Paying for everything with other people's money

TheBigShort said:
I was answering the question put in the thread. It would be good to know what your answer is, and the perhaps the basis for that answer.
Click to expand...
So you won't answer my questions then. Of course you don't have to but it does weaken your position when you won't give a view on these core issues.
 


Completely agree with this especially (b).
 
Purple said:
So you won't answer my questions then. Of course you don't have to but it does weaken your position when you won't give a view on these core issues.
Click to expand...

It doesn't weaken my position, because I have answered the question that was put in the thread and the basis for that answer.
You haven't answered the question, so you have no position, neither weak or strong.
I was hoping to avoid repetition, but here is my answer from earlier post and the basis for that answer.


Do you have an answer to the OP question?
 
My view is that we need to go back to the sort of income tax system we had in the mid 90's or maybe the Swedish model.
I paid income tax and PRSI as a first year apprentice. PRSI was paid on the first pound (punt) earned. I went onto the higher tax band as a third year apprentice (I was working in excess of 60 pay hours a week). Someone doing the same thing now doesn't pay any tax. I find that wrong, immoral and damaging to society. We cannot keep punishing people for working and creating wealth.
We need to broaden the tax base generally through things like property tax, water charges, wealth taxes, etc. and we need to broaden the payroll tax base by getting everyone, yes everyone, who works to pay some payroll taxes. The specifics can be decided by people who have access to all the numbers.

I agree with the proposals above that the rates of unemployment benefit should be tied to how much people have paid in, make it a pay related social insurance system, and that longer term rates should be lower. That could be done by freezing the current rates for long term unemployed and only increasing the short term rates over the coming decades.
Small steps.
 
TheBigShort said:
Here is the question again. Anything from Yes/No/Dunno will suffice at this stage.
Click to expand...
Why do you keep trying to deflect from the overall substantive issue by deflecting/directing towards the specific? This is a discussion forum. We are not the Department of Finance. The discussion is about the general nature and balance of our taxation and welfare systems.
 

I'm not diverging at all. A specific question was asked, I have answered the question and provided the basis for that answer. You can do the same if you want. If you don't want then fine. But to answer the specific question asked by the OP may go someway to understanding your position on other substantive issues.
 
The substantive issue from the OP was;

gnf_ireland said:
Over the last few weeks, the usual budget discussions have occured were everyone wants increased spending using other peoples money. Maybe its time to decide what type of services we want, and how we fund them.
Click to expand...

Stop deflecting the discussion into the minutia of a particular point.
I have outlined my opinions above.
 

Purple said:
So you won't answer my questions then. Of course you don't have to but it does weaken your position when you won't give a view on these core issues.
Click to expand...

I get it, if I don't answer your question, I'm

Purple said:
.... trying to deflect from the overall substantive issue by deflecting/directing towards the specific?
Click to expand...

But if you don't answer the OP question, that's just fine and dandy!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register