The Fine Gael thread

[macdanger2]

Yes, I described the tax system as wealth distribution. Your entire response was about a wealth tax and Robert Mugabe i.e. completely unrelated to what I was talking about.

[Maguire01]

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.

Of course it's not just for maintaining the network - it's for the actual treatment and distribution of water and the removal of waste water. For example, Irish Water will probably be one of the biggest electricity users in the country with the cost of pumping clean water and waste. Before you even look at the need to maintain the network (never mind grow the network to meet increasing demand, or improve it to meet new water quality / discharge standards), the costs of treatment, delivery and reception are massive. Unless charges are out of line with what people in other european countries pay for water, there's no reason (other than general cynicism) to believe it's revenue generation for any other purpose.

And my understanding is the reason for the European interest was the need for the country to broaden its tax base (the narrow tax base being a significant issue at the time of the crash), so that it didn't have over-reliance on a small number of taxes, or have to fund as many services from general taxation.

I'd support the idea of a referendum on ownership, in part because it would remove one of the biggest arguments to establishing a proper water utility.

[muppet]

Yes, I described the tax system as wealth distribution. Your entire response was about a wealth tax and Robert Mugabe i.e. completely unrelated to what I was talking about.

But taxing income is not wealth distribution. Taxing income prevents the accumulation of wealth, it certainly doesn't punish anyone already with wealth.

Wealth distribution require wealth taxes. People need to be careful what they ask for. We already have some subtle wealth taxes, e.g inheritance tax & gift taxes. If you inherit money from anyone other than a parent (or child) you pay 33% on everything over €30,000. Do we really want more of this sort of thing?

[Mike Sheehy]

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

I think what we need is an "ideology" tax where people like you pay more tax. You can afford to pay more than you are paying right now and , since you believe so strongly in the concept, then we should tax you at, lets say , 80% of your income above a certain level. Then the rest of us stay at current taxation levels. That way everybody gets what they want. Your quality of life takes a big hit but you get the social utopia you desire, the top earners still pay more than most but are not screwed for being sucessful and working hard. Everybody wins.

[macdanger2]

Yes, I described the tax system as wealth distribution. Your entire response was about a wealth tax and Robert Mugabe i.e. completely unrelated to what I was talking about.

But taxing income is not wealth distribution. Taxing income prevents the accumulation of wealth, it certainly doesn't punish anyone already with wealth.

Wealth distribution require wealth taxes. People need to be careful what they ask for. We already have some subtle wealth taxes, e.g inheritance tax & gift taxes. If you inherit money from anyone other than a parent (or child) you pay 33% on everything over €30,000. Do we really want more of this sort of thing?

Not sure if you're missing my point on purpose or not - I described income tax as wealth, now you can disagree with my definition of income tax as wealth distribution and it's probably only semantics anyway but at no point did I mention wealth tax or anything else you're referring to.

[macdanger2]

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

I think what we need is an "ideology" tax where people like you pay more tax. You can afford to pay more than you are paying right now and , since you believe so strongly in the concept, then we should tax you at, lets say , 80% of your income above a certain level. Then the rest of us stay at current taxation levels. That way everybody gets what they want. Your quality of life takes a big hit but you get the social utopia you desire, the top earners still pay more than most but are not screwed for being sucessful and working hard. Everybody wins.

So anything other than your uber capitalist vision of the world is living in a dreamworld

[muppet]

Yes, I described the tax system as wealth distribution. Your entire response was about a wealth tax and Robert Mugabe i.e. completely unrelated to what I was talking about.

But taxing income is not wealth distribution. Taxing income prevents the accumulation of wealth, it certainly doesn't punish anyone already with wealth.

Wealth distribution require wealth taxes. People need to be careful what they ask for. We already have some subtle wealth taxes, e.g inheritance tax & gift taxes. If you inherit money from anyone other than a parent (or child) you pay 33% on everything over €30,000. Do we really want more of this sort of thing?

Not sure if you're missing my point on purpose or not - I described income tax as wealth, now you can disagree with my definition of income tax as wealth distribution and it's probably only semantics anyway but at no point did I mention wealth tax or anything else you're referring to.

You are missing your own point.

You described our taxation system as 'wealth distribution'. These were your words. You then accused me of putting your own words in your mouth. Since the bank collapse our taxation system has actually become debt distribution, the complete opposite of wealth distribution.

Wealth distribution, your words not mine, requires either a massive windfall for a state (we have had the complete opposite) and thus they have something to distribute or they need to impose wealth taxes, or they simply start seizing assets (the far-left and far-right have this fetish in common).

[Mike Sheehy]

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

I think what we need is an "ideology" tax where people like you pay more tax. You can afford to pay more than you are paying right now and , since you believe so strongly in the concept, then we should tax you at, lets say , 80% of your income above a certain level. Then the rest of us stay at current taxation levels. That way everybody gets what they want. Your quality of life takes a big hit but you get the social utopia you desire, the top earners still pay more than most but are not screwed for being sucessful and working hard. Everybody wins.

So anything other than your uber capitalist vision of the world is living in a dreamworld

Uber capitalist  Simply allowing people to retain the fruits of their labour is not uber capitalism. It is basic fairness. You seem to have an incredible sense of entitlement toward other peoples hard earned money and it is simply wrong. It is bad policy and it is fundamentally unfair. People already pay enough tax including the top earners (again, lets be clear here, the bulk of the "top earners" probably took years to get there...)  There must be other ways of solving the problems., You cant simply keep going back and taking more and more off people. Eventually they will just stop producing as there will be no incentive to do any better...what will be the point ?

[macdanger2]

Yes, I described the tax system as wealth distribution. Your entire response was about a wealth tax and Robert Mugabe i.e. completely unrelated to what I was talking about.

But taxing income is not wealth distribution. Taxing income prevents the accumulation of wealth, it certainly doesn't punish anyone already with wealth.

Wealth distribution require wealth taxes. People need to be careful what they ask for. We already have some subtle wealth taxes, e.g inheritance tax & gift taxes. If you inherit money from anyone other than a parent (or child) you pay 33% on everything over €30,000. Do we really want more of this sort of thing?

Not sure if you're missing my point on purpose or not - I described income tax as wealth, now you can disagree with my definition of income tax as wealth distribution and it's probably only semantics anyway but at no point did I mention wealth tax or anything else you're referring to.

You are missing your own point.

You described our taxation system as 'wealth distribution'. These were your words. You then accused me of putting your own words in your mouth. Since the bank collapse our taxation system has actually become debt distribution, the complete opposite of wealth distribution.

Wealth distribution, your words not mine, requires either a massive windfall for a state (we have had the complete opposite) and thus they have something to distribute or they need to impose wealth taxes, or they simply start seizing assets (the far-left and far-right have this fetish in common).

One last time: I defined (perhaps incorrectly according to your definition)  our tax system as wealth distribution. You now apply your definition to wealth distribution (this is the part where you're putting words in my mouth) and for some reason expect me to defend your definition.

Just so as we're clear, I think that the more you earn, the more tax you should pay - nothing about a wealth tax or anything else.

[Mike Sheehy]

According to Ibec,  Ireland already has the most progressive tax system in the developed world and is the most redistribute in Europe. The burden of taxation is already heavily distributed toward top earners. The reason for this social transfer is to combat inequality , fine, but the major root cause of the inequality is joblessness so the obvious first step is to tackle the joblessness not disincentivize the very segment of the population that are most likely help solve the critical problem which requires higher taxes in the first place !

[macdanger2]

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

I think what we need is an "ideology" tax where people like you pay more tax. You can afford to pay more than you are paying right now and , since you believe so strongly in the concept, then we should tax you at, lets say , 80% of your income above a certain level. Then the rest of us stay at current taxation levels. That way everybody gets what they want. Your quality of life takes a big hit but you get the social utopia you desire, the top earners still pay more than most but are not screwed for being sucessful and working hard. Everybody wins.

So anything other than your uber capitalist vision of the world is living in a dreamworld

Uber capitalist  Simply allowing people to retain the fruits of their labour is not uber capitalism. It is basic fairness. You seem to have an incredible sense of entitlement toward other peoples hard earned money and it is simply wrong. It is bad policy and it is fundamentally unfair. People already pay enough tax including the top earners (again, lets be clear here, the bulk of the "top earners" probably took years to get there...)  There must be other ways of solving the problems., You cant simply keep going back and taking more and more off people. Eventually they will just stop producing as there will be no incentive to do any better...what will be the point ?

For what it's worth mike I would be one of the ones paying more taxes so my views do not stem from any sense of entitlement.

You mentioned fairness previously and providing an opportunity for the vulnerable in society - how do you propose to do that if not through higher taxes on those most able to afford it (or conversely and more appropriately in the current environment by beginning tax cuts at the bottom end of the scale). Just to be clear, I'm not advocating a 90% tax on high earners, I'd be thinking something along the lines of an increase in the top rate from 41% to say 50-55% once you get over say something like 150k and say 60-65% once you get over 250-300k.

You appear to have strong views that taxation at the top end is not the way to go so I presume you have an alternative?

Since you mention "bad policy" - have you considered the fact that tax cuts at the lower end of the scale have a greater multiplier effect than those at the top end?

[Mike Sheehy]

You mentioned fairness previously and providing an opportunity for the vulnerable in society - how do you propose to do that if not through higher taxes on those most able to afford it

This is what I am struggling to understand. What is the goal here....a perfect utopia with no social issues ? That will be impossible to fund. When I say provide opportunity I am talking about things that are, for the most part, already in place, chief among them would be to provide kids with an education and provide things like  child allowance, rent allowance, access to healthcare etc to give them a chance at life. Improvements can be made, for sure , but you are proposing a 15% increase in a persons income above a certain rate simply because you deem that they "can afford it" to fund ..?? what.??.exactly ??.  Are we talking about providing more shelters for abused women...ok,no problem ...does the shelter need a 28inch TV with free internet in every room....hmmmm...we need to talk about that. Do you understand ? The key point is that you cannot be so blasé about it. You have to really, really justify it. You have to understand that it is not so much the actual tax that is so infuriating  it is this blasé attitude that some people have !
.

[macdanger2]

You mentioned fairness previously and providing an opportunity for the vulnerable in society - how do you propose to do that if not through higher taxes on those most able to afford it

This is what I am struggling to understand. What is the goal here....a perfect utopia with no social issues ? That will be impossible to fund. When I say provide opportunity I am talking about things that are, for the most part, already in place, chief among them would be to provide kids with an education and provide things like  child allowance, rent allowance, access to healthcare etc to give them a chance at life. Improvements can be made, for sure , but you are proposing a 15% increase in a persons income above a certain rate simply because you deem that they "can afford it" to fund ..?? what.??.exactly ??.  Are we talking about providing more shelters for abused women...ok,no problem ...does the shelter need a 28inch TV with free internet in every room....hmmmm...we need to talk about that. Do you understand ? The key point is that you cannot be so blasé about it. You have to really, really justify it. You have to understand that it is not so much the actual tax that is so infuriating  it is this blasé attitude that some people have !
.

TBH, I'm talking about it in general terms for funding existing services rather than getting into what deserves to be funded and what doesn't. IMO higher earners should pay more tax than lower earners with the result that more money circulates in the economy and the less well off have an opportunity to live somewhat better.

[Mike Sheehy]

yes, and high earners already do pay more taxes.I believe there is a limit to how much someone's income should be taxed in order to bring somebody elses standard of living up. Ireland has already surpassed that limit imo.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this one.

[lynchbhoy]

You mentioned fairness previously and providing an opportunity for the vulnerable in society - how do you propose to do that if not through higher taxes on those most able to afford it

This is what I am struggling to understand. What is the goal here....a perfect utopia with no social issues ? That will be impossible to fund. When I say provide opportunity I am talking about things that are, for the most part, already in place, chief among them would be to provide kids with an education and provide things like  child allowance, rent allowance, access to healthcare etc to give them a chance at life. Improvements can be made, for sure , but you are proposing a 15% increase in a persons income above a certain rate simply because you deem that they "can afford it" to fund ..?? what.??.exactly ??.  Are we talking about providing more shelters for abused women...ok,no problem ...does the shelter need a 28inch TV with free internet in every room....hmmmm...we need to talk about that. Do you understand ? The key point is that you cannot be so blasé about it. You have to really, really justify it. You have to understand that it is not so much the actual tax that is so infuriating  it is this blasé attitude that some people have !
.

TBH, I'm talking about it in general terms for funding existing services rather than getting into what deserves to be funded and what doesn't. IMO higher earners should pay more tax than lower earners with the result that more money circulates in the economy and the less well off have an opportunity to live somewhat better.

MacD2 - can I ask are you a shinner?
If not I reckon that your ideas/ideals here are where they are heading!

Unlike muppet I don't think they will get into power just yet. Even though there are rumours abound that they will link up with ff !!!!

Like mike I'm a capitalist - I'd like to pay a bit less tax. I'm all for helping out those less well off but think I pay enough towards that already!
Think there are a good few reforms in the state bodies that can yield this extra funding for lesser waged folk instead of hitting my pocket more!
Plus I'm doing my bit for the local economy by eating and drinking all round me!