Gordon Gekko
Registered User
- Messages
- 7,369
My point is that wealth is already hammered!
What part of move from taxing labour to taxing wealth is hard?
I'm talking about reducing that 52% marginal rate you pay but taxing retained wealth more to compensate. Encourage the money to move around within the economy, encourage people to work harder and keep more of what they earn.
Congestion charges are fair enough in cities with excellent public transport...they wouldn’t be in Ireland.
It could work in Dublin, around the D1/D2 areas with sufficient (& cheap) park and ride facilities, and 10 minute DART's, frequent Luas and more express bus options.
@dereko1969 Thanks for your concern on my geography, but I never said that the park and rides should be in D1/D2. What I said was congestion charges could work in the D1/D2 areas of Dublin, with sufficient transport facilities to support it. Its pretty obvious that the facilities need to be outside the congestion zone area for them to work.I'm not sure geography is your strong point but having park and rides in D1/D2 would be pointless, you want park and rides much further out and that is also planned for in bus connects.
Yes Bus Connects may make a difference, when implemented. It all depends on how quickly it is done and what the real effect is once it is achieved. It also depends on how long journeys take, especially orbital ones. I have spent the guts of an hour on the 17 bus getting from Blackrock to Nutgrove - a distance I can drive in around 15 minutes on a good day. Connectivity matters, but so does speed - especially when we are talking about people commuting to/from work.www.busconnects.ie will address a lot of that, especially the orbital services, and the spine routes of which the N11 will be one should have less bunching.
Have you read Capital in the Twenty First Century ([broken link removed] Really interesting read and I'm almost certain you'll come away with a changed position on this. To be clear, the point here would not be to take capital away from the average Joe, quite the opposite in-fact, it would be to take some of it away from the generationally-extremely-wealthy and spread it more evenly to reflect the contribution of labour. For example it's not about cutting the inheritance threshold from 300k to 200k, it's about putting high rates in above 10m and maybe increasing that threshold to 1m.My point is that wealth is already hammered!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IsSpAOD6K8According to this Irish Times article there is a health overspend of at least €600m, which will further restrict room to manoeuvre.
That would decimate Ireland's Capital Acquisitions Tax take to a tiny percentage of its current level. Not a bad outcome in my book but I doubt that's what you or Piketty intend.For example it's not about cutting the inheritance threshold from 300k to 200k, it's about putting high rates in above 10m and maybe increasing that threshold to 1m.
That's one way of putting it...Ireland really isn't doing badly on the inequality front compared to other countries
Ah go on now, for the sake of easing a productive discussion could you not just accept that was an example pulled out of the air early in the morning, I obviously didn't put any research into it and did not expect it to be taken literally. I just wanted to make the point that the idea would not be to take more capital from Joe Public, you'd hopefully take less, but take more from wealthier individuals.That would decimate Ireland's Capital Acquisitions Tax take to a tiny percentage of its current level. Not a bad outcome in my book but I doubt that's what you or Piketty intend.
This point is discussed at length in the book actually, again I cannot recommend it highly enough if getting a true understanding of this stuff is interesting to you. In short though, I think the conclusion was that you would need to get to a point where there is a global effort to address this (or at least in our part of the world) to make very sweeping changes, but moderate differences in taxation on capital does not cause the fleeing of wealth that is predicated, as evidenced by differences/changes in taxation between states in the US with no significant amount of fleeing (again all from memory here, so please forgive any inaccuracies). But just because something is difficult to do or cannot be solved 100% in the first iteration, does not mean it should not be attempted.It also ignores the fact that capital and people are mobile. If I had €100m, my family wouldn’t pay a cent of CAT.
Ah go on now, for the sake of easing a productive discussion could you not just accept that was an example pulled out of the air early in the morning, I obviously didn't put any research into it and did not expect it to be taken literally. I just wanted to make the point that the idea would not be to take more capital from Joe Public, you'd hopefully take less, but take more from wealthier individuals.