The Fine Gael thread

[muppet]

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

Taxation is not supposed to be about wealth distribution and it is amazing that you would say it is.

That is Mugabe territory.

[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.

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

I've already addressed that in a previous post. I believe that society should provide equality of opportunity so that every child born should not be hindered by his/her circumstances but there must be limits on this. people cannot be deemed "vulnerable" throughout their lives. Eventually society must cut the apron strings.

What I disagree with is how this should be paid for , specifically, the knee jerk reaction that it must be the top 10 percent that pay. It seems to me that if your primary concern is the welfare of kids then the people that must bear the primary burden should be the people that brought them into the world...but practically everybody goes through that so it is not like it is a case of inequity to expect them to pay.  Going after the "top 10 percent" everytime is almost like a double taxation because you are simply going after people that have already "paid their dues" so to speak. They probably have grandkids who they are helping rear for Christ sakes!

[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

I've already addressed that in a previous post. I believe that society should provide equality of opportunity so that every child born should not be hindered by his/her circumstances but there must be limits on this. people cannot be deemed "vulnerable" throughout their lives. Eventually society must cut the apron strings.

What I disagree with is how this should be paid for , specifically, the knee jerk reaction that it must be the top 10 percent that pay. It seems to me that if your primary concern is the welfare of kids then the people that must bear the primary burden should be the people that brought them into the world...but practically everybody goes through that so it is not like it is a case of inequity to expect them to pay.  Going after the "top 10 percent" everytime is almost like a double taxation because you are simply going after people that have already "paid their dues" so to speak. They probably have grandkids who they are helping rear for Christ sakes!

Addressed it?? What specifically was your method of addressing it? Saying society should provide "opportunity" without saying how is meaningless.

"It seems to me that if your primary concern is the welfare of kids then the people that must bear the primary burden should be the people that brought them into the world..." That sounds awfully like "people who can't afford it shouldn'thave kids....

Seeing as you mention grandparents helping to rear the grandkids, what about the grandkid who's grandparents are wasters? No fairness there.

[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

Taxation is not supposed to be about wealth distribution and it is amazing that you would say it is.

That is Mugabe territory.

Huh?? Mugabe?? 

Taxation pays for services available to everyone regardless of their means. If taxation didn't exist, people would pay for these services out of their earnings if they could afford to. If they couldn't, then they would go without. Why wouldn't you consider taxation a form of wealth distribution?

[Mike Sheehy]

Addressed it?? What specifically was your method of addressing it? Saying society should provide "opportunity" without saying how is meaningless.

"It seems to me that if your primary concern is the welfare of kids then the people that must bear the primary burden should be the people that brought them into the world..." That sounds awfully like "people who can't afford it shouldn'thave kids....

Seeing as you mention grandparents helping to rear the grandkids, what about the grandkid who's grandparents are wasters? No fairness there.

Hang on, lets establish the basics first...you agree that the people that bring the kids into the world bear the primary financial responsibility for supporting them right ?

[Mike Sheehy]

Addressed it?? What specifically was your method of addressing it? Saying society should provide "opportunity" without saying how is meaningless.

I know..it is infuriating isn't it ?

lets be honest, it is much more fun on your side of the fence...I'd love to always be throwing my hands in the air and asking "will anyone think of the children" ? ala the simpsons

Unfortunately, we must think of everyone. Such are the responsibilities of grown ups.   

[macdanger2]

Addressed it?? What specifically was your method of addressing it? Saying society should provide "opportunity" without saying how is meaningless.

I know..it is infuriating isn't it ?

lets be honest, it is much more fun on your side of the fence...I'd love to always be throwing my hands in the air and asking "will anyone think of the children" ? ala the simpsons

Unfortunately, we must think of everyone. Such are the responsibilities of grown ups.

Complete babble Mike, were you out doing the 12 pubs?

Let's agree to disagree from a social point of view so.

As I explained earlier, it makes economic sense for the govt to apply a higher tax rate (or at least to begin tax cuts at the bottom end) to the top earners. That alone is good enough of a reason.

[muppet]

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

Taxation is not supposed to be about wealth distribution and it is amazing that you would say it is.

That is Mugabe territory.

Huh?? Mugabe?? 

Taxation pays for services available to everyone regardless of their means. If taxation didn't exist, people would pay for these services out of their earnings if they could afford to. If they couldn't, then they would go without. Why wouldn't you consider taxation a form of wealth distribution?

Income is not wealth.

Wealth: Robert Mugabe is involved in wealth re-distribution. Cromwell and the various English kings were involved in Wealth re-distribution. The likes of Boyd-Barrett and, up to recently Sinn Féin, have been advocating a Wealth Tax. That is also wealth re-distribution. It will never happen here if we want to remain part of world trade. The problem is thus. SF proposed a 5% wealth tax a few years ago until it was pointed out to them that in 20 years the state would own (roughly) everything. That is why most developed countries don't do a simple wealth tax. It is simply the State taking your money until, given enough time, it all runs out.

Income: Plenty in Ireland have decent incomes, but due to our high taxation they will never have wealth. The biggest obstacle to your inner city child moving to Foxrock is income tax. He can be a great success in life and earn a fortune, but our taxation system will take most of it off him.

As an aside I must point out, free healthcare and free education are a must in any developed society. But a bloated, inefficient and gold plated unfunded pension-providing Civil Service is not.

[mylestheslasher]

I have no problem paying a fair price for maintaining our water network. The problem I have is as follows...

- Irish water has already been shown to be as big a joke as all the other semi states with bonuses for people that didnt even do any work yet! I've no faith in FG/FF/Lab/SF or anyone else to actually set up a proper fucntioning company where its employees are accountable for their performance.
- Anyone who believes that the company is being set up to solely pay for maintaining the network is a fool. Its revenue generation above and beyond repairing the network otherwise why would our German friends care about it.
- The obvious end goal is to sell it off to a private company in a few years for a few billion. The resisitance of the government to a referendum on keeping it public is proof of that, one of FGs own TDs said as much in the dail the other day.

And although many may scoff at Sf and the other left parties, don't forget that the FG and FF and Labour of this world have told and are telling just as many porkies if not more. Some of the FG ones before the last election are seriously embarrassing.

[lynchbhoy]

I have no problem paying a fair price for maintaining our water network. The problem I have is as follows...

- Irish water has already been shown to be as big a joke as all the other semi states with bonuses for people that didnt even do any work yet! I've no faith in FG/FF/Lab/SF or anyone else to actually set up a proper fucntioning company where its employees are accountable for their performance.
- Anyone who believes that the company is being set up to solely pay for maintaining the network is a fool. Its revenue generation above and beyond repairing the network otherwise why would our German friends care about it.
- The obvious end goal is to sell it off to a private company in a few years for a few billion. The resisitance of the government to a referendum on keeping it public is proof of that, one of FGs own TDs said as much in the dail the other day.

And although many may scoff at Sf and the other left parties, don't forget that the FG and FF and Labour of this world have told and are telling just as many porkies if not more. Some of the FG ones before the last election are seriously embarrassing.

+1

May I add that if we sorted out the waste, got rid of bonuses and made the public sector more efficient, we would save a fortune annually that could go towards easing taxation and increasing benefits for poorer people and associated services.

Proper companies ( state) can work on fixing water pipes and we can pay for the water service.
The tax loosening would enable folk to pay and have more disposable income.
IMO

[muppet]

I have no problem paying a fair price for maintaining our water network. The problem I have is as follows...

- Irish water has already been shown to be as big a joke as all the other semi states with bonuses for people that didnt even do any work yet! I've no faith in FG/FF/Lab/SF or anyone else to actually set up a proper fucntioning company where its employees are accountable for their performance.
- Anyone who believes that the company is being set up to solely pay for maintaining the network is a fool. Its revenue generation above and beyond repairing the network otherwise why would our German friends care about it.
- The obvious end goal is to sell it off to a private company in a few years for a few billion. The resisitance of the government to a referendum on keeping it public is proof of that, one of FGs own TDs said as much in the dail the other day.

And although many may scoff at Sf and the other left parties, don't forget that the FG and FF and Labour of this world have told and are telling just as many porkies if not more. Some of the FG ones before the last election are seriously embarrassing.

+1

May I add that if we sorted out the waste, got rid of bonuses and made the public sector more efficient, we would save a fortune annually that could go towards easing taxation and increasing benefits for poorer people and associated services.

Proper companies ( state) can work on fixing water pipes and we can pay for the water service.
The tax loosening would enable folk to pay and have more disposable income.
IMO

I would agree with all of that LB.

I agree with most of Myles post with the caveat that I think he underestimates the danger of the Boyd-Barrets and ULAs of the world.

[macdanger2]

Income is not wealth.

Wealth: Robert Mugabe is involved in wealth re-distribution. Cromwell and the various English kings were involved in Wealth re-distribution. The likes of Boyd-Barrett and, up to recently Sinn Féin, have been advocating a Wealth Tax. That is also wealth re-distribution. It will never happen here if we want to remain part of world trade. The problem is thus. SF proposed a 5% wealth tax a few years ago until it was pointed out to them that in 20 years the state would own (roughly) everything. That is why most developed countries don't do a simple wealth tax. It is simply the State taking your money until, given enough time, it all runs out.

Income: Plenty in Ireland have decent incomes, but due to our high taxation they will never have wealth. The biggest obstacle to your inner city child moving to Foxrock is income tax. He can be a great success in life and earn a fortune, but our taxation system will take most of it off him.

As an aside I must point out, free healthcare and free education are a must in any developed society. But a bloated, inefficient and gold plated unfunded pension-providing Civil Service is not.

You're gone off on a complete tangent there muppet

If you read what I posted I was describing our taxation system as a method of wealth distribution, I was not advocating a wealth tax a described by you. You're entitled to disagree with my description of the tax system as such but don't go putting words in my mouth

[Mike Sheehy]

Addressed it?? What specifically was your method of addressing it? Saying society should provide "opportunity" without saying how is meaningless.

I know..it is infuriating isn't it ?

lets be honest, it is much more fun on your side of the fence...I'd love to always be throwing my hands in the air and asking "will anyone think of the children" ? ala the simpsons

Unfortunately, we must think of everyone. Such are the responsibilities of grown ups.

Complete babble Mike, were you out doing the 12 pubs?

Let's agree to disagree from a social point of view so.

As I explained earlier, it makes economic sense for the govt to apply a higher tax rate (or at least to begin tax cuts at the bottom end) to the top earners. That alone is good enough of a reason.

Nope, stone cold sober. However you'd drive a man to drink with some of your attitudes. Using the tax system as a method of wealth distribution is simply crazy. Tax is not supposed to be for distributing wealth it is supposed to fund the running of the country and the provision of services such as roads, guards etc and there is a limit to how much can be funded.

[macdanger2]

Addressed it?? What specifically was your method of addressing it? Saying society should provide "opportunity" without saying how is meaningless.

I know..it is infuriating isn't it ?

lets be honest, it is much more fun on your side of the fence...I'd love to always be throwing my hands in the air and asking "will anyone think of the children" ? ala the simpsons

Unfortunately, we must think of everyone. Such are the responsibilities of grown ups.

Complete babble Mike, were you out doing the 12 pubs?

Let's agree to disagree from a social point of view so.

As I explained earlier, it makes economic sense for the govt to apply a higher tax rate (or at least to begin tax cuts at the bottom end) to the top earners. That alone is good enough of a reason.

Nope, stone cold sober. However you'd drive a man to drink with some of your attitudes. Using the tax system as a method of wealth distribution is simply crazy. Tax is not supposed to be for distributing wealth it is supposed to fund the running of the country and the provision of services such as roads, guards etc and there is a limit to how much can be funded.

You're right but some people can afford to pay more money to fund the running if the country than others and therfore they should

[muppet]

Income is not wealth.

Wealth: Robert Mugabe is involved in wealth re-distribution. Cromwell and the various English kings were involved in Wealth re-distribution. The likes of Boyd-Barrett and, up to recently Sinn Féin, have been advocating a Wealth Tax. That is also wealth re-distribution. It will never happen here if we want to remain part of world trade. The problem is thus. SF proposed a 5% wealth tax a few years ago until it was pointed out to them that in 20 years the state would own (roughly) everything. That is why most developed countries don't do a simple wealth tax. It is simply the State taking your money until, given enough time, it all runs out.

Income: Plenty in Ireland have decent incomes, but due to our high taxation they will never have wealth. The biggest obstacle to your inner city child moving to Foxrock is income tax. He can be a great success in life and earn a fortune, but our taxation system will take most of it off him.

As an aside I must point out, free healthcare and free education are a must in any developed society. But a bloated, inefficient and gold plated unfunded pension-providing Civil Service is not.

You're gone off on a complete tangent there muppet

If you read what I posted I was describing our taxation system as a method of wealth distribution, I was not advocating a wealth tax a described by you. You're entitled to disagree with my description of the tax system as such but don't go putting words in my mouth

You described our taxation system it as 'wealth distribution'.

I didn't put those words in your mouth, you said it. Twice now.

Income is not wealth. Wealth means you can go without income.