Like in France?

Britain is “planning a proper wealth tax” :

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/exclusive-ed-balls–im-planning-a-proper-wealth-tax-8107090.html

Britain isn’t, Ed Balls is. Ed Balls has no power to enact new taxes.

Interestingly, since France enacted its new wealth taxes recruitment of French speakers in London has gone through the roof.

Do you think the two might be related?

Yes there is merit in a wealth tax, buts its proven that property tax is often the best way of doing that because other forms of capital are too transient. I also believe we should also raise the Corporation tax by 1% initially and assess the impact that I think would be minimal despite the scare mongering . BUT this does not defect from the point that this government of cowards is now involved in state sponsored inequality. Public sector work are now paid on average 33% (CSO fact) more than the private sector despite the security of tenure , non-performance related pay increments , much better pensions (propped up by the less paid private sector), and a raft on non-sensical allowances . Now, we will hear a load of rubbish about the average being the incorrect measurement which is nonsense, its used across both sectors, but IF the public sector figures are skewed by high earners its means that they must be on such MASSIVE salaries that they the ” few ” can manage to sku the number to the point the average is lifted to 33% high than the private sector and yet they are protected by the government under this disgraceful agreement . This is agreement is morally repugnant and true reflection government ethos of self-preservation at all costs , so that despite their spin and guff Labour is the party of a new public social elite . . They are worse and more elitist than British thatcherite government of the 70/80 who at least nailed their colours to the mast . The labour/Union party is destroying the private sector , they undermined the amongst the lowest paid workers in the country by undermining JLC’s that allowed restaurant /hotel workers earn more money for working weekends /unsociable hours , Job Bridge meant that any job that could be created became an ” apprenticeship” largely paid for by the state. Now they want private companies to pay for the first 4 weeks of sick leave even though the issue is primarily a Public sector problem. (the reality is of course more private workers will get nothing when they are sick other than their stamps ) The reality is Jack O Connor et al , the union men on over 4 times the national industrial wage run this country and none of them give toss about the rest that have to prop up their lifestyles

many are already getting out and really you can’t blame them.

So far as I know about half goes on teachers.It is unsurprising that most of the budget goes on salaries in a highly labour intensive sector. The percentages are similar elsewhere.

They are not.

Afraid they are – check OECD report on education – every single country 70% or more of budget on wages – average is 75% – of course don’t let facts get in the way of the moronic diatribe that passes for public debate in this country -

Stop making sense would you.

I can’t help it, it’s genetic.

Sorry I was referring to the Talking Heads album.

Great Live album and DVD…David Byrne is a Legend!

Yes, I think a new poll is a great idea as long as the whole nation is polled.

sorry Maths

Door mats

True Grinder

It is the people who provide the better off with their bloated salary. Without customers, the business leaders are simply paupers. So by leaving the country, they are showing the ugly side to capitalism. Other countries see this too and in the end, the exiles loose moral support. Any country that welcomes them simply has to pay when the host country needs a bailout. It works both ways.

@Mark Dalt: idiotic comment. The ‘people’ do not just donate money to ‘business leaders’. They exchange money for goods and services. I.E. it’s a two way street and they’re not just paying money out of the good of their hearts. They get something of equal or greater value to the money they pay – otherwise they wouldn’t pay for the good or service, now would they?

It is amazing how simplistic your view of the world is. Ever tried thinking about what wealth aquisition of this magnitude actually represents and who contributed to it? Do you actually think that this kind of buying power is the result of his contribution to the wellbeing and prosperity of other Irish citizens or people elsewhere? The actual thievery is the flawed capitalist system that degenerates people’s value system and worships egoism of the highest calibre, in this system, surely, there is no place for thinking of how your actions will affect others. It is also the same system that allows people to be not rewarded on merit of their contribution or skill.

@Mark Dalt – so very wrong. The wellbeing and prosperity of Irish citizens – which by the way I didn’t mention – is not, nor should it ever be, the motivating factor of a capitalist business. Certainly, for a private business to be successful, it must provide goods or services of utility – otherwise, in a competitive marketplace (y’know, the type you appear not to want) it would go out of business very quickly.

Your language is emotive and just plain wrong – it is not ‘thievery’ to deliver goods of value in exchange for a fair price. Despite what you seem to want, we live in a free society where consumers can take their money elsewhere if they aren’t getting value or what they want. The only thievery I can see is grasping government taxes funding further government intrusion into peoples’ lives, and idiotic politicians not allowing the capitalist system to work – i.e. by allowing banks fail and not endorsing monopolies which protect the few at the cost of the many – i.e. the opposite of true capitalism.

True capitalism – unlike the alternatives you believe in – is the only system which rewards merit, innovation, value creation. Statism destroys value, homogenises, and kills creativity.

Let’s hope he doesn’t get his red ‘Labour’ tie dirty in his caviar at the Merrion Hotel

lol, and the primary school I am talking about is about a mile from Eamon Gilmores palatial residence. These people are shameless.

That’s a fair summary Kevin.
At what point can we start referring to Labour as “the unions”.
Mid to top pay in the public service is off the chart.

Wherever the majority, therein lieth the solution.

Yep – and it shows most of the left in Ireland, particularly the unions and their buddies in the Labour Party, really don’t give a fig for the really badly off. Their only concern is to protect those already in secure State employment – which comes at the expense of those who really need advocates in public life.

Or you could describe it more accurately, i.e. without the over the top rhetoric, as an agreement with workers who suffered a 15% pay cut to not cut their pay further in exchange for additional savings and changes in work practices. By the end of the agreement over €3 Billion will have been saved, with perpetual ongoing savings year on year after that.

Hi Werejammin,

Do you think that these improvements in efficiency have lead to any noticeable improvement in the provision of services? Do you think it is possible to reduce the budget deficit without further touching public sector pay? If so, how would you raise the money?

Well, for a start, instead of taking more money out of the pay packets of 200,000 people who earn less than the average industrial wage (further crippling the domestic economy) I would stop handing over billions of euros to unguaranteed bondholders who bought into our defunct banks AFTER the guarantee hoping to make a killing.

€600 million went out last week, another billion will be handed out on 1st October.

Incidentally, I think the main mistake made with croke park was that prior to the agreement ALL salaries which come from revenues coffers (including ministers and advisors) weren’t capped at 100K.

What if halting the payments to banks and bondholders isn’t on the table? What’s your plan B?

What if my aunt had testicles? Would she be my uncle? Your post makes no sense. The payments do not have to be made and are firmly ON the table. Saying ‘what if’ does not change this fact.

Kevin, Plan B is to repeat plan A in a slightly louder voice.

Hi Werejammin,

My question makes lots of sense and here’s why. The current government will not refuse to pay bondholders or banks. That means the option to halt payments to them is off the current government’s table. There’s no point in talking about it because it’s not going to happen during the life of this government. That means we’re back to my question. If you weren’t going to violate the Croke Park agreement and you couldn’t stop payments to bond holders, how would you reduce the deficit?

“The current government will not refuse to pay bondholders or banks. That means the option to halt payments to them is off the current government’s table.”

I hope you can see the contradiction in those two sentences, that the option to not pay them is off the table because they’re choosing to pay them.

Take your time, let it sink in…….

Hi Werejammin,

So am I to take it that you don’t have a plan B? If the payments to bondholders continue to be made, you have no idea how the budget can be balanced and civil servants continue to enjoy the protection of the agreement.

Ah, so you’re merely mimicking the governments line: “Ignore the billions we’re handing out that we don’t have to…..where will we get the money?”

I’m dealing in reality. I’d love the bondholder payments to stop right now. I realise that’s not likely to happen with this government who are more afraid of the EU than they are of the electorate. So, when confronting the reality of the situation, I see it as more likely that the Croke Park agreement will be changed before the payments to bondholders will. That’s why I’m asking you this. If you can’t cut the payments to the bondholders and you can’t cut the public sector wages, what can you cut?

Well then you should look towards blaming the people who are handing out the billions they don’t have to i.e. the government.

You can easily target higher paid public servants without breaking the croke park agreement and also not target the majority of public sector workers, who earn less than the minimum wage. A third tax rate for high earners would do this. Private sector high earners would also pay more. It would be fairer than once again hitting one employment sector. A levy on higher earners until the budget is balanced is also an option. Fine Gaels own peter matthews has stated that a 5% levy on earnings over €120,000 would bring in €420 million per annum.

Theres any number of solutions available for a government genuinely working on our interests, instead of “noun-verb-croke park”

With a third rate of taxation, is there a danger that the exchequer may experience a reduction in the tax take. This was the experience of the UK exchequer when a 50% higher tax rate was introduce. Do you believe that there is a danger in Ireland of higher income earners moving their tax liability abroad or using tax breaks or loopholes to diminish their tax liability? How would you prevent Ireland from sharing the UK experience?

Close the loopholes and introduce it as a temporary levy if necessary. This notion that an individual can be making too much money to pay more tax is a fallacy. Lets try it and find out…..

How would you tax or levy someone who has moved their tax liability out of Ireland to a low tax country? Would you introduce capital controls to prevent the rich from moving their assets and avoiding the tax? What loopholes would you be in favour of closing and which loopholes would you leave opened?

Blah blah blah.

At the very least there are people paid from government coffers who are PAYE and would not be able to avoid a ley. Second, the notion that high earners are going to start taking advantage of loopholes and avoidance schemes they they’re not taking advantage of already because there is a third rate or levy introduced is ridiculous.

Now, I’ve offered a solution which is apparently ‘off the table’ because you say so, and alternatives that you want to nit pick with. Whats YOUR solution?

Forced redundancies of non-front line staff in the public sector combined with a root and branch re-evaluation with the aim of providing an efficient, world class service.

Or maybe we might realise that many of the ‘services’ provided are not needed (hundreds of bullshit quangos) or are provided in a supremely shoddy and inefficient manner. Public servants calling for strikes should be careful what they wish for – we might just realise we don’t actually need all that many of them.