Labour to cut standard rate of tax to 18%

[asknoquestions]

1) It's far more egalitarian than proposing to cut the top rate of tax.
2) Re the economist you cited noted, and the point that national wage agreements will increase the pre-tax pay of workers.

Even if this eats up the money from a reduced lower-rate taxation, it means that these people on middle to below-average incomes will be taxed less than if the rate hadn't been adjusted. In other words, rather than taking more money out of these people's pockets, the govt. would let them keep more of the real value of the wage increase they negotiated.

3) You're right, broadening the tax bands, and raising the lowest threshold of tax, is long-term the most viable strategy. In fairness to Cowan, he has been doing this progressively. I might not, however, that FG and LAbour tried selling this in 1997, opposing the FF promise to simply cut the rates of tax. We know who was able to get their argument across better.

4) This was not the sole policy of substance to emerge from the conference. It's just the issue that a middle-class comentariat is obsessed with.

Many policies proposed by all the parties will, I would imagine, have a beneficial effect on working class families. It's rather unfair to exlusively judge a party's policies based on one issue - as a SF candidate, I'd imagine you'd be aware of how unfair this is.

I haven't read through this entire thread so I'm not sure if anybody has already raised this - but why did Labour not suggest cutting VAT instead?

This would have the benefit of cutting the bills paid by the low-waged, the unemployed, the single mothers, not just those earning above a certain amount.

[Universal_001]

I haven't read through this entire thread so I'm not sure if anybody has already raised this - but why did Labour not suggest cutting VAT instead?

This would have the benefit of cutting the bills paid by the low-waged, the unemployed, the single mothers, not just those earning above a certain amount.

Because the challenge is to get people who THINK PD to VOTE Labour.

[asknoquestions]

I haven't read through this entire thread so I'm not sure if anybody has already raised this - but why did Labour not suggest cutting VAT instead?

This would have the benefit of cutting the bills paid by the low-waged, the unemployed, the single mothers, not just those earning above a certain amount.

Because the challenge is to get people who THINK PD to VOTE Labour.

as opposed to trying to appeal to people with economically intelligent policies?

A VAT cut would put a damper on inflation which is sorely needed.

[Universal_001]

I haven't read through this entire thread so I'm not sure if anybody has already raised this - but why did Labour not suggest cutting VAT instead?

This would have the benefit of cutting the bills paid by the low-waged, the unemployed, the single mothers, not just those earning above a certain amount.

Because the challenge is to get people who THINK PD to VOTE Labour.

as opposed to trying to appeal to people with economically intelligent policies?

A VAT cut would put a damper on inflation which is sorely needed.

This has nothing to do with economics and everything to do with elections.
To think Labour were warning FF would be trying to buy the election.

[asknoquestions]

[quote=Universal_001]

I haven't read through this entire thread so I'm not sure if anybody has already raised this - but why did Labour not suggest cutting VAT instead?

This would have the benefit of cutting the bills paid by the low-waged, the unemployed, the single mothers, not just those earning above a certain amount.

Because the challenge is to get people who THINK PD to VOTE Labour.

as opposed to trying to appeal to people with economically intelligent policies?

A VAT cut would put a damper on inflation which is sorely needed.

This has nothing to do with economics and everything to do with elections.
To think Labour were warning FF would be trying to buy the election. [/quote:1yabalxw]

yeah, but look at FG's compensate eircom shareholders policy - it is possible to overestimate the stupidity of the electorate.

Now all it will take is some scaremonger to suggest that Labour will increase VAT or stamp duty to finance their tax cut and they will be into damage limitation.

[Salthill]

Now look at the % tax takes out of total GDP within the countries of the OECD, to pick a few.
#1 Sweden: 54.2 % of GDP
#2 Denmark: 48.8 % of GDP
#3 Finland: 46.9 % of GDP
...
#15 Australia: 31.5 % of GDP
#16 Ireland: 31.1 % of GDP
#17 United States: 29.6 % of GDP
#18 (out of eighteen) Japan: 27.1 % of GDP

Average = 39.4%.

Now as, a taxpayer at the upper band rate, that puts you in in the top 26.5% of the population in terms of income (see here, dated 2001 from Dept. of Finance).

Let's remember what you said:

As one of the 'well off' who pays 41 cent in the euro, I can attest to not feeling that 'well off'

So in short:
- You are in the top quarter of earners
- in the country with the 2nd highest income in the world (about 4 times higher than the world average, and many multiples again times the world median)
- which pays the 3rd least taxes in the OECD

You may not feel that well off, but you most certainly are.

If, as one of the top quarter earners in the second-highest-earning country in the world, you don't feel well off.....well....

...then surely you don't want to vote the same government back in, because something serious must be wrong either you or them if you don't realise how friggin well off you really are!

And please tell me, by mentioning the PDs like you did that you want taxes to be even lower again, given how friggin wealthy you are compared to everybody else?

If so, I daresay a more appropriate username for you would be Montgomery Burns!

And yet, Labour wants to give Monty Burns 600 p.a. but nothing at all to 40% of the population!

[woodie]

Salthill, Monty Burn would get no more than €680 under the Labour plan whether he earned €100,000 or €10 million.

Under the FF/PDs plan, the more he earned the more he'd benefit. That's regressive.

Labour's proposals are not the sum total of Labour's plans for the low-paid, as has already been pointed out. Watch this space.

[rockofcashel]

Salthill, Monty Burn would get no more than €680 under the Labour plan whether he earned €100,000 or €10 million.

Under the FF/PDs plan, the more he earned the more he'd benefit. That's regressive.

Labour's proposals are not the sum total of Labour's plans for the low-paid, as has already been pointed out. Watch this space.

But what would Homer, that ordinary minimum wage Joe with a 3 child family get Woodie ?

The same as Monty Burns..

And the poorer residents would get nothing

[hiding behind a poster]

But according to Eurostat, their overall tax burden as a percentage of income is unchanged since 1997. You know what that means? Stealth taxes, government charges, indirect taxes - all massively increased - by FF/PDs.

According to eurostat report May ‘06 the overall tax burden in Ireland as a % of GDP fell from 33%in 1995 to 30% in 2004, with the Euro average being 39% in 2004.

Then why don't you look at Eurostat's figures from 1997 (when FF/PDs came to power) and compare them with now? Then you'll see no change - which exposes the FF/PD bluster on tax for what it is.

[tonys]

[quote=hiding behind a poster]

But according to Eurostat, their overall tax burden as a percentage of income is unchanged since 1997. You know what that means? Stealth taxes, government charges, indirect taxes - all massively increased - by FF/PDs.

According to eurostat report May ‘06 the overall tax burden in Ireland as a % of GDP fell from 33%in 1995 to 30% in 2004, with the Euro average being 39% in 2004.

Then why don't you look at Eurostat's figures from 1997 (when FF/PDs came to power) and compare them with now? Then you'll see no change - which exposes the FF/PD bluster on tax for what it is.[/quote:2bdd7oh1]The figures I quoted are the latest Eurostat figures I could find, I do know that it was still 33% in 1998, so I would assume it was the same in 1997. The figure still stands, down from 33% to 30% up to 2004. If you have a link to results for 2005/6, please post.