Plans to help the Economy - posters suggestions.

[television]

- simplifying the system should result in a more understandable system. And a more understandable system should be more equitable.

I got a simple system. Those earning over 100,000 E pay no tax
those under pay 42 on all income.

Simple and equitable.

 

[television]

Certainly, with a consumption tax, low income earners would be encouraged to save and invest their income, thereby creating and building wealth.

In a tax based on consumption would thinks like education products be included, like computers, school books, etc. or perhaps perscription drugs etc,

 

[Purple]

I can see the argument for an income limit beyond which you stop paying tax (for example say € one million) as very high net worth people add to the economy in other ways.

 

[Complainer]

very high net worth people add to the economy in other ways.

Could you expand on what kind of ways HNW people add to the economy, other than in proportion to their income?

 

[Purple]

Could you expand on what kind of ways HNW people add to the economy, other than in proportion to their income?

Have a look at the big extension in Trinity College and check up on who gives money to the national art gallery and you will see what one HMW person gives. On a more mundane level rich people spend more money than poor people in the consumer economy. I would also suggest that once someone has paid over €400'000 in income tax they have paid their fair share.

Trust me, this does not apply to me (and probably never will), it’s just an observation.

 

[Complainer]

Have a look at the big extension in Trinity College and check up on who gives money to the national art gallery and you will see what one HMW person gives. On a more mundane level rich people spend more money than poor people in the consumer economy. I would also suggest that once someone has paid over €400'000 in income tax they have paid their fair share.

Trust me, this does not apply to me (and probably never will), it’s just an observation.

I specifically mentioned 'proportion' in my query. Many alumni donate to Trinity and many people donate to the national gallery, including a large team of volunteer guides.

I suspect that many of the large high-profile donations to universities have been about buying of honorary doctorates. There is no evidence that HNW donate a higher proportion of their income than others, and therefore therefore this is no justification for tax breaks.

To each according to their needs, from each according to their ability.

 

[Purple]

I specifically mentioned 'proportion' in my query. Many alumni donate to Trinity and many people donate to the national gallery, including a large team of volunteer guides.

I suspect that many of the large high-profile donations to universities have been about buying of honorary doctorates. There is no evidence that HNW donate a higher proportion of their income than others, and therefore therefore this is no justification for tax breaks.

Half of what Martin Naughton earns in a year does a lot more for the national gallery than half of what you or I earn. Many very rich people give money and no one ever hears about it.

To each according to their needs, from each according to their ability.

I think that charities would like to see the HNW guy coming before Joe Bloggs (no matter how well intentioned).
By the way, that quote is what communism is based on. I don't like it as it suggests that a drug addict who "needs" €500 a day should get more than someone who studied hard and works hard but doesn't need much to stay fed and warm.

 

[ubiquitous]

This is condescending balderdash. For Reynolds statement to carry any weight, he would have to convince people that

a) The government can and will be aware of all the possible ramifications of all the amendments, exemptions, credits and various other "complications" designed to provide more equity to the tax system.

b) That intervening in this manner will not cause inequity or negatively impact the economy (e.g. tax breaks for one industry leading to rampant overproduction to the detriment of other industries)

c) That such complications can be availed of easily by those who need them most. Who for example is more likely to apply for and avail of the plethora of extra tax credits available - low or high bracket income earners?

Its very easy to bandy about terms like "condescending balderdash" in relation to Reynolds' statement. However unless and until you are in a position to cite at least four or five concrete suggestions of ways in which they tax system can be simplified without sacrificing equity and fairness, your criticism may equally not be taken seriously.

 

[csirl]

Its very easy to bandy about terms like "condescending balderdash" in relation to Reynolds' statement. However unless and until you are in a position to cite at least four or five concrete suggestions of ways in which they tax system can be simplified without sacrificing equity and fairness, your criticism may equally not be taken seriously.

1. Flat rate of taxation for everyone - fair because everyone pays the same percentage, compliance is easy on the customer and less costly to administer.

OR

2. Lump sum rate of taxation for everyone - we are all equal citizens, so why not have everyone pay exactly the same amount of tax every year. The ultimate fair tax.

OR

3. Abolish income tax and increase the rate of VAT. Fair tax, because everyone pays in proportion to the disposable income they spend.

OR

4. Refundable tax credit system to replace both taxation and welfare. Everyone is entitled to a certain minimum income. If the earn less, they get a fully refundable tax credit for the difference (this is actual cash paid to them for those not familiar with RTCs). If they earn more, they pay a flat rate percentage on all income above this limit.


We have very little equity and fairness in our current tax system. Tax bands, exemptions, write-offs etc make it is biased in favour of some people and against others.

 

[ubiquitous]

1. Flat rate of taxation for everyone - fair because everyone pays the same percentage, compliance is easy on the customer and less costly to administer.

OR

2. Lump sum rate of taxation for everyone - we are all equal citizens, so why not have everyone pay exactly the same amount of tax every year. The ultimate fair tax.

OR

3. Abolish income tax and increase the rate of VAT. Fair tax, because everyone pays in proportion to the disposable income they spend.

OR

4. Refundable tax credit system to replace both taxation and welfare. Everyone is entitled to a certain minimum income. If the earn less, they get a fully refundable tax credit for the difference (this is actual cash paid to them for those not familiar with RTCs). If they earn more, they pay a flat rate percentage on all income above this limit.

Hard to see how any of the first 3 could be regarded as inherently fair, or at least fairer than the above system. No. 1 would see big gains for high earners, financed by low earners and those who are not earning enough to be paying tax at present. Ditto No. 2 & No. 3

No. 4 is not a tax simplification measure so I will ignore it.

ps I would be interested in how precisely you reckon that a Flat rate of taxation would mean that "compliance is easy on the customer and less costly to administer"?

 

[csirl]

Hard to see how any of the first 3 could be regarded as inherently fair, or at least fairer than the above system.

Given that they are proportionate and non-discriminating, can you explain how they are not fair? Can you also explain how the current system is fairer? I've asked loads of times over the years, but never received any explanation as to why are current regressive discriminatory tax system is fair?

Note, I've used both "regressive" and "discriminatory" in their taxation meaning which is as follows:

Regressive = paying a higher proportion of tax as your income increases.
Discriminatory = not everyone with the same income & personal circumstances pays the same tax.

ps I would be interested in how precisely you reckon that a Flat rate of taxation would mean that "compliance is easy on the customer and less costly to administer"?

Its obvious - everybody knows exactly how much tax they have to pay. Dont need an accountant, dont need to do complex calculations, very difficult to make a mistake, cant be misinterpreted. How easy can you get?

 

[ubiquitous]

Its obvious - everybody knows exactly how much tax they have to pay. Dont need an accountant, dont need to do complex calculations, very difficult to make a mistake, cant be misinterpreted. How easy can you get?

A flat tax would not make accountants redundant.

Most accountants working in industry and practice spend most of their time preparing accounts in order to calculate an entity's profit or loss for any given period. The adoption of a flat tax would not change this. All that would change would be the rate on which tax is levied on the income as calculated. Neither would it get rid of the need for employers to operate PAYE on employee earnings, nor would it (presumably) get rid of VAT.

The introduction of the standard 12.5% Corporation Tax rate for companies has increased accountants' work, not decreased or eliminated it.

 

[ubiquitous]

Given that they are proportionate and non-discriminating, can you explain how they are not fair? Can you also explain how the current system is fairer? I've asked loads of times over the years, but never received any explanation as to why are current regressive discriminatory tax system is fair?

I can only repeat my earlier post

The tax system would be simpler if
- tax relief on medical expenses was scrapped.
- tax credits for the blind/elderly/incapacitated/widowed parents following bereavement were scrapped
- tax bands were abolished
- income tax exemptions for low earners was abolished
- VAT applied to all items including food and basic necessities
- CGT applied to gains on principal private residences.

Would these steps be deemed equitable?

 

[Complainer]

Half of what Martin Naughton earns in a year does a lot more for the national gallery than half of what you or I earn.

Indeed it is. But I don't see any relevance of this in terms of your proposal for a non-proportional tax break for the super-wealthy.

Many very rich people give money and no one ever hears about it.

As do many not-so-rich people.

By the way, that quote is what communism is based on.

Did you watch the cartoon series Wait Till Your Father Gets Home as a child. There was one farcical character, the [broken link removed] who was cold war conspiracy theorist, and saw reds under the beds in every room, even those with no beds. Anyone he couldn't understand or whose world view disagreed with his own was labelled as a no-good commie.

I don't like it as it suggests that a drug addict who "needs" €500 a day should get more than someone who studied hard and works hard but doesn't need much to stay fed and warm.

It suggests absolutely nothing about what a drug addict needs, with or without the inverted quotes. Your interpretation says more about you than about communism.

 

[shnaek]

Did you watch the cartoon series Wait Till Your Father Gets Home as a child. There was one farcical character, the [broken link removed] who was cold war conspiracy theorist, and saw reds under the beds in every room, even those with no beds. Anyone he couldn't understand or whose world view disagreed with his own was labelled as a no-good commie.

Look up your quote in google. First link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_each_according_to_his_ability,_to_each_according_to_his_need


To quote from it:
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need (or needs) is a slogan popularized by Karl Marx in his 1875 Critique of the Gotha Program. The phrase summarizes the idea that, under a communist system, every person shall produce to the best of one's ability in accordance with one's talent, and each person shall receive the fruits of this production in accordance with one's need, irrespective of what one has produced. In the Marxist view, such an arrangement will be made possible by the abundance of goods and services that a developed communist society will produce; the idea is that there will be enough to satisfy everyone's needs."

 

[Purple]

Indeed it is. But I don't see any relevance of this in terms of your proposal for a non-proportional tax break for the super-wealthy.

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

As do many not-so-rich people.

I was responding to your insinuation that very rich people donate for ego or self-gratification.

Did you watch the cartoon series Wait Till Your Father Gets Home as a child. There was one farcical character, the [broken link removed] who was cold war conspiracy theorist, and saw reds under the beds in every room, even those with no beds. Anyone he couldn't understand or whose world view disagreed with his own was labelled as a no-good commie.

That was very interesting (I didn’t watch the cartoon, it was before my time J) but what’s your point? I pointed out that the phrase you used in inextricable associated with Carl Marx and communism.

It suggests absolutely nothing about what a drug addict needs, with or without the inverted quotes. Your interpretation says more about you than about communism.

It was merely an extreme case used to illustrate the innate flaw in the philosophy your espoused.

 

[Guest114]

The government should build at least three nuclear power stations. This would provide massive employment for the next few years. At the end of it, we would have cheap efficient energy (just like the French have had for years)

 

[murphaph]

One thing that hasn't been covered: energy costs. What can we do to improve efficiency or encourage alternative energy sources, or is this out of our hands?

Quite the opposite! I'm no green loony leftie but by God-we live on a windswept, wave battered, rained on rock in the North Atlantic! We should be developing these assets NOW. Wind, wave, tidal and traditional hydro renewables should be prioritised. The nuclear option must be looked at to cover gaps in the bad weather (increasingly rare, lol). The entire rail network should be electrified and local public transport massively enhanced with bold moves to take back roadspace from the private car.

The government should carefully evaluate ho much we are selling oil exploration rights for. Norway has a high standard of living due in no small part to OWNING Statoil 100%. We do not know how large our oil reserves are (if we have any) but we should be prepared to make the most of them if they materialise.

Energy self-sufficiency will be more and more important very soon.

 

[room305]

The government should carefully evaluate ho much we are selling oil exploration rights for. Norway has a high standard of living due in no small part to OWNING Statoil 100%. We do not know how large our oil reserves are (if we have any) but we should be prepared to make the most of them if they materialise.

Are you suggesting the Irish government should start drilling for oil? Maybe we should aside a certain percentage of our GDP to play the Euromillions lottery as well?

 

[Complainer]

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

I was responding to your insinuation that very rich people donate for ego or self-gratification.

Yet again, you are failing to produce any substantiation for your proposal for a non-proportional tax. There is no evidence that HNW donate a high percentage of their salary. Indeed, the figures released by Revenue in the last 12 months showed that (iirc) the average percentage of tax paid by those with income over €1million was in the region of 11%. The many tax breaks kindly provided by McCreevy and Cowan pay nothing near their fair share of tax at present, and yet you propose another break? Give us a break, will ya?

That was very interesting (I didn’t watch the cartoon, it was before my time J) but what’s your point? I pointed out that the phrase you used in inextricable associated with Carl Marx and communism.

It was merely an extreme case used to illustrate the innate flaw in the philosophy your espoused.

The point is that when you start seeing reds under the bed in every theory, you've somewhat lost the plot. Try understanding the words rather than digging up irrelevant historical context or making up extreme hypothetical cases, and you might just find some enlightenment.