on the pensioners part and not the wealthy pensioners that Hayes mentioned.

I don't think every person should get free travel, free tv license etc. just because they've reached a certain age. This shouldn't be a universal right but should be means-tested so that those who need it get it and those who are well off can do without.

But at the same time, I'd like to see a reduction in the wages we're paying T.D's circa €90,000 with many claiming expenses of circa €40,000 every year on top of this (http://www.thejournal.ie/this-is-how-much-your-td-claimed-in-expenses-in-2011-344683-Feb2012/).

Also, look at all the expenses public servants are entitled to. The government is doing very little to tackle this €1.5 billion bill and is likely to only impose cuts on new entrants to the job. The only allowance cut that may effect current staff is the private sectaries one (whereby a private secretary will receive half of €20,685 or €24,427 for the rest of their career - on top of their basic salary - if they've served in the post for over a year. That this existed at all is farcical but even more farcical still is the fact that the government won't tackle this bill in any meaningful way!

jetfiremuck · 17-09-2012 02:02AM

woodoo wrote: »

The class of society that haven't worked in many years and some that have probably never worked should be on an absolute basic rate of dole. Basics such as a roof over their head, basic medical care and enough food is all they should be entitled to. No more than €100 per week and basic accommodation. Why are they endlessly getting the same as people who have worked, contributed and lost their job.

Thats why the word entitlement has created this huge divide in Irish society.....that able bodied people can sit on their arses and await a handout without any sense of conscience creates the begrudging mindset against those that are making the effort. Charging the wealthy more WILL not improve the standard of living of anyone .Does anyone know any person on the dole who is employing anyone??? If not who is employing who.ffs

jetfiremuck · 17-09-2012 02:04AM

KyussBishop wrote: »

Social Welfare is based on completely separate ideological roots to those used to justify taxation on high-earners; although I do totally advocate that those on social welfare, be put back into a position where they benefit society as soon as possible (I've much discussed a job guarantee as of late, but am not sold on that idea).

Though that doesn't mean I support cutting people off welfare while it's their only potential income; again, the reasons for it (welfare) have completely separate ideological roots to high-income taxation.

Its not income their getting its a handout. Income is derived!!!!

johnnyskeleton · 17-09-2012 02:16AM

People have to get away from concepts of fair or unfair because these are largely subjective.

put another way, if we had to introduce a third band of tax and it transpired that a rate of 30% over 200k generated more money for the state than a rate of 60%, then surely, even if you think it is unfair that the marginal rate for someone on 150k beig less than someone on 200k+ is unfair, would you really stand on ceremony and put in the higher rate? That would be to cut off your nose to spite your face.

So really shouldn't it be looked at from the point of what will actually serve the state best? Ask not what your country can do for you etc.

avalon68 · 17-09-2012 04:26AM

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

So really shouldn't it be looked at from the point of what will actually serve the state best? Ask not what your country can do for you etc.

I think you will find that people who feel screwed over wont tend to think like that - rather in this age of global workplaces, they will head for greener fields where taxes actually come back in the form of services.....or at the very least the weather is better! What benefits do high tax payers currently get for living in Ireland? A health care service thats falling apart, a failing education system, unelected unions dictating how the country is run, goods such as cars and electronics costing a fortune relative to other countries....realistically, if it came down to it, Im sure a lot of people would up and leave. The last few years have shown us how easy it is for people with minimal resources/unemployed to migrate and start new lives all over the world - it would be infinitely easier for people with money to do this. Not all of them would leave, but if even half left, the country would be screwed as they already pay the majority of tax.

PeadarCo · 17-09-2012 07:13AM

KyussBishop wrote: »

It really depends on whether the unethical behaviour can be covered by laws/regulation, as some of it simply can't.

If you take solely, the situation where a company executive drives a company towards high short-term profits (and the litany of ethically-questionable practices that might encourage), in order to please stockholders/investors, so they will reward those execs with higher pay and bonuses, there are limited options you can take.

I'm not sure it's possible to regulate such practices, or to specifically disincentivize them, so the use of a wide-ranging high-income tax may be justifiable to target that, past a certain point of income.
That is not necessarily an instance of corruption either, so it wouldn't be assuming all high-earners (distinguishing from rich here, since it's more about income) are corrupt, it would be attempting to disincentivize potentially unethical behaviour.

You want to do this while affecting as few genuinely ethical and innocent people as possible though, so the income level at which the disincentive would begin, would need to be appropriately high to minimize affected people (even if proportionally, percentage wise, a lot of innocent people may still be affected at that tax band).

All of that assummes that only high earners are corrupt and that the majority of them are(No point punishing the majority if only a minority are the problem). Its possible to be corrupt even if you are a relatively poor person. "ethically-questionable practices" can happen at all levels from a person living on the dole to billionaires. High tax's can potentially encourage this by increasing the return on avoiding tax.

I assume you have evidence that suggests only high earners are corrupt and that taxation is an effective tool in combating this.

p1akuw47h5r3it · 17-09-2012 02:00PM

Eod100 wrote: »

In the Irish Times article Kerrigan is referring to, Brian Hayes also states that “It’s not sustainable in my view that nearly 50 per cent of all kids going to college at the moment are getting a grant.” Source: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/201u2/0915/1224324050036.html

I would be very interested to know where he sourced this figure from. To be honest I'd be very surprised if this was true. Anyone know where he might've got it from? I've tried the HEA, Department of Education and Dept. of Finance's websites to no avail. Perhaps it's just not publicly available?

http://www.hea.ie/files/files/file/statistics/50137%20HEA%20Eurostudent%20Survey%20IV%2009-10%20final.pdf

Look at the graph on Pg 30. I'm not sure if this just relates to Master's and PHD's though, as I was always under the impression that around 50%-60% of undergraduates, at least, receive grants. I was told this by an SU member in TCD. I could also back up this claim through circumstantial evidence. I know a large number of people who receive grants, more people who do then don't.

Eod100 · 17-09-2012 02:45PM

DanDan6592 wrote: »

http://www.hea.ie/files/files/file/statistics/50137%20HEA%20Eurostudent%20Survey%20IV%2009-10%20final.pdf

Look at the graph on Pg 30. I'm not sure if this just relates to Master's and PHD's though, as I was always under the impression that around 50%-60% of undergraduates, at least, receive grants. I was told this by an SU member in TCD. I could also back up this claim through circumstantial evidence. I know a large number of people who receive grants, more people who do then don't.

Maybe it's true but I just find it very hard to believe that 50% of students are getting grants.. I'd be the opposite - I know very few people receiving grants but maybe it's just a case that people don't go around telling everyone that they do.

I guess Hayes doesn't make it very clear what students he's referring to. Does he mean all undergraduate students? Does he mean students attending colleges only (as opposed to institutes of technology/other third level institutions)? Does he mean all students (both undergraduate and postgraduate)?

Geuze · 17-09-2012 02:56PM

The rich do need to pay more tax.

But not by increasing the MTR.

Already, at approx 35k, the MTR is 52%. That is way too high.

The solution is less tax incentives / reliefs, etc., not higher rates.

Eod100 · 17-09-2012 03:09PM

Just another point on the statement that ''nearly 50 per cent of all kids going to college at the moment are getting a grant.'' Perhaps Hayes confused this with figures which show that ''close to 50 per cent of all self-employed people secure a college grant for their sons or daughters'' which obviously does not equate to 50 per cent of all kids going to college receiving a grant..

Finnbar01 · 17-09-2012 04:00PM

We don't have a taxing problem in this country but a spending problem.

Kerrigan: Rich have been left alone for too long

Comments