Do we pay too much tax for crappy services?

FreudianSlippers · 13-06-2019 10:27am

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.

Australia also has property tax and water charges. We need to burn the Irish tax system to the ground and start over entirely, but Ireland could implement lower marginal tax and deliver those services if the taxation system was changed.

weemcd · 13-06-2019 10:31am

Yes, but almost everywhere does...

johnnyskeleton · 13-06-2019 11:05am

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.

Can you recall who did this study or where it was published by any chance?

facehugger99 · 13-06-2019 11:27am

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.
.

To me the whole 'child benefit' model is indicative of the type of poor services that the Government provide. People my age are probably the first generation where it was very common for both parents to work. As soon as we started popping out kids in the early noughties it was clear that there was going to be an issue - who was going to look after the kids?

There could have been so much done from increasing the length of state-paid maternity leave, introducing paternity leave and all of the measures you have mentioned - we had the money to do something about it.

Instead FF took the (usual) easy path of shoveling money at people and hoping the problem would go away by increasing CB dramatically.

In a microcosm, it sums up everything wrong with the lack of imagination and short-term fixes we routinely get (and accept) from Govt.

Geuze · 13-06-2019 1:18pm

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.

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 · 13-06-2019 1:19pm

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.

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.

blanch152 · 13-06-2019 1:37pm

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Can you recall who did this study or where it was published by any chance?

It was an OECD study, I think.

Edit: It is actually the full study produced earlier. The earlier link was from a summary brochure of the study. There is a fuller study with many more tables.

Take this part of it:

https://read.oecd-ilibrary.org/taxation/taxing-wages-2019_5ac3e02f-en#page14

Look at Tables 6.9 and 6.11 for comparison purposes.

There are only four countries which have a higher tax burden on those earning 167% of average wage, while there are 14 which have a higher tax burden on those earning 67% of average wage, which indicates the issue clearly - there is little scope for tax increases on higher earners.

FreudianSlippers · 14-06-2019 9:54am

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.

MPS are a lobby group who are cherry-picking some isolated examples and aren't telling the whole story.

Idbatterim · 14-06-2019 5:23pm

mid to high earners paying a good chunk at the marginal rate are paying wayyyyyyy too much! So that huge amounts of the population contribute nothing or virtually nothing in income taxes. Virtually no property tax...

mandrake04 · 18-06-2019 12:59pm

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Australia also has property tax and water charges.

Property tax? I pay council rates which is like LPT that’s about $2100 per year or 0.14% compared to the 0.18%/0.25% LPT in Ireland. But like Dog man Star said if you live in a good area with great amenities you get great value from that.

Water charges in Australia are not that much, water is a valued source I pay $170/Qtr on a large 5BR house. On the upside my electricity bill is roughly at most $104 per Qtr due to renewable energy.

Over all I agree with Dog man Star the effective tax is not that much, on $160K a year the effective total tax including Medicare you pay is roughly 31%... if you are smart it’s possible to pay less...I pay about 26%. I work in the health industry and public system is well resourced, it’s probably 10-15 years ahead of Ireland. I do have private health insurance that’s about $3000 per year for a family of 4 that includes ambulance, optical, dental, Private hospital etc you don’t really need but if your household income is over $180K (or single income over $90K) you are up for an extra 1% Medicare levy surcharge which works out the same anyway.

A Shropshire Lad · 19-06-2019 10:01am

I honestly dont get why people continiously moan about the tax and ****ty services in Ireland but at election time vote for the status quo.

screamer · 19-06-2019 10:03am

No we pay too much tax to pay for welfare and pensions and there’s nothing much left for services, hence they’re ****ty...

A Shropshire Lad · 19-06-2019 10:28am

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...

We do pay too much for welfare and all the programs we have going on. But the reason services are crappy is not just because theres no money left. Theres plenty of money, its just wasted, with zero accountability on how its wasted

blanch152 · 19-06-2019 11:15am

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.

facehugger99 · 19-06-2019 11:50am

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.

Plus the cyclical nature of the way we collect and spend tax exacerbates the issue. Welfare spending goes up during a recession, it is not politically possible to reduce pension spending nor practical to reduce health spending. Public Sector pay is nigh on impossible to cut which means the capital spend, which is already under-resourced is cut to bejaysus during any downturn.

Housing, transportation, water and sewage are all creaking from decades of chronic under-investment.

It's a sad state of affairs and is not improving any time soon.

James Brown · 19-06-2019 1:57pm

It's funny how spends on welfare always come up as a drain when talking on state financials. The welfare spends, (rental aid, low income assistance etc.) are all symptoms of a poor economic system IMO. 'We'd have more money to spend if we didn't have to look after those worse off, (including working taxpayers)'. 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 · 19-06-2019 2:20pm

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.

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?

James Brown · 19-06-2019 2:33pm

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?

Pointless to try get a dig in chief, commenting broadly here, nobody is posting a budgeted and costed plan to run the state, unless you have one, or will you hide behind what we have as an economic beacon?
Yes, social housing, affordable housing, decent wages. You know actual policies designed to share the wealth beyond the trickle down myth.
Creating issues which require people to seek welfare, so cut welfare? How would that pan out in the long run?
How would you like to see things change, less money to welfare so we can build roads? Can you expand on that 'idea'?

facehugger99 · 19-06-2019 3:07pm

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'?

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.

James Brown · 19-06-2019 3:11pm

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.

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.

Old diesel · 19-06-2019 3:38pm

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.

What is the ordinary nurse getting wrong and how do they fix it

facehugger99 · 19-06-2019 4:00pm

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.

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.

James Brown · 19-06-2019 4:09pm

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.

You've a point. I think the need for welfare needs to be addressed over and above governments doing the usual to placate those on lower incomes. I guess it keeps them at bay while the important people make money until the bottom falls out again. And I think that's far more important to some than redirecting those funds for infrastructure.

christy c · 19-06-2019 4:47pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I guess it keeps them at bay while the important people make money

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?

James Brown · 19-06-2019 5:28pm

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?

But what would be the point in remaining in, the pension?

Any comment on the topic at hand?

christy c · 19-06-2019 5:35pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

But what would be the point in remaining in, the pension?

Any comment on the topic at hand?

Just dodge my question, still no motive?

is_that_so · 19-06-2019 5:37pm

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.

Tom Darby is why! That and the other 20 odd unions in CIE set the standard.

A Shropshire Lad · 19-06-2019 5:45pm

A friend of mine from Malaysia is a doctor specialising in Emergency Medicine and worked in several Dublin A&E Departments. He couldnt believe the third world service here, not to mention the drink and drug problem that comes crashing through the door at the weekends. He is working in Singapore now. State of the art facilities, not a trolly in sight and remarkably they dont spend as much as we do on health

James Brown · 19-06-2019 5:49pm

christy c wrote: »

Just dodge my question, still no motive?

Money Christy. I dodged nothing. You quoted me.

Matt Barrett wrote: »

while the important people make money until the bottom falls out again

Money, 'Loadsa Money (ten grand would be a start)'. I am saying they use government to enrich themselves and their friends/backers.
I see you dodged mine. If you're just about scoring points, I'm not interested.

christy c · 19-06-2019 6:01pm

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.

Ok can we separate what appears to be corruption (that fella in Monaghan), and other politicians? Unless you're saying all government politicians are corrupt then I'll leave you to it.

I'm still trying to understand why politicians would want to enrich important people without getting anything in return? Just cause they're sound maybe?

I'll have no problem answering your questions but trying to get a clear answer to my original question first in case we get distracted.

Do we pay too much tax for crappy services?

Comments