DoesNotCompute wrote: » Leading economic expert Professor John Fitzgerald says property tax is preferable to income tax, as it less damaging to employment.
dvpower wrote: » Yes. Last month he reported a much reduced estimate in the total cost of winding down the IBRC.
dxhound2005 wrote: » Lots in there to admire but it would make the people who would be worse off very unhappy, nothing new there. The only thing I don't see (surprisingly from a socialist analysis) is a wide ranging private property tax. This is the tried and tested model giving a guaranteed long term income stream not easily open to evasion in practically every other developed country.
darkhorse wrote: » But, if his estimate came down, it can also go up.
darkhorse wrote: » So tell me, dv, donal, lugha or anybody, is she right not to pay.
darkhorse wrote: » Taxes on income (whether it's the Universal Social Charge or income tax) tend to be job-unfriendly," he said. "They discourage people from working (and) make it difficult for people to work. Property tax and carbon taxes are likely to be much less damaging to employment." Could someone tell me, would you/I have to pay a property tax and a carbon tax out of the money that you earn, ie, income from your job. Does anyone else, apart from me, get the irony of this experts statement.
dvpower wrote: » Where exactly do you see the irony? Can you see at all how some taxes can be more damaging to employment than others? People who have no income from a job still need to pay property tax out of their pension income, social welfare income and investment income.
Ghandee wrote: » Ah, don't be so hard on him. Anyone can make a mistake, ain't that right dx? Think before you type auld hand.
darkhorse wrote: » Anyway, was anyone watching the programme on Mon night with George Lee. There was this lady on that got a reminder letter for non-payment of HHC. When George asked her was she going to pay it, she said definitely not, as she had paid €35,000 in stamp duty when she bought her house a short time ago. So tell me, dv, donal, lugha or anybody, is she right not to pay.
donalg1 wrote: » No she is wrong obviously, as not paying is breaking the law.
bgrizzley wrote: » she is correct, the law is morally wrong in her instance (whatever about mine) She'll get no thanks for paying it (only a second letter asking her to pay the same thing again (and probably addressed to a deceased family member))
donalg1 wrote: » No she is wrong. If she is liable to pay it then not paying it is breaking the law. Morals dont dictate what laws you can or cant abide by.
bgrizzley wrote: » lol. have a think about that one:D
donalg1 wrote: » You think you can choose what laws you abide by based on some morals you may have? And what gives someone the right to pick and choose the laws they abide by? Can we all do this now, I mean is it now legal to break laws?
robbie7730 wrote: » Driving at 121kph on a motorway is breaking the law, as is killing someone with a baseball bat. You can work out the rest yourself.
donalg1 wrote: » Not paying your taxes is breaking the law too.
Geuze wrote: » A bit like an annual fixed car tax - it doesn't influence your decision to take a particular journey, as you have paid it on 1st Jan, so it is a sunk cost, and is not relevant when deciding car vs. bus, etc.
Geuze wrote: » Obviously all taxes come out of your pocket, but some hurt employment more, and some hurt it less. Property taxes have the big advantage that they don't distort people's labour decisions, compared to PRSI or income tax. They are, in some sense, "lump-sum" taxes, not linked to wage earnings, and so shouldn't influence your work decisions. A bit like an annual fixed car tax - it doesn't influence your decision to take a particular journey, as you have paid it on 1st Jan, so it is a sunk cost, and is not relevant when deciding car vs. bus, etc.
Ghandee wrote: » If things are tight, the car can be taken off the road. If yearly motor tax on let's say my car for example, passat 07 I can sell it and downgrade to something with a lower tax bracket. I could sell my house, but as its lost 50% of its value, yet I've still 100% of the original mortgage (minus payments made) that's not a viable (sensible) option. I also, cannot take my home 'off the road'.Anyways, we've covered this one before.
Hijpo wrote: » What parts would make people already under the cosh even more strained? Theres a big difference in making someone earning over 100k a little worse of then hitting the same members of society with increased taxes in which you have many household where both parents work for an accumulated gross income of 54k a year.
dxhound2005 wrote: » Do you think any government would get much thanks for increasing DIRT, carbon taxes, betting tax and the price of cigarettes? Anyway what do you think about a broad based private property tax, it would pick up substantial income from the groups that SIPTU want to target?
Ghandee wrote: » Politicians introduce pay caps on bankers and their advisers, then go on to blatantly ignore them. Good enough for them........
robbie7730 wrote: » Do you ever break any laws?
donalg1 wrote: » No
Geuze wrote: » High payroll or wages taxes give people incentives to evade or avoid them, by not working, not doing overtime, trying to be paid cash in the shadow economy, etc.
Geuze wrote: » I must live in a house. When a property tax is introduced, I still live in a house. No change of behaviour, no direct impact on labour supply. I won't work less as a result. Whereas the current crazy 52% marginal income tax rate causes people to work less, avoid tax, even evade tax.
They are, in some sense, "lump-sum" taxes, not linked to wage earnings, and so shouldn't influence your work decisions.
