Poll: Voters reject more taxes to fund services.

[TradCat]

Asked if they would be prepared to pay more taxes to fund public services, 72 per cent said no, while 23 per cent said yes according to the Irish Times /TNS mrbi opinion poll.

That's quite a figure. The conventional wisdom was that people claim to want services but vote for tax-cuts. No more.

[ditchhurler]

Asked if they would be prepared to pay more taxes to fund public services, 72 per cent said no, while 23 per cent said yes according to the Irish Times /TNS mrbi opinion poll.

That's quite a figure. The conventional wisdom was that people claim to want services but vote for tax-cuts. No more.

I take a contrary view - going only by your figures, the poll to me confirms that there is a lot of hypocrisy re taxes. ONLY 23% say they would be prepared to pay more taxes to fund services. No wonder only SF are the only party to concede that increased taxes may be needed to fund increased public services - and even they have rowed back a lot on this in recent weeks.

Remember this is a question where there is likely to be a bias if asked face to face. I suspect the real figure is even lower than 23%, as saying no to funding services is not really a politically correct view.

[TradCat]

I should have linked to the story.


http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/frontp ... 72720.html

[NM_123]

I am puzzled here: only really Labour stick (marginally more than anyone else) to their party's position on taxation.

Significantly less SF and Green voters want more taxes - why?

I for one am quite suprised by the results of the poll.

[HanleyS]

In order to understand this sentiment I only have to look as far as the Dublin City Council Roads Dept. I was stuck in traffic beside one of their sites yesterday. There was about three lads working and numerous others up to all kinds of craic. Smoking, yabbering, laughing and joking on the mobile. One of the lads digging with a shovel had a Daily Mirror in his arse pocket, no doubt for when it was his turn to assume the smoking/yabbering role.

If this is the kind of efficiency that exists in the public sector then I think I will keep mine for the private sector. It doesn't help when civil servants go around boasting about how cushy their jobs are.

[TradCat]

Or looking for a 35 hour week when a lot of people are doing 45 and 50 hours.

[ibis]

A total of 83 per cent said the Government already had enough money, while only 12 per cent agreed that increased taxation was required.

To me, that's the vital statement. People don't support "increased taxes for increased services" because they think the Government has enough money, and should spend it better.

I'm not sure how this overturns the "conventional wisdom". People do want better services, and aren't prepared to watch more money being wasted on poor ones.

[HanleyS]

If anything the government has too much money. Look at the fat on the HSE, multiple agencies merged into one to remove duplication of effort. Where's the redundancies?

Never mind the (reported) 17 billion they have wasted on tits-up projects.

[DSCH]

If anything the government has too much money. Look at the fat on the HSE, multiple agencies merged into one to remove duplication of effort. Where's the redundancies?

Never mind the (reported) 17 billion they have wasted on tits-up projects.

What about those people who would lose their jobs? Or are those people to be told that they are expendable because, in the realm of political kitsch they are not on the side of the angels?

[TradCat]

DSCH

Do you think the state should continue to employ people who have nothing to do? If so are you surprised that people don't want to pay more tax?