The Fine Gael thread

[Maguire01]

I think it's more a case that a government subsidy to Irish Water will make up the difference for the initial years when the charge is capped. With the revised charges, Irish Water won't be self funding in these years. That's my understanding anyway.

[muppet]

Lar wrote:

"I'd love think that Coalition policies played a major part in stopping the recession but, going by the way in which it handled the water tax issue, I'm damn sure it didn't. "

Well that's an Irish trait, blaming them for what goes wrong and giving them no credit for what goes right. I don't think even Jesus Christ would have come out of Irish Water unscathed and he was a man who could turn it into wine. There's a lot who are not on breadline and simply believe it's a god given right to have free water. Mind you you won't see them drinking the stuff the Gods piss with abandon from the sky or the polluted stuff that fills our rivers and lakes, that we as irish people are solely responsible for (not Europe, not the Brits). Then you have those that believe it should always be state run, as if that is somehow better. CIE anyone? Then there's those who think it magically comes from taps for free, even though Dublin will soon have a huge shortage and needs to drain Lough Ree abd Lougn Derg and it's only a matter of time before what happened in Galway and Roscommon happens all over the country. Then we'll have a water system that is not only 40% wasted in leaks but littered with disease carrying bacteria. And the people will shout why didn't we fix this problem. And the answer will be that as a race of people we are a right shower of thickos who have no problem buying The Sun and The Mirror or heading off to NYC to fill the auld suitcase  and paying to watch our English soccer teams on Sky to Mr Murdoch but God forbid we cough up to invest in the single most important resource in our country.

Arrah, g'wan outa that!   

It's a mighty fine rant alright but most of it has little or nothing to do with anything I wrote. Can anyone recall  a single statement from any govt. source, predicting that we'd have a turnaround in our economy before it actually came to pass? 

More to the point, can you? 

No, I don't think that pointing out the obvious is an Irish trait, quite the opposite in fact. I am also prepared to give the government proper credit wherever and whenever it's due. Trouble is I have found sweet FA to date to suggest that they are getting on top of our economic problems.   

Can you point out an example of anything they did that I'm overlooking and I'll gladly retract that statement.   

For the record, I said in an earlier post on this thread that I am in favour of a water tax. It's the least odious of all the levies that have been brought in since the economy went belly up. I also agree wholeheartedly that there are plenty of people who are not on the breadline who could afford to pay a fair an equitable levy but refuse to do so. 

 

But what about the countless thousands who are on the breadline, those who haven't a pot to piss in? 

Do you accept that there are multitudes of children who arrive in school every day without having had a decent breakfast or that many teachers either buy or make up sandwiches out of sheer pity and concern? Don't take my word for it, there's plenty of evidence for those who are prepared to look around them. Ask any teacher you know if kids arrive in their classroom who are ravenous with hunger or if they have heard of this happening in any other classroom or school. I'll leave the answer to you because I'm pretty confident they will back up what I am saying to you. 

Sure, we can do without another CIE but we're landed with the mother of all quangoes instead. 

Lemme see now.... 

First Irish Water was set up and a Board was appointed. So far, so good. 

Before a tap was turned on, the  board announced details of their proposed bonuses. WE were also told that if we used less water, the tariffs would be increased. They also demanded our PPS details and, if my memory is correct the original plan was to sell off Irish Water to the private sector after a few years. 

Oh and a few thousand former Bord Gais employees were going to landed onto the payroll even though there was no work for the. But, since they were approaching retirement age and all would be gone within 6 or 7 years, we shouldn't be unduly bothered about it. 

Then the all important issue of tariffs was dealt with. Those figures weren't arrived at after a detailed study of our actual requirements and without taking peoples' ability to pay into consideration. Instead, we were treated to the spectacle of a political dogfight  in the lead up to the local election, as each party  sought save its political skin.   

After a serious mauling in the polls, followed shortly after by an unprecedented  display of protest when over 150,00 took to the streets to show their opposition to the  proposed charges, we had a complete back down by our supposed leaders. Enda then chipped in his tuppence worth by declaring his opposition to the payment of bonuses.   

John Tierney then took centre stage when he went ahead anyway and announced his proposed bonus system.  According to him, bonuses would be paid to personnel whose work was sub-standard. 

Good God, you wouldn't get the likes of this in the Beano. I'd settle for another CIE if I had to make the choice. 

BTW, one of my nieces told mew that under the original proposed tariffs, she'd would have had to come up with a total of €548 to pay the household charges. Now the demand is down to €160 and if she gets the promised €100 sweetener, she will get away with just €60. 

So €548 was demanded and €60 will be accepted. Someone got the figures seriously wrong somewhere along the line. It's a case of the monkeys being in complete control of the zoo.

That is what the media and the opposition called it.

The way it was set up was that that last (say) 10% of their pay would be performance based. That means that while their equivalent in the other semi-states get full pay even if they are completely useless, the Irish Water mandarins can actually be penalised for their uselessness. (I would make it 50% of their salary. This was actually a good start at dealing with duds in the Civil Service.

But needless to say someone called it a 'bonus culture' and the lemmings ran over the cliff.

[armaghniac]

The concept of a bonus need not in itself be a problem, the only issue is on what basis the bonus is paid.
But this is part of the problem, all these issues lie in the detail and people only want to rant and ignore the detail.

[muppet]

The concept of a bonus need not in itself be a problem, the only issue is on what basis the bonus is paid.
But this is part of the problem, all these issues lie in the detail and people only want to rant and ignore the detail.

Exactly.

Getting behind Higgins (who does this every few years and makes a good TDs salary out of it), Ruth Coppinger, Paul Murphy & Claire Daly and the usual ex-Militant Labour pseudo-revolutionaries is simply naive imho.

The you have Boyd-Barrett (who wants to replace Irish Water with a Wealth Tax) and Brendan Ogle, who I am certain have nothing but the best interests of Irish citizens at heart.

[Mike Sheehy]

I never suggested we should 'bridge the rest of the deficit by increasing incomes tax rates' or anything like it. I'm saying that we should pay for improvements to public services by increasing tax rates at the top. There is little evidence that this proves a disincentive to work and plenty that it doesn't, e.g. just about every country on the continent.

Can you define exactly what you mean by "tax rates at the top" and your justification for targeting that bracket ?

[armaghniac]

I never suggested we should 'bridge the rest of the deficit by increasing incomes tax rates' or anything like it. I'm saying that we should pay for improvements to public services by increasing tax rates at the top. There is little evidence that this proves a disincentive to work and plenty that it doesn't, e.g. just about every country on the continent.

Can you define exactly what you mean by "tax rates at the top" and your justification for targeting that bracket ?

Watching Vincent Browne last night he had Boyd Barrett and some other leftie on. These advocated increased taxes on the rich, Browne suggest that there weren't that many rich people and that everyone earning more than €50,000 would have to pay more. This calculation wasn't very welcome to Boyd-Barrett, and when he was prattling about a wealth tax Browne said that the wealthy would just leave.

The Irish tax system is already one of the most progressive in the OECD, 6.1% of Irish taxpayers pay 61% of income tax.

[muppet]

I never suggested we should 'bridge the rest of the deficit by increasing incomes tax rates' or anything like it. I'm saying that we should pay for improvements to public services by increasing tax rates at the top. There is little evidence that this proves a disincentive to work and plenty that it doesn't, e.g. just about every country on the continent.

Can you define exactly what you mean by "tax rates at the top" and your justification for targeting that bracket ?

Watching Vincent Browne last night he had Boyd Barrett and some other leftie on. These advocated increased taxes on the rich, Browne suggest that there weren't that many rich people and that everyone earning more than €50,000 would have to pay more. This calculation wasn't very welcome to Boyd-Barrett, and when he was prattling about a wealth tax Browne said that the wealthy would just leave.

The Irish tax system is already one of the most progressive in the OECD, 6.1% of Irish taxpayers pay 61% of income tax.

Boyd-Barrett and co want that 6% to pay more.

[Rossfan]

Higgins , Ruth Coppinger, Paul Murphy & Claire Daly and the usual ex-Militant Labour pseudo-revolutionaries ..... Boyd-Barrett (who wants to replace Irish Water with a Wealth Tax) and Brendan Ogle, who I am certain have nothing but the best interests of Irish citizens at heart.

Indeed. They'll have us on the high road to North Korea in no time.

[deiseach]

The Irish tax system is already one of the most progressive in the OECD, 6.1% of Irish taxpayers pay 61% of income tax.

You're combining 'tax system' with 'income tax system'. The bottom 10 per cent of the population pay out 30.5 per cent of their income in total tax, while the top 10 per cent pay 29.6 per cent.

[Mike Sheehy]

But why should that top 10 percent pay more ?

What you seem to fail to understand (or understand all too well..I can never figure out which ) is that a person can work for 20-30 years to get into what is considered a "tax rate at the top" . Stop trying to penalize people for working hard and succeeding. Let them reap the rewards of their efforts.They deserve it.

[macdanger2]

But why should that top 10 percent pay more ?

What you seem to fail to understand (or understand all too well..I can never figure out which ) is that a person can work for 20-30 years to get into what is considered a "tax rate at the top" . Stop trying to penalize people for working hard and succeeding. Let them reap the rewards of their efforts.They deserve it.

The top 10% more should pay more because it creates a more equitable society.

From an economic point of view, taxing wealthier people has less of an effect on the economy as some / most of that extra tax is taken from savings / private investment. Taxing the poorest has a larger effect since these people spend most of their income back into the economy.

The richest should pay more but not to the extent that there's no benefit to working hard and progressing in a career.

[muppet]

The Irish tax system is already one of the most progressive in the OECD, 6.1% of Irish taxpayers pay 61% of income tax.

You're combining 'tax system' with 'income tax system'. The bottom 10 per cent of the population pay out 30.5 per cent of their income in total tax, while the top 10 per cent pay 29.6 per cent.

Yes but that might mean the former pays €500 a year in tax while the latter pays €50,000. But you want the latter to pay more 'because he can afford it'.

Why is it only taxation that is like this? Why not charge you €1,000 to get into Croke Park while the unemployed get in free? Why not do this for food, you pay €1,000 a week (because you can afford it) and your neighbour gets it all free? If it is fair for tax it should be fair for anything.

[Lar Naparka]

The concept of a bonus need not in itself be a problem, the only issue is on what basis the bonus is paid.
But this is part of the problem, all these issues lie in the detail and people only want to rant and ignore the detail.

I think that in the present case, the fault lies in the lack of detail. I can't remember anyone from Irish Water or from the government quarter making an attempt to explain anything to anyone. Right up to the protest in October, it was a case of, " lie down peasant and do what you're told."

The attempts of the govt. and Irish water to introduce this tax has been a potent mix od arrogance and incompetence in equal measure.

[Mike Sheehy]

But why should that top 10 percent pay more ?

What you seem to fail to understand (or understand all too well..I can never figure out which ) is that a person can work for 20-30 years to get into what is considered a "tax rate at the top" . Stop trying to penalize people for working hard and succeeding. Let them reap the rewards of their efforts.They deserve it.

The top 10% more should pay more because it creates a more equitable society.

No it does not. The definition of equitable includes the concept of fairness. You should be fairly treated according to your abilities and your work ethic. Society also has a duty to the weak and vulnerable but the definition of "vulnerable" must not be abused.

Most of the people who bandy about the term equitable are implying that everybody is  "equal" . They are not. Society is a continuum of talent, drive and capability and any tax system must take that into account.

[macdanger2]

But why should that top 10 percent pay more ?

What you seem to fail to understand (or understand all too well..I can never figure out which ) is that a person can work for 20-30 years to get into what is considered a "tax rate at the top" . Stop trying to penalize people for working hard and succeeding. Let them reap the rewards of their efforts.They deserve it.

The top 10% more should pay more because it creates a more equitable society.

No it does not. The definition of equitable includes the concept of fairness. You should be fairly treated according to your abilities and your work ethic. Society also has a duty to the weak and vulnerable but the definition of "vulnerable" must not be abused.

Most of the people who bandy about the term equitable are implying that everybody is  "equal" . They are not. Society is a continuum of talent, drive and capability and any tax system must take that into account.

There's a whole other discussion when it comes to what you term "fairness" mike, do you think a child born tonight in Foxrock and a child born in a disadvantaged part of the inner city both have a fair chance?? I presume the latter is included in the "vulnerable" you mention - how exactly would you propose that society looks after this child?

Or say the child born with a golden spoon who's bone lazy, will he end up with his "fair" lot?

Wealth distribution by taxation isn't an ideal system and yes it rewards plenty of lazy, useless people but it also attempts to give a chance to the less well off to improve their lot