Allegedly a tax raise would scare away the workers somewhere

[Newsy]

Tax hikes 'will exile well paid' - Lenihan - National News, Frontpage - Independent.ie



What I am not clear on is where these tax-shy wealthsters are expected to scatter to? Switzerland? Well, if you are comfortable upping sticks to a place where property taxes are huge and where you need French and/or German to make friends, it strikes me that we're likely not looking at huge numbers going there.

USA? Lower income taxes, but major property taxes again. No state-provided health care of any kind for you, once you factor in the cost of the private insurance you need that will actually cover you if you get sick, there's no benefit.

Cayman islands? Life there isn't all that cheap, they charge their tax-hatin' guests top dollar for the necessities of life.

France, Germany? Already charge over 50% of income for top earners.

Russia? Low nominal taxes, the real money is in the bribes you need to pay dozens of officials to keep operating and not end up in Siberia on trumped-up evidence.

It is Lenihan's argument for not taxing them. And it isn't a good argument.

[Hazlitt]

I've posted this in another thread already but I feel it applicable to the current discussion:

People are only focusing on the question "where will people go to?" Isn't it horrible that the question is not "why would you want to leave Ireland?" instead of saying "mwuh-hah-hah you've nowhere to escape to!"...

We are not only trying to improve the lot of people living here, if we are to be competitive in a global community we need to attract the best lecturers (to train the next generation), the best computer minds (to train our people and create jobs in Ireland), to attract the best surgeons and doctors (for the same above reasons and for the obvious fact that people will be flying to Ireland for procedures etc). We need to attract the "best of the best", and we should be making the island an attractive place to learn, live, work, invest and do business.

There are people on these boards who ignorantly want to destroy our last remaining threads of competitiveness, throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

I also pointed out that Englands new top tax band (should it be introduced before the introduction of our own, if introduced at all!) would be lower than some of the rates which have been bandied about on the forums, so if people want to know where Irish people could easily go, then look no further than Northern Ireland, England, Wales and Scotland. Not to mention all the other skilled workers who we should be looking to attract!

[X-ray]

If you want to know how the public sector works, go to the gents in Bus Arus or the A&E in Drogheda and see if you can tell the difference.

both are cleaned by private companies, whats you point?

[X-ray]

Thats not what you said with regards your own postion, you repeatedly said that if they cut your wages, then you work less. And, funnily enough, with regards the private sector, you specifically said:-




One rule for them, another for us it seems eh!!

Now thats what I call Funny Logic

That's because I wont work harder or more hours for less money, and if I earn less in a rising price environment I will work even less hard or maybe not at all in this environment. That's called rational economic behavior, I know we have not seen it for a while but it is making a come back. I will work for the best price I can get not because I am selfish but because I am not an idiot. Anyone who claims otherwise either is an idiot or a liar.

Any one who tells you they are going to spend less money on something and get more for you out of it is usually a joker. The government are jokers slashing pay while thinking or saying services will be maintained. They wont. Services will be slashed and transferred to the private sector where you either pay for them or do without them.

You seem to think you can slash the price you pay for a load of services in the public sector but magically charge the same for private sector services and goods. It don't work that way.

That's not socialism, its pure capitalism.

You get what you pay for, you will be paying a lot less soon for publicly provided services.

[X-ray]

It's common sense, why punish people who work hard, take risks and generate employment?

Also a married couple, both working, are normally classified as a single tax payer according to the revenue, a couple earning 60k each are not high earners, but a typical teacher married to a nurse

If both earn the same money the might as well go for individual assessment, joint assessment only works out if one earns more than the other.


Nobody should be punished with tax, tax is not a punishment or fine for being wealthy. They should pay because they can.

[Oldira1]

It's common sense, why punish people who work hard, take risks and generate employment?

Also a married couple, both working, are normally classified as a single tax payer according to the revenue, a couple earning 60k each are not high earners, but a typical teacher married to a nurse

High earners are over 200,000. How many risks has Richie Boucher taken? Dermot Gleeson? Gavin 'thanks for the leg up Sir Daddy' O'Reilly?The high tax rate in Britain is now 50%. Can we expect a brain drain to Ireland seeing as our high rate is only 41%. (Forget levies as Britain's National Insurance of 10% is double ours).
If I am earning €1 million a year is taking an extra €80k really going to affect my quality of life? Taking a tenner off someone on €204 per week will make a difference to quality of life.

[athlonedub]

A disgraceful statement by any Minister for Finance.

I don't know which is more frustrating - the sub editors who caption these articles, or the people who then jump to conclusions without reading them! the first is dangerous, the second is depressing !

Needless to say, BL said no such thing. He may he hanged for some things but , in the interets of fairness, this isn't one of them. If one reads the article he said no such thing.

Secondly, I smell a rat in relation to this being a "Department of Finance" briefing document (based on the extract shown on pg 1 of Sindo yesterday). Firstly, the typeface looks all wrong but secondly, no civil servant - however much they may think it - is going to include a phrase like "for the joy of inflciting more pain on one of the highest income earners". Just based on past dealings with Finance, it looks all wrong.

What odds it is a document submitted by some lobby group \ lobbyist to the Department urging no increase in taxes?

[goosebump]

Barstool Economics:

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that’s what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. “Since you are all such good customers,” he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20.” Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free.

But what about the other six men – the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his ‘fair share?’

They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

“I only got a dollar out of the $20,”declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,” but he got $10!”

“Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a dollar, too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more than I got”

“That’s true!!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!”

“Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison. “We didn’t get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!”

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

[X-ray]

Barstool Economics:

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that’s what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. “Since you are all such good customers,” he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20.” Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free.

But what about the other six men – the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his ‘fair share?’

They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

“I only got a dollar out of the $20,”declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,” but he got $10!”

“Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a dollar, too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more than I got”

“That’s true!!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!”

“Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison. “We didn’t get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!”

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

Yea except in Ireland the first four would be in mountjoy for not paying a TV license and the 10th guy would be the head of a mutual building society that is bankrupt.

There is no 10th guys in Ireland that we are all having a party on, there is very little domestic wealth creation going on.

There are gamblers that have just had a bad run. There is a guy who's horse came in who brought us to the pub to sell us a house. Now he has ran out and I have a hang over.

Just pay your taxes according to your ability and spare us the parables.

[Sync]

It's not a parable. It's explaining economic reality in a simple way. The majority of the poor aren't in prison and pay their bills. The majority of the well off aren't heads of bankrupt companies.