Tim Hartford on Basic Income and other suggestions

In reply to a Dáil question on 24 May last, Michael Noonan provided the following figures for the dwelling house exemption:

Year – No of Claims - Cost

2011 – 565 – 45m
2012 – 499 – 38m
2013 – 538 – 35m
2014 – 614 – 41m
2015 – 741 – 52m

The €52m in 2015 was spread among 741 claimants giving an average of €70,175 per claimant.

I cannot see any evidence of abuse in those figures.
 
Only those with cars can use roads, tax breaks can only benefit people who pay tax.

Do these others not walk or cycle? Do they not avail of public transport? Do they not benefit indirectly from the reduced cost of transporting the goods they buy to their local shops? Bottom line, unless they never leave the house and are 100% self-sufficient in all regards, they benefit from the road infrastructure.
 
They do. But they can't "use" the road. Others may benefit indirectly from someone else availing of a tax break that they themselves can't avail of.
 
The main principle here is that the current system warts and all, strives to alleviate the effect of taxation and to provide welfare assistance in certain commendable circumstances.

This necessitates complexity, as personal and business circumstances are so diverse and so evolving.

The Basic Income or Flat Tax theories, while notionally striving to achieve fairness, ignore diversity and evolution.

They are too inflexible and defeat fairness and evolving economic need in favour of legal and administrative simplicity.
 
Last edited:
They do. But they can't "use" the road. Others may benefit indirectly from someone else availing of a tax break that they themselves can't avail of.

Never using the road suggests never even being a passenger in a private or public vehicle?

It's the nature of the tax/welfare system though. I don't have kids, so I can't avail of a range of tax breaks or benefits. I have a job, so can't avail of job seekers allowance...