Should we pay more tax to have a better society?

OK, a major point emerging so far seems to be that public spending is too wasteful for taxation to be rehabilitated as a social responsibility/good rather than a burden. But that could be fixed (in the long term of course) with better implementation, better oversight, better regulation. As one poster correctly pointed out, the state is us. Surely that is within the realm of the possible? Difficult of course - decades of entrenched wasteful practices to reverse, but not inconceivable.

It would take political will, and political reforms to encourage politicians to work in the public interest rather than the interests of their constituencies or other supporters.

I don't think it's self evident that spending efficiency is only possible within the private sector. We are talking about observable human behaviour here, not some sort of black box where public money just 'disappears'. Inefficiencies within any system are exploitable but also fixable, surely?

But even if that wasn't a major issue, we'd have to address the second major point emerging, which is that people act rationally to maximise their own interest, extracting as many services as possible while paying as little as possible (and the nursing home fair deal example suggests that the wealthy are as likely to do this as the poor). I suppose education plays a large part here - maybe it's possible to convince people that the public interest, in theory at least, is superior to personal interest. Or at least that we can have a better combination of the two.

The question of personal responsibility inevitably emerges - people should just look after themselves. But take that to its extreme conclusion and there is no medical care or social care or education provided from public funds at all (assuming all the private, efficiently run hospitals and nursing homes and schools and universities and prisons and psychological services have a heart and provide a system of pro bono or reduced fees for those who genuinely can't afford it). Is that what we want? Personally I don't want to always have to choose services that are run on the most productive and profitable methods, thank you very much.

Is it not inevitable that our system of economic organisation, whatever we want to call it, benefits some people more than others, and maybe it's OK for those people to give back more - in real terms, not the marginal tax rates that everyone likes to quote. If a significant chunk of your salary is taxable at the top rate, you probably have plenty of opportunities to mitigate that, and there are certainly plenty of financial professionals willing to help. For example, the opportunity for (perfectly legal) tax avoidance in order to give your children a leg up (the inheritance tax issue that prompted the OP) - a natural, loving, protective instinct towards your own family, but inherently unfair - your offspring are now advantaged, inheriting as an accident of birth, nothing to do with personal responsibility and looking after yourself.

Personal responsibility is great, but not everyone is as fortunate as everyone else, and a good society has a duty of care towards others.
 
A better society could be achieved for a large portion of the Irish population by implementing levelling up. Start with a few basics such as health care and transport.

For instance the hospitals on the west of Ireland continually have the highest number of patients on beds in corridors. I think these hospitals will only get worse when the much awaited children’s hospital opens up, more funds and resources will have to be allocated to this hospital. That is after spending hundreds if not billions more than originally budgeted.

Transport is another area where levelling up is required for a better society . The Public transport model on the more efficent east coast will not work on the more costly rural west coast. Private forms of transport will not be replaced on the west coast of Ireland until public transport is truly implemented for all.
 
The question asked:- Should we pay more tax to have a better society?
The Truthful Answer:- No.

What is a better society?
Who will achieve it?

I’m in my 70’s and along the way all I’ve seen is unqualifying people faking incomes and telling blatant lies to obtain state help. Joe Soap who pays for everything qualifies for nothing and still pays for everything.

C’mon Lep, that can’t be true? Yes it is and here’s my experience:-
1. I was ballotted out of a secondary school county council scholarship because of the nationality of my paternal grandfather. I had qualified but informed there had been too many qualifiers.
2. Mortgage Application - I told the truth on application and failed to qualify for a local authority mortgage as my earnings were marginally over the limit.
3. None of our children qualified for any university grant - Again our earnings were just over the limit.
4. SEAI advertised Home Improvement grants - You’ve guessed it? Ol’ Lep’s pensions were just over the limit.

In all of the foregoing I know of many people who “daw-faked” application forms to get what they were not entitled to. I don’t think there is any reason to believe having me paying more tax will improve my situation. I’ve paid enough tax to improve the situations of people who’d be challenged to tell the truth if asked what date is Christmas Day? In a nutshell I have a better chance of becoming Miss Venezuela 2024 than to expect a better society in Ireland.
 

You did the right thing, fair play.

I know it's difficult to find definitive figures, but white collar crime seems to be a far bigger problem than welfare fraud.
 
Last edited:
I know it's difficult to find definitive figures, but white collar crime seems to be a far bigger problem than welfare fraud.
I'm just wondering whether you have any evidence to support that claim?

I've worked in accounting for 36 years now, the last 21 of them in public practice, and the only white collar frauds I have encountered in my career have been two separate cases in the mid 1990s where staff defrauded their employers.

On the other hand, I have dealt with and advised upon a significantly higher number of cases of inheritances where the Dept of Social Protection charged in most cases six-figure lump sum liabilities to the estates of the deceased, because the deceased had fraudulently claimed non-contributory pension throughout their retirement.

That would seem to suggest that social welfare fraud is extremely commonplace, far more so than the stories we occasionally hear of charities and businesses being embezzeled by staff or officials.

The official statistics seem to bear this out. The latest (2022/23) CSO statistics found 10,366 cases of fraud (meaning crime involving fraud, deception and related offences) in a 12 month period.

I find it hard to believe that less than 10,366 people defrauded the welfare system in the same period.
 
Last edited:
1. I was ballotted out of a secondary school county council scholarship because of the nationality of my paternal grandfather. I had qualified but informed there had been too many qualifiers.
This was some arcane decision from the 1960s and nothing to do with tax.

You were over the limits in each case and the caps are there for a reason.

You mention you have children - that's a massive exchequer refund for you right there.
 
I'm just wondering whether you have any evidence to support that claim?

Well, as I said, it's difficult to find definitive figures.

I'd argue that the total number of cases is much less important than the total impact of each type of crime.

An Oireachtas Library's 'Spotlight' from 2011 estimated that social welfare 'fraud and error' in Ireland were broadly in line with international levels of 2.4 - 4.4%. However error was a bigger issue than fraud, so less than half of that total lost by the system to fraud and error is actual fraud. 2023 Dept of Social Protection budget was about 23 billion. So, broadly, 'fraud and error' is probably somewhere between 500m to 1 billion. Fraud is less than half of that, so maybe 250-500 million?

White collar crime figures are harder to come across (and arguably a portion of white collar fraud is also welfare fraud, as in some of the cases you mentioned yourself above). Transparency Ireland has mentioned a figure of €2.5 billion 'lost to Ireland' (not necessarily the same as lost to the exchequer, I suppose) due to 'economic crime', another term for corporate and white collar crime. That was from 2016.

(And let's not forget about the levels of wrongdoing in Irish banks and the property sector - not included in any of those figures, to the best of my knowledge)

I agree the two types of crime are difficult to compare - more data required. But the information we do have is at least partially revealing. In regards to welfare waste, fixing the levels of error should be within our grasp, which would make more of a difference than eliminating welfare fraud, which grabs probably more headlines than it deserves.
 
So, broadly, 'fraud and error' is probably somewhere between 500m to 1 billion. Fraud is less than half of that, so maybe 250-500 million?
Why do you suggest so? I can't imagine a single one of the pensioners who are wrongly claiming OAP non-contributory pension are doing so genuinely in error.
(and arguably a portion of white collar fraud is also welfare fraud, as in some of the cases you mentioned yourself above).
Arguably how? You said earlier:
I know it's difficult to find definitive figures, but white collar crime seems to be a far bigger problem than welfare fraud.

If you're now saying that they're partly indistinguishable, doesn't that totally undermine this claim?

Transparency Ireland has mentioned a figure of €2.5 billion 'lost to Ireland' (not necessarily the same as lost to the exchequer, I suppose) due to 'economic crime', another term for corporate and white collar crime. That was from 2016.
Neither Transparency International nor Transparency Ireland have any credibility as far as I'm concerned.
(And let's not forget about the levels of wrongdoing in Irish banks and the property sector - not included in any of those figures, to the best of my knowledge)
I thought it was fraud we were discussing?
I agree the two types of crime are difficult to compare
I agree. But it was you who made the original claim that
white collar crime seems to be a far bigger problem than welfare fraud.
with very little to substantiate it.
 
Why do you suggest so? I can't imagine a single one of the pensioners who are wrongly claiming OAP non-contributory pension are doing so genuinely in error.
I suggest fraud is less than error because that's what the report/briefing says. Copy here. Error occurs at both ends of the system - but I think that report is dealing mainly with errors at the administrative end.

Arguably how? You said earlier:
Well, that was based on your mention of what I presume are middle class or other white collar persons fraudulently claiming non-contributory pensions. Maybe I misunderstood your post?

If you're now saying that they're partly indistinguishable, doesn't that totally undermine this claim?
No, I don't think it undermines the claim - if anything it makes it stronger, if part of the white collar crime is also welfare fraud (including fraudulent pension claims).

Neither Transparency International nor Transparency Ireland have any credibility as far as I'm concerned.
OK, but you will see that figure or close to it mentioned by others if you look. I do agree that better data would be useful, as I mentioned.

I thought it was fraud we were discussing?
Well let's not be too pedantic! Surely some of the activities that brought down the Irish banks - local instantiations of the global banking crisis, but with interesting local flavours. I believe 'fraud' covers some of these practices, and they certainly fall within the category of white collar crime (think of our friend Mr. Lynn for example. And lots of others.)

I agree. But it was you who made the original claim that

with very little to substantiate it.

I did my best to substantiate from the figures I could find, and to suggest they were far from perfect. My wording was that white collar crime "seems to be" a far bigger problem. Those are the figures that are 'out there'. Maybe others can provide better figures.
 
I suggest fraud is less than error because that's what the report/briefing says. Copy here.
You'll have to provide a more specific reference than a bare link to a 16 page document if you expect anyone to bother following it.

Error occurs at both ends of the system - but I think that report is dealing mainly with errors at the administrative end.
Fraud and error are mutually exclusive.
Well, that was based on your mention of what I presume are middle class or other white collar persons fraudulently claiming non-contributory pensions. Maybe I misunderstood your post?
You sure did.

I made no reference whatsoever to social class in respect to non-contributory pension fraud.
Mr Lynn hasn't been in business for almost 20 years at this stage.
.My wording was that white collar crime "seems to be" a far bigger problem. Those are the figures that are 'out there'. Maybe others can provide better figures.
Ok.
 
As long as Unions have an effective veto over reforms in the State sector we won’t see any meaningful reforms. They are a cancer on this country.
 
You'll have to provide a more specific reference than a bare link to a 16 page document if you expect anyone to bother following it.
Not sure why. What do you think of what it says on those 16 pages? I summarised some of the key findings and applied to current welfare levels. It specifically attempts to quantify fraud levels and administrative error levels. If anyone has better or more recent data, I’d love to see it as welfare fraud is one of those topics we hear a lot about but seem to have little real data on.

Fraud and error are mutually exclusive.
Exactly, and that is a point dealt with in the document. If there are better documents on Irish welfare fraud levels with better data and analysis I’m happy to review. I only mentioned in the first place in response to other comments in the discussion. If we are worried about fraud and waste due to incompetence with public money, let’s start with quantification where we can. I attempted to start doing so from some (imperfect) data in relation to one large are of govt public expenditure - social welfare.
You sure did.
I made no reference whatsoever to social class in respect to non-contributory pension fraud.
OK.

Mr Lynn hasn't been in business for almost 20 years at this stage.

Ok, but that doesn’t negate the point.
 
Last edited:
Ok, but that doesn’t negate the point.
It rather does. If you have to go back to the mid-2000s for an example of something you claim to be representative of current practice, what does that say about the point you're making?
 
As long as Unions have an effective veto over reforms in the State sector we won’t see any meaningful reforms. They are a cancer on this country.

Union power in Ireland is exaggerated and it suits the government to allow unions to take the blame.

Doctors had to go on strike to force the government/HSE to begin to enforce employment laws after decades on the books. The compromise was a maximum shift of 24(!) hours which is still routinely ignored. We used to regularly start at 8am on a Monday, work on site through the night, maybe 3 hours of sleep, then operate the next day, finishing 6pm on the Tuesday. Back to work 8am Wednesday. Rinse and repeat, for years. Illegal and unsafe but not a secret so no use whistleblowing. If the unions couldn't stop that then they are hardly pulling the strings.

James Reilly unilaterally cut new consultant pay by 30%. Caused huge issues with recruitment and retention, took a decade to resolve, increased waiting lists. Again, the medical unions could not stop it.

Non-union workers in both public and private sectors benefit from union activity, e.g. many private companies have to match or exceed public pay and conditions in order to compete. I would not work in Ireland if I didn't have union representation.
 
It rather does. If you have to go back to the mid-2000s for an example of something you claim to be representative of current practice, what does that say about the point you're making?

It was an aside, not a main point at all, hence placed in parentheses.
 
Last edited:
Union power in Ireland is exaggerated and it suits the government to allow unions to take the blame.
Union power in Ireland is only significant in the protected sectors of the economy, the ones that aren't open to real competition. They are significant for the change that they can prevent from happening but not much use at actually protecting their individual members.
Their strength in the State sector is that they are negotiating with people on the other side of the table who are also unionised. In the open parts of the economy they just close businesses. It's not the pay claims, it's the restrictive practices.

I've no problem paying taxes, they are the cost of civilisation. I have a problem with the parasitic nature of Irish Unions who are vested interest groups representing middle and high income earners, protecting the haves from the have not's and so inflicting suffering on the most vulnerable in society.
 
Good vs evil for most people is directly linked to how does affect me or what is in it for me.

Our political structures are designed to prevent any one side having an overwhelming advantage.
This has its benefits but by its nature results in a compromise outcome.


We regularly hear slogans like "tax the rich" from one side and, there are huge inefficiencies in civil/public/HSE from the other side.
I've no problem paying taxes, they are the cost of civilisation. I have a problem with the parasitic nature of Irish Unions
This side tends to be slightly more represented on here.


Most things in life are complicated.

No matter what you do someone will screech "unfair".
That however is not an excuse to do nothing.

A good plan now is far better than the most fabulous plan tomorrow.
We need to understand and accept that decisions are often made based on the best current available information.

Even having a long term strategy (one that lasts more than one election cycle) is not the answer.
Accept the plan and forget this "takes ownership" rubbish.
Review the plan and if its not working do something to fix it.


Communist utopia has failed.
Laisse faire marketplace has failed.
Light touch regulation has failed.

We need to keep trying.
Who knows we may get it right eventually.

There are problem's?
Yes.
Is it as bad as we are painting?
No
Can things be improved?
Qualified yes.


haves from the have not's
and
the most vulnerable in society

We glibly throw these phrases about but never quantify what we actually mean.

The guy with a million euro will always feel hard done by when compared to JP but yet they are streets ahead of me.
So in this select group I must put myself in the "most vulnerable" category.
 
In my opinion we don't need a full-time highly paid Dáil or even all the ministers etc. that we have (and the constitution sets a minimum which would be enough).

This country is way too small, and the EU makes way too many decisions these days that are rubber stamped by the Dáil.

The Dáil has lost any real impact since it's now a rubber stamp organization with occasional theater to show that we are living in a "democracy".

Just look at what the government benches do when the opposition speaks or questions them, reading documents, making some noises occasionally, it's theater and not a real exchange of valid viewpoints or even real debate to change minds. And we pay a lot of money for this poor-quality theater performance.

We could run this country with a part time Dáil and a small government if we just streamline services, reform the public sector to focus on providing service with limited management overhead and get with the times.

There are too many hard-working frontline staff (be it in the HSE or other services) that all get blamed for the bad management of the organization, wasteful spending driven by poor oversight or over management.

But nothing of this will change at next election either because it's just going to be the same shower of TD's that will be elected, sure they will have even less of a majority (but at least this time they can claim they went into election to once again team up for the good of the country defending democracy from the evil alternative).

Things will only change if people elect alternative candidates, and we have a real discussion of where we want to go as a society and how we address the challenges ahead of us.

But as long as each election the same old professional politicians are elected and there is on real discussion about our future, we will continue to have to cough up higher individual taxes either as direct or indirect taxes and higher cost of living (than alternative countries).

And once the big companies that really make up the commercial engine of this country start shedding more jobs and Ireland must transfer substantial amounts of collected Tax from those companies to other countries, we are going to face even more problems but again where is the discussion?