3Likes
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksToughbutfairs proposal for tax rates might work, mbut only if they replaced PRSI and the levies. Otherwise they would hit some people very hard.
Toughbutfairs proposal for tax rates might work, mbut only if they replaced PRSI and the levies. Otherwise they would hit some people very hard.
Originally Posted by RepublicanSocialist1798
You example highlights its progressiveness. Rich guy pays 10x more money, seems fair to me
You don't need to be a "lefty" to see that this is a stupid idea. But i'm sure ascribing that label makes it a lot easier for you to stonewall certain viewpoints.
Last edited by Fr. Hank Tree; 4th June 2010 at 04:37 PM.
To be fair I would like to see someone who is left-wing AND is in favour of a flat tax!
You're completely missing the point. If it was 40% for the rich person they'd have 600000 and they could still live well.
Thats fair.
They could still live well but what's the point in working so hard if such a large chunk of your income is going to the government where it'll be wound up in political vote buying and government bureaucracy like the HSE.
Also, taxing the rich at such a high rate means there's less money for investment and savings. That means less money in shares of companies which employ people and less money in our banks!
Yes, but flat taxes create social inequality, and anyway it wouldn't wash with the electorate. How do you think FG would fund Reilly's fair care plan - not with a flat tax that's for sure.
A flat tax could easily bring in more money depending on its rate. At the top it'll stop avoidance by the rich and at the bottle it'll bring the 50% of people who don't currently pay any tax into the tax system.Yes, but flat taxes create social inequality, and anyway it wouldn't wash with the electorate. How do you think FG would fund Reilly's fair care plan - not with a flat tax that's for sure
I agree that it probably wouldn't be popular and no doubt many would just dismiss it as anti-poor but I don't see how it's unequal. Same rate, for everyone, sounds pretty equal to me......
Plus such a system could be coupled with a tax credit for everyone that would make the system somewhat progressive.
I used to think that for a long time but experience tells a diferent story. Working in a factory is a real eye opener, a person moves up the ladder from the assembly line to the position of junior manager and their pay goes up significantly. Most of them get their through graft rather than anything else and they ALWAYS end up doing less work than before. Generally you'll see the same person moving up the managerial ladder and with every step they do less work and get more pay. In the same factory I worked in the most qualified people were the technicians and programmers but their pay wasn't a patch on the managers.
My own dad freely admits that the more promotions he got the less work he ended up doing until eventually he ended up on 80,000 a year and would work from home where his spent about 30 mins a day delegating work to others by e-mail and spent the rest of the day pottering around the garden with the grandkid.
Brian Lucey, Trinity College, once made the point that a senior banking position was being given to a appointee for 400,000 to which he commented, 'I'm more qualified than him (the appointee) and I'd do it for 200,000.
A two band tax system is necessary because it corrects the general imbalance in society. Bin men and cleaners are easier to come by but they're also very necessary and NOBODY should be getting more than 4 or 5 times their salary.
Especially as he also called for welfare reform to ensure those who work are better off than those who don't/won't
Reply With Quote