"We are the only OECD state where some get back more than they pay in income tax"

[jjm]

How do other States in the OECD keep childcare costs low? The harsh reality is that the higher the minimum wage the worse off middle income earners feel. I'm not saying we should have an underclass like in some parts of America and Europe, I am just pointing out the consequences of having a more equal society.
The other thing to remember is that it is all about fixed costs; if you earn €45,000 a year but have no mortgage you have a reasonably high disposable income. A neighbour paying €1200 a month on a mortgage has to earn €75,000 a year to end up with the same disposable income. If either person wants to get €500 together for a new TV they have to earn over €1060 so increasing net income is very hard when you are in the higher tax band.

Well you will have to go along with TheBigShort so if you want change

 

[Firefly]

I agree. The QE program instigated by the developed world is, to my mind, artificially raising asset prices. The developed world has not accepted that our houses, businesses and other assets are worth dramatically less as a result of globalization.
This injustice, the distortion of capital markets I believe is in some part responsible for the destabilizing of south America markets and Mid East. (Coupled with US military interference)

As for south America markets and Venezuela in particular, I would add the socialism that Hugo Chavez brought it. With all that oil they should be richer than Norway!

http://theconversation.com/how-toda...ated-by-hugo-chavezs-revolutionary-plan-61474
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...ot-he-empowered-the-poor-and-gutted-venezuela

 

[Purple]

The developed world has not accepted that our houses, businesses and other assets are worth dramatically less as a result of globalization.
This injustice, the distortion of capital markets I believe is in some part responsible for the destabilizing of south America markets and Mid East. (Coupled with US military interference)

Agreed, among other things.

No, I think tax breaks afforded to amounts donated to charity should be scrapped. It is turning the charity sector into a commercial sector.

At the moment in the USA you don't pay tax on income given to charity. In Ireland the charity gets the tax back so it amounts to the same thing. What other tax breaks are you referring to?

We can argue around the house about these two, but for the record I don't subscribe to the notion that either are inherently evil. Nor do I subscribe to the notion that their interventions in the Mid East were to end tyranny and bestow democracy on the people of Iraq.
Blair has a great record in Ireland, he invested hugely in education in the UK. But he, and Bush went to war on a pack of lies. They should be held accountable for that.

I'm in broad agreement but that notwithstanding the work done by Bush on AIDS was a game changer though. Millions of people are alive today because of that work.

If so, you are correct. But failure and inefficiency is not limited to the public sector. The Jonathon sugarman revelations are testament to that.

I never said it was.

I think personal income should be limited, yes. In the same way that I think that no one should fall below a level of poverty, equally I think there should be a limit on personal income.
Obviously, such a sentiment will be controversial and the level up for debate. But a ball park figure would be in the region of €2m a year.



Impose a 100% tax rate on personal incomes of €2m or more. Might not solve it, but would go someway to doing so

So someone starts a company and never grows it past the level at which they earn €2 million a year. That's a lot of jobs not created and a lot of taxes not paid.

Ah, c'mon. The legislation came from EU via petition from MEPs affiliated with left-wing parties linked to trade unions. Not exclusively, but you cannot say that trade unions don't playing a significant part here.

There are plenty of left-wing parties who are not in the pockets of vested interest groups such as Trade Unions (most people with a trade are not in trade unions and most people in trade unions do not have a trade). They were necessary in their day but their day had passed. It passed when they stopped representing the poor and instead served middle-income earners to the determent of the poor.

Not sure I can go with this. Is a nurse qualified for physiotherapy care, midwifery and mental illness care all equally qualified? Or can they command different pay rates?

Nurses with exactly the same qualifications, doing exactly the same job are on different contracts in different counties. It's not that the old health boards had different contracts and they haven't been harmonised, in some cases they are specific to individual hospitals.

 

[TheBigShort]

India has a caste system so they don't have much hope. Unless you have been living on a different planet you would be aware of the explosion of the chinese middle class since it opened up to globalisation and trade.

You are missing the point. The capitalist system as it stands does not and will not bring everybody out of abject poverty. Of course it creates wealth, that is a given. But considering the levels of wealth, the advancements in technology and medicine, there is no reason why anyone should be living in abject poverty.
Arguably it is not capitalism per se, that is the problem, but rather the systemic greed and corruption inherent in the system. But if you accept that point, then you should accept that socialist systems didn't fail because of socialism per se, but rather the systemic greed and corruption inherent in those systems - in the end, human failure and inefficiency.

 

[Purple]

Well you will have to go along with TheBigShort so if you want change

I don't understand your post.

 

[Purple]

You are missing the point. The capitalist system as it stands does not and will not bring everybody out of abject poverty. Of course it creates wealth, that is a given. But considering the levels of wealth, the advancements in technology and medicine, there is no reason why anyone should be living in abject poverty.
Arguably it is not capitalism per se, that is the problem, but rather the systemic greed and corruption inherent in the system. But if you accept that point, then you should accept that socialist systems didn't fail because of socialism per se, but rather the systemic greed and corruption inherent in those systems - in the end, human failure and inefficiency.

Greed is inherent in people, not a system. I want to live in a world where everybody has a fair chance at the pursuit of happiness. That means that there cannot be subsidies or tariffs on trade and access to markets can only be based on standards (health and safety, product quality, environmental standards etc.). The Common Agricultural Policy kills more people every year than ISIS and yet getting rid of it is referred to as a "race to the bottom". In reality getting rid of it is a ladder from the bottom for those currently outside of it.

 

[Firefly]

You are missing the point. The capitalist system as it stands does not and will not bring everybody out of abject poverty. Of course it creates wealth, that is a given. But considering the levels of wealth, the advancements in technology and medicine, there is no reason why anyone should be living in abject poverty.
Arguably it is not capitalism per se, that is the problem, but rather the systemic greed and corruption inherent in the system. But if you accept that point, then you should accept that socialist systems didn't fail because of socialism per se, but rather the systemic greed and corruption inherent in those systems - in the end, human failure and inefficiency.

Greed is inherent in people, not a system.

This is it for me. Throughout our time on this planet we have shown time and again that people have been left to starve whilst others have an abundance of wealth. Trying to take from those at the very top is expensive and ultimately futile. The best we can hope for is that barriers are kept down and income is based on effort. Capitalism for all it's failings provides this much more so than any of its counterparts on the far left which just end up with everyone being poor! I again refer you to the millions of people in china who have joined the middle class since China "opened up".

 

[TheBigShort]

At the moment in the USA you don't pay tax on income given to charity. In Ireland the charity gets the tax back so it amounts to the same thing. What other tax breaks are you referring to?

That's not how I understand our tax laws for charitable donations.

http://www.revenue.ie/en/personal/charities.html

My reading is that donations from €250 to €1m can be offset against tax liability.

So someone starts a company and never grows it past the level at which they earn €2 million a year. That's a lot of jobs not created and a lot of taxes not paid.

No not at all. And to be fair, the nuts and bolts of such a proposal would need in-depth scrutiny. But in essence it refers to the personal income of an individual as distinct personal wealth. There would be nothing stopping anyone from acquiring personal wealth greater than €2m, stocks, property, investments etc. What it would boil down to is effectively a €2m a year lifestyle. The private jet, island, castle markets would take a hit, but probably that's all.
So if you set up a business tomorrow and it suddenly takes off worth billions, you will only be able to pay yourself €2m.
It's hard to get figures on this but in 2012 there were some 300+ people in Ireland that declared an income in excess of €2m.
So in real terms a tiny, tiny portion of people would be affected by such a proposal.

There are plenty of left-wing parties who are not in the pockets of vested interest groups such as Trade Unions (most people with a trade are not in trade unions and most people in trade unions do not have a trade). They were necessary in their day but their day had passed. It passed when they stopped representing the poor and instead served middle-income earners to the determent of the poor.

I profoundly disagree with you on this point.
[broken link removed]

A list of the numerous social issues that unions involve themselves in is easily accessible.

 

[Firefly]

No not at all. And to be fair, the nuts and bolts of such a proposal would need in-depth scrutiny. But in essence it refers to the personal income of an individual as distinct personal wealth. There would be nothing stopping anyone from acquiring personal wealth greater than €2m, stocks, property, investments etc. What it would boil down to is effectively a €2m a year lifestyle. The private jet, island, castle markets would take a hit, but probably that's all.
So if you set up a business tomorrow and it suddenly takes off worth billions, you will only be able to pay yourself €2m.
It's hard to get figures on this but in 2012 there were some 300+ people in Ireland that declared an income in excess of €2m.
So in real terms a tiny, tiny portion of people would be affected by such a proposal.

And given the resources they would have to find crafty tax accountants would you think it would be worthwhile at all? What next, target those earning 1m a year then those on 500k a year...before long the hospital consultants would leave the country along with top executives and the whole thing would crumble...

 

[TheBigShort]

Greed is inherent in people, not a system

Yes, and when I say "inherent in the system", you can take it I mean the system as operated by human beings.

Capitalism for all it's failings provides this much more so than any of its counterparts on the far left which just end up with everyone being poor! I again refer you to the millions of people in china who have joined the middle class since China "opened up".

With respect, I sense you veering towards the capitalist system v socialist systems again. I thought we had dealt with that. China, USSR, NK are/were central command controlled economies. They labeled themselves as Socialist economies. They were as much Socialist as the US and EU are free market capitalist economies. They are not.
My views on what a socialist society would look like have been made. I support the exploitation of the resources of the earth for capital gain in an ethical, equitable and environmentally sustainable way. This means for instance, that I support the concept of private ownership and private property to the point that everyone has a reasonable standard of shelter. Where people are without shelter I look to the government to intervene. This may mean a re-allocation of resources from those that have toward those without it. It is my view, that those that have property can all contribute to those who don't, in a manner that is equitable.

 

[TheBigShort]

And given the resources they would have to find crafty tax accountants would you think it would be worthwhile at all? What next, target those earning 1m a year then those on 500k a year...before long the hospital consultants would leave the country along with top executives and the whole thing would crumble...

Well, just sticking with Ireland for a moment, the first thing you should note is that we are only talking about a few hundred people. Secondly, it only applies to disposable income, not the value of a person's wealth.

 

[Purple]

This may mean a re-allocation of resources from those that have toward those without it. It is my view, that those that have property can all contribute to those who don't, in a manner that is equitable.

What do you think is equitable?
How do you ensure people who can create wealth continue to do so as you take more and more of their fruits of their labour from them?
In other words why bother working when what you earn will be taken from you?
Why bother working when if you choose not to you will be given wealth created by someone else?

We already have the most progressive income tax system in the EU and among the most progressive in the developed world. How must further do we need to go in order to be "equitable"?

 

[TheBigShort]

What do you think is equitable?

A society that ensures, insofar as practical, that no one goes without adequate food and shelter, access to healthcare and education.
What do you think is equitable?

[QUOTE="Purple, post: 1518681, member:114]
How do you ensure people who can create wealth continue to do so as you take more and more of their fruits of their labour from them?
In other words why bother working when what you earn will be taken from you?
Why bother working when if you choose not to you will be given wealth created by someone else?[/QUOTE]

Somewhat of a rant I suspect, I really don't know what you are talking about here.

 

[Purple]

A society that ensures, insofar as practical, that no one goes without adequate food and shelter, access to healthcare and education.
What do you think is equitable?

We have that now. Where it falls down is in the incompetence and inefficiencies within the delivery structures. What do you think is equitable?

Somewhat of a rant I suspect, I really don't know what you are talking about here.

Really?
You see no link between income tax rates and wealth creation? If so you are part of a very small group. The rest of the world sees it and everyone from the OECD to the IMF talk about balancing income equality and economic growth.
The problem with socialism is that it is treating a symptom, in this case income inequality, instead of looking at root causes. So, what, in your view, is the root cause of income inequality in this country. Please remember that globally income inequality is been reduced dramatically over the last 30 years thanks to more open trade and less protectionism (that race to the bottom that the Brethren in SIPTU are so concerned about). It looks to me like socialists are only interested in redistributing income from people who have more than them and not to people who have less than them (particularly if their skin is a different colour).

 

[Firefly]

It looks to me like socialists are only interested in redistributing income from people who have more than them and not to people who have less than them.

Brilliant!

 

[Purple]

It reminds me of a story which explains Communism and Socialism in practice;

The local Soviet Commissar was bringing a Party bigwig on a tour of the communal farm.

He called over a peasant and asked him, “Comrade, do you understand Communism?”

“Yes Comrade Commissar.” He replied.

“So, if you has two houses would you give one to your neighbour?”

“Yes Comrade Commissar.” He replied.

“And if you had two horses would you give one to your neighbour?”

“Yes, or course, Comrade Commissar.” He replied.

“And if you had two coats would you give one to your neighbour?”

“No, Comrade Commissar.” He replied.

“No, No! Why not”

“...well I have two coats” He replied.

 

[TheBigShort]

We have that now. Where it falls down is in the incompetence and inefficiencies within the delivery structures

Yes, so what is your point? I suspect that there is one, somewhere buried in the last number of posts?

Really?
You see no link between income tax rates and wealth creation?

I do. So the rest of your comment is mute. Perhaps explain the point you are trying to make?

 

[Purple]

Yes, so what is your point? I suspect that there is one, somewhere buried in the last number of posts?

Now now, play nice.
I have been asking you the same question; what do you think is equitable?

I do. So the rest of your comment is mute. Perhaps explain the point you are trying to make?

It's only mute if you don't think we need to balance wealth creation with wealth redistribution.
The fundamental question is are you in favour of equality of opportunity or equality of outcome?

 

[TheBigShort]

I have been asking you the same question; what do you think is equitable?

I think I answered this already, oh yes...

A society that ensures, insofar as practical, that no one goes without adequate food and shelter, access to healthcare and education.

What do you think is equitable? I don't think you have answered that yet.

It's only mute if you don't think we need to balance wealth creation with wealth redistribution.

Yes, so therefore it's mute.

The fundamental question is are you in favour of equality of opportunity or equality of outcome?

Equality of opportunity, and you?

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

Dammitt BigShort you've gone and broken my Pinkometer

A society that ensures, insofar as practical, that no one goes without adequate food and shelter, access to healthcare and education.

I would say everyone is in violent agreement with this statement given the qualifier which I have put in bold. The reason we need the qualifier is a combination of scarce resources and human nature.

The Soviets thought that total compliance with those lofty objectives was practical. Alas this was proven to be hopelessly naive.

So one could argue that Ireland does achieve this objective, albeit some fall through the safety nets. But that is a matter of opinion as to what is practical given Ireland's current state of economic, social and political development.

Maybe we could get a better feel for your position if you could tell us which country, say in Europe, most approximates this objective at the present time. If it is your view that nowhere meets the objective then you should remove the phrase in bold from your statement.

BTW. "mute" unable to speak "moot" open to debate