Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Would you agree to 80% income tax if everything was free?

Options
1235

Comments

  • Options
    #122
    antix80
    Registered Users Posts: 2,419 ✭✭✭antix80


    Newuseruntaken wrote: »
    Obviously not everything being free, but the big ticket items like healthcare, education, transport, childcare, property tax, motor tax, tv licenses, bin charges etc.

    Also you would only have to work 4 days a week.

    Does it include rent/mortgage repayments, or is that what the 20% I'm left with is meant to cover?
    When you say "transport".. does that mean the cost of replacing my car and putting fuel in it? Or does it just cover a smelly, overcrowded bus shuttling me from home to work?
    By healthcare, do you mean 2 years waiting list for a "non-urgent" consultation and then waiting another 12 months for a "non-urgent" follow-up MRI?

    Keep your free stuff, just don't expect me to pay for it!


  • Options
    #123
    nkl12xtw5goz70
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,497 ✭✭✭nkl12xtw5goz70


    Newuseruntaken wrote: »
    Look how broken our current system is. Non functioning health service...

    To fund the HSE, a dysfunctional state monopoly, taxpayers pour billions annually into a black hole. Numerous other state-run services are run in a similarly costly, bureaucratic, and ineffective manner, with thousands of overpaid and unaccountable employees delivering relatively little in return for all the cost.

    Your solution to this broken system is to turn everything into a state monopoly and assume, all evidence to the contrary, that this will make things better.

    I'm not sure if you're trolling or just incredibly naive.


  • Options
    #124
    Newuseruntaken
    Registered Users Posts: 71 ✭✭Newuseruntaken


    dxhound2005 wrote: »
    There was an experiment in 1977 which did away with property tax, water charges, bin charges and road/motor tax. Fianna Fail got the biggest majority in the history of the state when they proposed it.

    The only thing they forgot to tell the people was that income tax would be 60% within a couple of years. Anyone old enough will remember the tax marches which dwarfed anything seen recently against water charges. The country has been trying to recover from this disaster to local funding since.

    Well obviously if you tell people they are getting loads of benefits but forget to tell them about the increase in tax they are going to be furious


  • Options
    #125
    dxhound2005
    Registered Users Posts: 20,614 ✭✭✭✭dxhound2005


    Newuseruntaken wrote: »
    Well obviously if you tell people they are getting loads of benefits but forget to tell them about the increase in tax they are going to be furious

    It shows that even a slimmed down version of your overhaul of public finances, is a failure.


  • Options
    #126
    Newuseruntaken
    Registered Users Posts: 71 ✭✭Newuseruntaken


    dxhound2005 wrote: »
    It shows that even a slimmed down version of your overhaul of public finances, is a failure.

    No it shows if you are dishonest you will fail, that’s all


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #127
    Antares35
    Registered Users Posts: 3,845 ✭✭✭Antares35


    Newuseruntaken wrote: »
    You can take the free public transport or else pay for car rental, your choice.

    Considering how dire the paid system is, I wouldn't be holding out much hope for quality in a free one.

    Imagine the bus drivers, driving people around all day, then handing over 80% of their salary, left with 20% which they can spend on a car...or take a bus :pac:


  • Options
    #128
    begsbyOnaTrain
    Closed Accounts Posts: 272 ✭✭begsbyOnaTrain


    More than 20% of our monthly takehome goes into savings/investments. So no, sounds like a really bad deal tbh.


  • Options
    #129
    dxhound2005
    Registered Users Posts: 20,614 ✭✭✭✭dxhound2005


    Vegetable Soup wrote: »
    One thing is for certain, there will be unintended consequences. Economies are complex, tinker with them at your peril.

    As a rule of thumb the question I ask myself is this, will people be more or less productive if this is implemented?

    With less incentive to work overall people would be less productive. Some of the largest productivity gains come from people trying to become rich. If it is much more difficult to become rich society would become poorer. Less products and services produced, less quality of products and services and less innovation.

    An unintended consequence would probably be that 80% tax would not be sufficient, and it could go as high as 90%. Unless someone has worked it out, it seems like a figure plucked from the air.


  • Options
    #130
    Newuseruntaken
    Registered Users Posts: 71 ✭✭Newuseruntaken


    Vegetable Soup wrote: »
    One thing is for certain, there will be unintended consequences. Economies are complex, tinker with them at your peril.

    As a rule of thumb the question I ask myself is this, will people be more or less productive if this is implemented?

    With less incentive to work overall people would be less productive. Some of the largest productivity gains come from people trying to become rich. If it is much more difficult to become rich society would become poorer. Less products and services produced, less quality of products and services and less innovation.

    The most important resource of an economy is not oil, gold, steel etc, it's the motivation of it's citizens to be productive and innovate.

    But the last 10 years has seen a significant increase in taxes and it hasn’t negatively affected productivity and employment


  • Options
    #131
    dxhound2005
    Registered Users Posts: 20,614 ✭✭✭✭dxhound2005


    Newuseruntaken wrote: »
    But the last 10 years has seen a significant increase in taxes and it hasn’t negatively affected productivity and employment

    What do you mean by significant?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #132
    Geuze
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭Geuze


    Newuseruntaken wrote: »
    But the last 10 years has seen a significant increase in taxes and it hasn’t negatively affected productivity and employment

    Has there been a significant increase in taxes? I don't think so.

    OK, there has been an increase in income taxes, yes.

    Whether it's "significant" is up for debate.

    See here:

    https://www.oecd.org/tax/tax-policy/taxing-wages-ireland.pdf


  • Options
    #133
    Cee-Jay-Cee
    Registered Users Posts: 12,235 ✭✭✭✭Cee-Jay-Cee


    No, of course not. After paying for all those things myself I have more than 20% of my wages remaining so why would I even consider such an idea???


  • Options
    #134
    whomitconcerns
    Registered Users Posts: 4,315 ✭✭✭whomitconcerns


    Why would I contribute to more free houses and free money for people while I worked 100hrs a week as a consultant/doctor for 20k.... If I was...


  • Options
    #135
    Newuseruntaken
    Registered Users Posts: 71 ✭✭Newuseruntaken


    Cee-Jay-Cee wrote: »
    No, of course not. After paying for all those things myself I have more than 20% of my wages remaining so why would I even consider such an idea???

    Because you would only have to work 4 days a week instead of 5.
    Because there mould be bullet trains between cities.
    Because we would have a much better health system which you might be grateful for in the future.
    Because if you ever lost your job you would have good social protections in place.
    Because you would have a better house as the cost of housing would go down significantly if there was large scale social housing .


  • Options
    #136
    Newuseruntaken
    Registered Users Posts: 71 ✭✭Newuseruntaken


    whomitconcerns wrote: »
    Why would I contribute to more free houses and free money for people while I worked 100hrs a week as a consultant/doctor for 20k.... If I was...

    Because your spending power would be the same as always. 20k seems small but when the average person may be taking home 6k that 20k suddenly looks good.


  • Options
    #137
    dxhound2005
    Registered Users Posts: 20,614 ✭✭✭✭dxhound2005


    Newuseruntaken wrote: »
    Because your spending power would be the same as always. 20k seems small but when the average person may be taking home 6k that 20k suddenly looks good.

    If you refine the system so that everyone earns the same, say 10K, it would be easier to do the taxes and spending. The big bosses of private companies pay themselves multi millions. They could just as easily live on 10K if everything was free.


  • Options
    #138
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Newuseruntaken wrote: »
    I know if I had to go to the emergency department for whatever reason I would be put on a trolley in the waiting room for about 36 hours.


    No. No. You'd be waiting 36 hours before being seen. Get the "message" right.


  • Options
    #139
    salmocab
    Registered Users Posts: 11,291 ✭✭✭✭salmocab


    Newuseruntaken wrote: »
    Because you would only have to work 4 days a week instead of 5.
    Because there mould be bullet trains between cities.
    Because we would have a much better health system which you might be grateful for in the future.
    Because if you ever lost your job you would have good social protections in place.
    Because you would have a better house as the cost of housing would go down significantly if there was large scale social housing .

    So working less hours so presumably less money, that’s a fifth of your tax take gone already.
    Billions on bullet trains plus millions to run the service.
    Healthcare that would cost way more than the one we can’t currently run
    The housing thing has so many problems I don’t know where to begin.


  • Options
    #140
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    dxhound2005 wrote: »
    There was an experiment in 1977 which did away with property tax, water charges, bin charges and road/motor tax. Fianna Fail got the biggest majority in the history of the state when they proposed it.

    The only thing they forgot to tell the people was that income tax would be 60% within a couple of years. Anyone old enough will remember the tax marches which dwarfed anything seen recently against water charges. The country has been trying to recover from this disaster to local funding since.


    Well considering FF had a significant hand in practically bankrupting the country within the last generation and are now vying for power again per the polls I think it's fair to say vanishingly few remembers that political "experiment".


  • Options
    #141
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    salmocab wrote: »
    So working less hours so presumably less money, that’s a fifth of your tax take gone already.
    Billions on bullet trains plus millions to run the service.
    Healthcare that would cost way more than the one we can’t currently run
    The housing thing has so many problems I don’t know where to begin.


    At least this is in AH. And even then practically nobody supporting the OP. Doesn't bode well as a vote getter.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #142
    Newuseruntaken
    Registered Users Posts: 71 ✭✭Newuseruntaken


    salmocab wrote: »
    So working less hours so presumably less money, that’s a fifth of your tax take gone already.
    Billions on bullet trains plus millions to run the service.
    Healthcare that would cost way more than the one we can’t currently run
    The housing thing has so many problems I don’t know where to begin.

    No because employment would have to increase as more workers are needed if people would only work 4 days a week, therefore tax take remains the same


  • Options
    #143
    Newuseruntaken
    Registered Users Posts: 71 ✭✭Newuseruntaken


    Deleted User wrote: »
    At least this is in AH. And even then practically nobody supporting the OP. Doesn't bode well as a vote getter.

    Ah in fairness if it was up to AH we would all still be living in caves


  • Options
    #144
    4068ac1elhodqr
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,586 ✭✭✭4068ac1elhodqr


    Someone from the Labour party over in the uk is suggesting this sort of thing: 4-day week.
    The trouble is they say it'll take at least 3terms (12yrs) to fully impliment.

    Annual cost of something like 100bn, they also want the highest minwage in Europe.
    Naturally the rich will have to give up their public school, polo and horseys, for all the new foodbanks and extra nandos/whetherspoons.

    Over in the US the 4th fav for POTUS20 wants to hand out 1,000 bucks to everyone, every single month, for nothing.

    Let the good times roll!


  • Options
    #145
    dxhound2005
    Registered Users Posts: 20,614 ✭✭✭✭dxhound2005


    Newuseruntaken wrote: »
    Ah in fairness if it was up to AH we would all still be living in caves

    Fairness is not something I would associate with your ideas. Or common sense.


  • Options
    #146
    Iscreamkone
    Registered Users Posts: 721 ✭✭✭Iscreamkone


    How about I pay 5% tax and pay for everything I need out of the rest. Education/Healthcare/Housing


  • Options
    #147
    JDD
    Registered Users Posts: 1,578 ✭✭✭JDD


    20% of myself and my husband's monthly income wouldn't pay our mortgage. If I was to be gifted a house in a nice area then it still won't work, as it won't pay for my childcare. If was to be gifted a house and a place at a convenient childcare facility, the remainder would barely cover our food, bills (and I'm not counting utilities) and kids after school/weekend activities. I'd never be able to get my hair cut, buy new clothes, go on holiday or buy the kids any Christmas/birthday presents.

    Myself and my husband earn in the top 6% of household income. And even the additional tax we would pay would barely cover the cost of the things we pay for already, let alone go any way towards subsidizing the cost of providing free accommodation, transport, healthcare and childcare for the remaining 94% of the income earners. I'm not even going to broach the fact that 25% of households do not earn any income apart from social welfare.

    It simply wouldn't work without a large proportion of income earners taking a significant dip in living standards.


  • Options
    #148
    Antares35
    Registered Users Posts: 3,845 ✭✭✭Antares35


    Newuseruntaken wrote: »
    Because you would only have to work 4 days a week instead of 5.
    Because there mould be bullet trains between cities.
    Because we would have a much better health system which you might be grateful for in the future.
    Because if you ever lost your job you would have good social protections in place.
    Because you would have a better house as the cost of housing would go down significantly if there was large scale social housing .

    Would there be dole? Would it be 20% of the current dole rate? :)


  • Options
    #149
    Cina
    Registered Users Posts: 2,387 ✭✭✭Cina


    The Government already waste enough of my tax. Why the f*ck would I want to give them any more?

    Even if we chucked another 100bn at the HSE they'd still find a way to be completely useless.


  • Options
    #150
    salmocab
    Registered Users Posts: 11,291 ✭✭✭✭salmocab


    Newuseruntaken wrote: »
    No because employment would have to increase as more workers are needed if people would only work 4 days a week, therefore tax take remains the same

    Employment increase? We are practically full employment. Your plan would require 20% more staff for all services which we aren’t even close to having let alone having with all the right qualifications.
    I applaud your ability to keep this up though.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #151
    Ray Palmer
    Registered Users Posts: 8,360 ✭✭✭Ray Palmer


    It is funny how people compare other countries with Ireland and say we should do the same. All the rent controls in Germany should apply in Ireland but forget the other details. Rent a place in Germany and you have to provide your own kitchen and repaint before you leave. The countries housing stock was destroyed in WWII. The land then was taken by the state and international money was provided to build the housing under strict rules. So for us to have the same as Germany first you need to kill a huge portion of the population take ownership of the land then get other countries to pay for the new buildings.
    Scandinavian countries have a huge income from their natural resources proping up their economy so the residents while having high tax don't pay for it.
    We have a small population for the land and people expect the services to be everywhere. The point to a hospital closing and go on about how it was there before so why not still have it? The hospitals were run and supported by religious orders. That means the staff were all underpaid. Don't forget the literally used slave labour to wash the bed sheets for these hospitals.
    If you live in rural France they don't expect there to be a local hospital but here people do.


Advertisement