"We are the only OECD state where some get back more than they pay in income tax"

What happens once their kids are all too old for the child benefit.

Are they better off then?
 
I'll take your word for it.

Good.


The I would be inclined to hire the 25yr old teacher. What exactly is the point here?

Then he is discriminating based on age. Do you agree with this?

No. Because he does hire 20+ yrs olds. They are easier to hire. It is hard to find mature, reliable staff. It is his preference to hire mature reliable staff. They turn up on time, get on with the job, don't need as much supervision etc. The problem as I see it, is he tries to pay the same hourly rate as an inexperienced, unreliable 21yr old. He does this on the basis that the job is low skilled, and Labour supply is plentiful. He does not factor in a sufficient premium for having reliable experienced staff.
 
Eh? The example you posted showed that people on low to medium incomes in Sweden pay far more tax, in return for better social services.

I posted an example showing that low and middle earners in Ireland pay vastly less tax in Ireland than in Sweden while high earners pay very slightly less tax here. To that you responded
"I couldn't ask for a more illustrative example of how devoid the commentators on this site, that persistently attack low income earners and welfare recipients for not 'paying their share', are than the example above."
What has the quality of services provided got to do with the way in which the burden for paying for those services is applied?

Why make the tax system more unfair in the utterly groundless hope that increases in spending will improve services? During the boom we say massive increases in spending in areas such as health and education. During the same period we saw no discernible improvement in the quality of, or outcomes from, those services. Since the crash there have been some minor cuts to the funding of those services. We have seen no discernible decline in the quality of, or outcomes from, those services.
Why do you think paying people more money to do the same jobs will make them do those jobs better?
 
Additional cancer treatments will save money in the longer term as it will reduce the cost of treating people with advanced cancer.



For sure, why wouldn't they?
Because they always oppose redundancies in the State sector. A good example is the 3000 unnecessary people employed in Irish Water who were moved from local councils. That’s a massive cost to the State. How many other examples are there of duplication or service and/or process throughout the State in the HSE, local government and semi-State sectors? The one thing they all have in common is they are Unionised and they have very low levels of labour flexibility.


I agree completely. The former “Commercial” Semi-State businesses (an oxymoron if ever there was one) need to be completely open to competition. The only thing worse than a State monopoly is a private sector monopoly.

You could include Banking in your list.
 
If you are right then he's not very good at running his business. Your Staff is your biggest asset and while you can train skills you cannot train an attitude. It is worth hiring the right attitude and being willing to pay a premium for it.
 
Last edited:
Anyone with common sense should know why the tax system is the way it is.I don't see any way is could be changed without people wanting change. lots of people who can afford to put money into there pensions do so to avoid income tax so they are not pushing for change.It is the people with family/mortages/high rent who are under pressure,This is putting pressure on wages you only have to look at the Garda dispute over wages it was fought over the cost of high rents for new garda it finished up with all garda and retired Garda getting a wage increase .They only way of getting back some of this money is through taxing the higher earning garda along with everyone else .The only people finishing up paying this extra tax will be the people who cannot afford to take advantage of the tax break.people who really need the extra pay will pay income tax people who don't will not.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Anyone with common sense should know why the tax system is the way it is.
Yea, populist left wing politicians and a populist left wing media telling lies about who pays for what in the State. Putting money into your pension is not what it used to be and it was only ever deferred taxation, not a tax break.
 
I will agree with you that the tax man is investing along with the people who can afford to .You are missing the point that it is driving up the cost on people who cant do so right now and it will have long term cost to the state for the people who cannot afford to because of the system .I never voted for a left wing party and never will but i have to say it is the so called right wing parties who are causing most of the problems you are on about .I think the party who you said you support are in power now so it wont get any better than this for you.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
What is driving up the cost on people?
Is it the gross waste of money which is endemic across the State Sector?
Is it the fact that long term welfare rates are the same as short term rates?
Is it vested interests lobbying weak governments to do things which damage the population at large, be they Unions pushing for pay rises we can't afford or the Construction Industry pushing for tax breaks to subsidise their own grossly inefficient sector.
 
Yes and the most right wing party in this country right now are in power they are rolling over for vested interests to tickle there belly.
 
Yes and the most right wing party in this country right now are in power they are rolling over for vested interests to tickle there belly.
FG are well left of center and the biggest vest interest group in the country is ICTU.
 
No. Because he does hire 20+ yrs olds. They are easier to hire. It is hard to find mature, reliable staff. It is his preference to hire mature reliable staff. They turn up on time, get on with the job, don't need as much supervision etc.

Change the word "young" below for black, muslim, or women and change the word "old" for white, catholic or men and tell me is this is not discrimination!


A colleague of mine, whose husband runs a small cafe is loathe to hire young people in their 20's. Always ringing in sick, wanting to swap shifts for one party or another. He prefers mature reliable staff.
 
Change the word "young" below for black, muslim, or women and change the word "old" for white, catholic or men and tell me is this is not discrimination!

You are getting ahead of yourself here. He doesn't discriminate against young people. He has about 6 teens and 20+ employees on his books.
He would prefer to have more mature staff. He considers them to be more reliable, better productivity, less supervision. That is his opinion.
He finds it hard to find these worker's. Probably due to the wages (more or less minimum wage) he offers. Perhaps he can't afford to offer higher wages, perhaps he is tight with his money. Either way it's his business and he gets what he pays for.
There is no discrimination case here. There would be if he refused to employ someone on the basis of what age they were.
 

Still not buying it. Using words like prefer and considers to justify the stereoptyping based on age and actively trying to recruit one age profile over another is still discrimination. I would have expected something better from an egalitarian like you!

Consider the flip-side, if he "is loathe to hire elderly people...Always ringing in sick, wanting to swap shifts for (my change: one reason or another). He prefers younger reliable staff." and this was made public how do you think Age Action would act?
 
What has the quality of services provided got to do with the way in which the burden for paying for those services is applied?

Everything.

You keep pointing to the 'unfair' burden on high earners relative to low and medium earners. You also point to the lack of quality in our public services relative to places like Sweden.
But you dismiss the concept that to increase the tax burden on low and middle incomes will require a return on better services provided. But you are convinced that that would not occur

Why do you think paying people more money to do the same jobs will make them do those jobs better?

So you want to rebalance the tax system by increasing tax on low and medium earners, in return for what? Zero.
 
Still not buying it. Using words like prefer and considers to justify the stereoptyping based on age and actively trying to recruit one age profile over another is still discrimination.

Please, this is nonsense. It is only discrimination if it can be shown to have actually happened. It hasn't happened. He employs young people. But by virtue of their age, and experience, in his opinion they are harder to manage. This is not stereotyping, this is the experience of the employer, this is his opinion. It hasn't stopped him recruiting young people.
He is fully within his right not to hire someone if he believes they are not capable of meeting the required standards. He may deduce, perhaps from an interview, that a particular job applicant will not meet those standards. If that applicant happens to be 20yrs old, it is not discrimination.
 
Everything.
How so?

You keep pointing to the 'unfair' burden on high earners relative to low and medium earners. You also point to the lack of quality in our public services relative to places like Sweden.
Yes, I do.

But you dismiss the concept that to increase the tax burden on low and middle incomes will require a return on better services provided. But you are convinced that that would not occur
I'm not sure what you are saying here. The two sentences don't see to be linked.
I think we should get better services without increasing taxes through more efficient organisational structures and people just doing their jobs properly. If we just give more money to inefficient organisations and pay more money to people who think mediocrity is okay then the money will just be wasted.

So you want to rebalance the tax system by increasing tax on low and medium earners, in return for what? Zero.
The return would be fairness and as more people contribute more people would look for value. At the moment most people are net recipients and many contribute nothing so as they are getting services for nothing they are not concerned with the value for money those services represent. When the next hair-brained socialist/populist scheme is proposed more people would ask themselves "I wonder what they's going to cost me?". That's no bad thing. It's also good for society when as many people as possible contribute as it strengthens the social contract and provides solidarity amongst us citizens.
 
The return would be fairness and as more people contribute more people would look for value

But it still wouldn't be fair. You identity a country like Sweden and point to the tax regime AND the quality of public services.
Here you want to increase taxes on low and middle earners but claim, even if we did that, there will be NO improvement in services, so what is the point? What is the point in increasing taxes on lower earners if there is not a corresponding improvement in services? It would appear that this argument is wholly based on the (your) perception of what is fair and what is not.
 
At the moment we should have a fairer taxation system in which low and middle earners pay their fair share. Without any changes in services that should be addressed. Therefore we should balance our tax burden at the same relative levels they have in Sweden; pay tax at the same progressive levels they do there.
Then we should strive to have average levels of services relative to the money we currently spend. I know we should strive for excellence but lets be realistic and strive for average.
Then, when that's done, if we want more services we should increase spending and fund that spending by increasing taxation to Swedish levels while at the same time trying to get our levels of value for money in Public Services into the top 25% of the OECD. That way fewer people would die unnecessarily in our hospitals, commit suicide, leave school functionally illiterate, live with no support for mental health issues or freeze to death on our streets. Those are the sort of things which happen when money is wasted and a culture of mediocrity is accepted.