Referendum to be held on European fiscal compact

[Mr A]

Confirmed: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2012/0228/breaking41.html

Here we go again.. abortion, Euro Army etc, etc, etc.

[John83]

Ugh. The only thing I look forward to less than the no campaign is the yes campaign.

[Mr A]

Indeed. The debate around these referenda rarely gets closer than nodding terms with the actual issues involved.

On that note, here is the actual treaty (http://www.european-council.europa.eu/media/579087/treaty.pdf). Only 11 pages long, but pretty heavy going.

An explanation here seems to sum it up pretty well from what I read: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2012/0228/breaking46.html

[mypost]

Leo Varadkar will be distraught, as we only have these things to "amend the constitution" in his eyes.

Have to say I'm very surprised. No requirement for one was cited as a reason for it, but it should be held "on balance" instead. :confused:

It will come into effect once 12 EU countries provinces ratify it.

[Spudulika]

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2012/0229/breaking1.html

Here we go. The government will ramrod this up the rears of the citizens. If the Irish are going to stand up for a change, it has to be now. I read the treaty (thanks Mr. A) this morning and while it's dry stuff, there are some very worrying points.

We can rat out another country who isn't behaving - and then what? Be penalised? Christ sake. It seems the EU is being run like the LOI, we'll have countries docked points in the Eurovision next. No, this treaty just doesn't make sense. We have to clear up our own house before letting others run riot. I'm a supporter of the EU and all it offers and has done, but this, I'm hearing Ciaran Fitzgerald in my head!

edit: It won't matter what we do as once 12 do as they're told, we're all in.

[mypost]

Eh not quite. We'll be in the slow lane with the Brits, while the rest get on with whipping each other into German-oriented fiscal order. Two-Speed Europe by the back door.

But we won't be, because the people will obey the government and Vote Yes for those non-existent jobs they were promised two years ago. Which still haven't turned up.

Again...

[culloty82]

Regardless of individual stances on the EU, I don't see how this treaty would address the economic situation - whether it be the US under FDR, or Germany post-WW2, the most effective solutions to recessions have be government-backed stimulus packages, concentration on R&D, and indeed, the strategic investment banks that we never got after the last election. Deflating economies by tying Europe into an austerity straight-jacket makes little logical sense, and as for the argument that a No vote would see us shut out of the ESM, the implications of such an action by the ECB would further destabilise Spain and Italy, while the UK and US would hardly allow a strategic trading partner to be starved of investment, so the IMF would take up the whole slack.

[pineapple stu]

Deflating economies by tying Europe into an austerity straight-jacket makes little logical sense
What's the alternative to austerity? The Government, as far as I can see, is still trying to attract investment even under the current programme.

If you're struggling under credit card debt, is the solution to go out and get another credit card? Or is it to take your oil, scrimp for however long it takes to get back on sound financial footing and hope you've learned your lesson? And if that means we're in recession for a generation, then that's unfortunate - we've made our bed and can now lie in it. But any alternative seems to be kicking the can down the road. [/cliche mode]

I'm in a quandary on this; on the one hand, I've never voted for an EU referendum, but on the other hand, if this is basically a referendum on austerity, it makes sense.

[Charlie Darwin]

edit: It won't matter what we do as once 12 do as they're told, we're all in.
No. If we don't ratify it, we're out. If 12 ratify it, 12 are in.


Regardless of individual stances on the EU, I don't see how this treaty would address the economic situation - whether it be the US under FDR, or Germany post-WW2, the most effective solutions to recessions have be government-backed stimulus packages, concentration on R&D, and indeed, the strategic investment banks that we never got after the last election. Deflating economies by tying Europe into an austerity straight-jacket makes little logical sense, and as for the argument that a No vote would see us shut out of the ESM, the implications of such an action by the ECB would further destabilise Spain and Italy, while the UK and US would hardly allow a strategic trading partner to be starved of investment, so the IMF would take up the whole slack.
It's not supposed to address the economic situation, it's supposed to prevent it happening again. It won't prevent it happening again either, but European leaders like to appear proactive.


What's the alternative to austerity? The Government, as far as I can see, is still trying to attract investment even under the current programme.

If you're struggling under credit card debt, is the solution to go out and get another credit card? Or is it to take your oil, scrimp for however long it takes to get back on sound financial footing and hope you've learned your lesson? And if that means we're in recession for a generation, then that's unfortunate - we've made our bed and can now lie in it. But any alternative seems to be kicking the can down the road. [/cliche mode]

I'm in a quandary on this; on the one hand, I've never voted for an EU referendum, but on the other hand, if this is basically a referendum on austerity, it makes sense.
We'll have austerity with or without the compact. The question is whether we want EU-approved austerity that involves repaying private investors while ignoring severe structural problems and preserving privelege, or if we want IMF-approved austerity which will be swifter and more brutal considering we've frittered away billions to bondholders, but at least would address the problems with our economy.

[dahamsta]

I'll be voting against, and I won't even read it. I'll vote against anything pro-EU for the foreseeable future. I'm pro-Europe, but I've had enough of the power-hungry ahabs that are in charge right now. They can stuff it, I'd prefer to default and take my chances. It's been done before by countries both smaller and bigger than us, it can be done again.

[bennocelt]

Fair dues to FG for at least giving the people a say. Even the Greeks with all their rioting didnt achieve that!

[Charlie Darwin]

Well it's not Fine Gael, it's the Attorney General.

[bennocelt]

Well it's not Fine Gael, it's the Attorney General.

Yeah. But still a shock - too used to the FF dark days for surprises like this

[Spudulika]

Mypost has a point, and this is something I really questioned back when they made us vote again the last time. I came home for it and everything was "we don't vote yes, we're out of Europe, we lose jobs, we won't get any money, we're gone." No, they're scaring with - if it's No then it's a general election. Good, get FG and Labour out, smash the parties and then let the EU/IMF/ECB appoint their buddies to asset strip us, at leas we'll be able to hoenstly blame the pesky foreigners.

[born2bwild]

Since 2008 my take home pay has gone down 600eu pm. They can stick their austerity up their holes. I didn't run up their bills. And, while I welcome being controlled by the Germans more than I do by Gombeen men from the arse end of Mayo I trust none of them. Unless there's something substantial on the table for me and my family they can take this treaty and feck off.

[mypost]

Mypost has a point, and this is something I really questioned back when they made us vote again the last time. I came home for it and everything was "we don't vote yes, we're out of Europe, we lose jobs, we won't get any money, we're gone." No, they're scaring with - if it's No then it's a general election. Good, get FG and Labour out, smash the parties and then let the EU/IMF/ECB appoint their buddies to asset strip us, at leas we'll be able to hoenstly blame the pesky foreigners.

There's no chance of a general election regardless of the outcome. The government is strong and stable with a massive majority. It will take a bit more than an EU-ref defeat to bring it down.

Since the last EU ref, we've had 3 very harsh domestic budgets, priced out of the markets, punted into the IMF, refused debt federalisation and burden-sharing, a domestic economy stagnate, and hundreds of thousands emigrating.

So what was the point of voting yes then or now?


Since 2008 my take home pay has gone down 600eu pm. They can stick their austerity up their holes. I didn't run up their bills. And, while I welcome being controlled by the Germans more than I do by Gombeen men from the arse end of Mayo I trust none of them. Unless there's something substantial on the table for me and my family they can take this treaty and feck off.

What should be on the table?

[Macy]

Mypost has a point, and this is something I really questioned back when they made us vote again the last time. I came home for it and everything was "we don't vote yes, we're out of Europe, we lose jobs, we won't get any money, we're gone." No, they're scaring with - if it's No then it's a general election. Good, get FG and Labour out, smash the parties and then let the EU/IMF/ECB appoint their buddies to asset strip us, at leas we'll be able to hoenstly blame the pesky foreigners.
eh, the people could always have voted no a second time! Both sides use scaremongering. The yes side will use the threat of being kicked out of the euro and/or no possible second bailout. The no side will use things like 100 years of austerity, tax harmonisation etc (never mind conscription/ abortion). Both are equally culpable, and it basically boils down to too many of the electorate buying this crap.


But we won't be, because the people will obey the government and Vote Yes for those non-existent jobs they were promised two years ago. Which still haven't turned up.
Or maybe a majority just agreed with the treaty rather than just deciding to obey the Government.

On this whole being asked twice thing, would people prefer that we were stuck in the dark ages regarding divorce, if the first defeated referendum has been allowed to stand? Or is it just because the second Nice and Lisbon referenda didn't give the answer you wanted?

Personally I haven't decided how I'll vote. I'm probably leaning more towards a No as things stand. However, I could probably be brought to some degree with less onerous terms on our current bailout, especially the promissory notes (we'd have less to fear if we were on the hook for less).

[bennocelt]

Or maybe a majority just agreed with the treaty rather than just deciding to obey the Government.

Or is it just because the second Nice and Lisbon referenda didn't give the answer you wanted?
.


Well in hindsight (which was obvious) they were wrong. Still waiting for those jobs that the politicians conned the people with.

[Macy]

Well in hindsight (which was obvious) they were wrong. Still waiting for those jobs that the politicians conned the people with.
Assuming people actually believed that in the first place, and voted purely on that basis. Still, at least we can be comforted by knowing that the no side were right about tax harmonisation, self amending treaty, conscription to an EU army and abortions, eh? Both sides are as bad as each other when it comes to trying to convince the gullible.

[bennocelt]

Assuming people actually believed that in the first place, and voted purely on that basis. Still, at least we can be comforted by knowing that the no side were right about tax harmonisation, self amending treaty, conscription to an EU army and abortions, eh? Both sides are as bad as each other when it comes to trying to convince the gullible.

Yeah cause that's what all the no side were on about, seriously,tsk. Proof is in the state of the country at the moment and the day when the Euro goes balls up. How is Iceland doing at the moment, a default hasnt sunk that country yet?

[Macy]

Yeah cause that's what all the no side were on about, seriously,tsk.
But "yes for jobs" was the only thing the yes side said?? FFS...

[bennocelt]

But "yes for jobs" was the only thing the yes side said?? FFS...

But that was coming from most of the FF/FG rhetoric, a big difference to be fair.

[legendz]

Isn't a part of this our support for the euro currency or not? Obviously we're in it and not looking to leave but a stronger euro needs certain fiscal policies to be brought in between states so that the eurozone will be more stable.

[born2bwild]

What should be on the table?

My stolen 600eu pm.

[pineapple stu]

Your stolen E600 p/m that you wouldn't have been earning had not the country become artificially "rich" by borrowing lots and lots of money?

We've got to get used to the notion that we're not a rich country, and the days of nice wages and new cars and cool phones are gone. For a long time.

[mypost]

Or maybe a majority just agreed with the treaty rather than just deciding to obey the Government.

The decision was best summed up by me by the line of a voter on the day of the poll reported in the British press: "This is my vote and basically I've been told what to do with it." That's how it was for many people.


On this whole being asked twice thing, would people prefer that we were stuck in the dark ages regarding divorce, if the first defeated referendum has been allowed to stand? Or is it just because the second Nice and Lisbon referenda didn't give the answer you wanted?


You're not seriously comparing an exclusively Irish referendum with a European one?


Assuming people actually believed that in the first place, and voted purely on that basis. Still, at least we can be comforted by knowing that the no side were right about tax harmonisation, self amending treaty, conscription to an EU army and abortions, eh? Both sides are as bad as each other when it comes to trying to convince the gullible.

I made many arguments over Lisbon, none of them were to do with EU armies or abortions. Our tax rates are constantly threatened everytime we go looking for something in Europe. They want something in return, and the first thing they go for is the corp tax rate. Lisbon is self-amending, this is the first European referendum since, there was no automatic right to one, the AG simply decided "on balance" there should be one.


Isn't a part of this our support for the euro currency or not? Obviously we're in it and not looking to leave but a stronger euro needs certain fiscal policies to be brought in between states so that the eurozone will be more stable.

I'm pro-Euro but this is nothing to do with the Euro currency. There are 8 non-Euro countries in this agreement. This is a question of whether we want to be part of the agreement or not also.

[Charlie Darwin]

I made many arguments over Lisbon, none of them were to do with EU armies or abortions. Our tax rates are constantly threatened everytime we go looking for something in Europe. They want something in return, and the first thing they go for is the corp tax rate. Lisbon is self-amending, this is the first European referendum since, there was no automatic right to one, the AG simply decided "on balance" there should be one.
No, you've misunderstood. The AG decided a referendum was required because the terms of the compact would require Ireland enshrine its tenets in national law, and it's impossible for the government to do this with legislation alone. The referendum will basically ask us if we want to enshrine strict budgetary controls in national law for good, and we the people are the only ones with the authority to do that. Even if this was introduced through amending Lisbon, we'd still have to amend the Constitution to enshrine it in law, so a referendum would still be required.

[born2bwild]

Your stolen E600 p/m that you wouldn't have been earning had not the country become artificially "rich" by borrowing lots and lots of money?

We've got to get used to the notion that we're not a rich country, and the days of nice wages and new cars and cool phones are gone. For a long time.
No, the 600eu p/m that I worked for.

I'm still working except that I'm doing two people's work now for 600 eu less. That's not 'rich' - I'm barely above the breadline.

Plenty of nice wages, new cars and cool phones five minutes' drive from me over in Malahide. Plenty of wealth in this country.

I don't accept this 'we' nonsense. 'They' decided to underwrite the gambling debts of capitalists who 'they' consider too big to go under.

I won't accept it and they can shove 'their' treaty up 'their' holes.

[Macy]

The decision was best summed up by me by the line of a voter on the day of the poll reported in the British press: "This is my vote and basically I've been told what to do with it." That's how it was for many people.

Voters were asked to support it, for a variety of reasons. No one forced any voter to vote either way. Anyone who genuinely believed is probably a bit of a knob.


You're not seriously comparing an exclusively Irish referendum with a European one?
Yes. We don't have irish or european referenda. We have constitutional ones. I don't see why the principle is different.


I made many arguments over Lisbon, none of them were to do with EU armies or abortions. Our tax rates are constantly threatened everytime we go looking for something in Europe. They want something in return, and the first thing they go for is the corp tax rate. Lisbon is self-amending, this is the first European referendum since, there was no automatic right to one, the AG simply decided "on balance" there should be one.
And have our tax rates changed? They wouldn't need to threaten if they could just do it.

Do you honestly think that if the AG didn't think there was a need, we'd be having one? Even with the knowledge that the President would most likely refer it to the Supreme Court to be sure? You're assuming the phrase Kenny used was exactly what the AG said.

[pineapple stu]

No, the 600eu p/m that I worked for.
You were overpaid. I'm overpaid. We're all overpaid, and borrowing is a good chunk of how that's come to be. We're going to have to accept that fact and adjust.

[Eminence Grise]

We had to be overpaid to pay for the overpriced goods and services... They're not dropping as much as salaries and wages, or social welfare benefits.

Inclined to vote against the compact.

[Mr A]

The Sunday Business Post has a list of 5 essential things you need to know about the treaty here: http://www.businesspost.ie/#!story/Home/News/5+things+to+know+about+the+Fiscal+Treaty/id/19410615-5218-4f50-8ecf-c58021195434

The five things are:



The Treaty comes into effect January 1 2013, provided at last 12 countries sign up.

Its basic requirement is that national budgets must be "balanced or in surplus". This rule is also deemed upheld if a country follows a country specific medium-term objective. Deviations are permitted "in exceptional circumstances" only.

Countries must commit to the balanced budget rule in a permanent way, "preferably constitutional".

If countries have excessive deficits, they must agree a plan with the EU to reduce them.

Ratifying the treaty is the only way to access the euro zone's planned permanent emergency fund.


There's also an assessment by Cliff Taylor here: http://www.businesspost.ie/#!story/Comment/Cliff+Taylor/EU+treaty+explained%3A+What+the+treaty+really+says/id/19410615-5218-4f4d-01f5-91b778500710

In general, I think that being in a single currency , it's a good idea to have a set of rules that make it less likely that one member can go bananas (like the Greeks did pretty stylishly) and take everyone down with them. But I'm not sure these rules will really do that.

What jumps out at me is that we got ourselves into a heap of trouble while we probably would have been meeting these rules. Plus this treaty seems to rule out the idea of ever providing a major stimulus to attempt to break out of downward spirals, which seems to be an unnecessary limitation on the countries involved.

Basically, I can see arguments that the rules will be too strict in some scenarios and also that they won't really be strict enough to prevent future meltdowns. But then this treaty isn't really about the banking and financial sector who ballsed things up pretty badly last time round.

On balance I don't think it's a bad thing to commit to keeping our budget in check- we should do that anyway, but I'm not sure how I'll vote yet.

However I think the treaty will be defeated in any case. I really cannot see it getting through with the current mood in the country. I have been very uncomfortable with some of the stuff coming from Germany and France through this crisis, the EU isn't meant to be dominated this way, and it's not so long ago they were the ones breaking financial rules and doling out the cash for the delinquents to spend on their exports. Leaks from the German parliament are hideously embarrassing and increase the perception that all our decisions are being made for us. Not strictly relevant to the question at hand but it certainly poisons the atmosphere against the EU.

Anyhow.. bit of a random stream of consciousness there but I'd better go do some work so will leave it at that for now...

[Charlie Darwin]

What jumps out at me is that we got ourselves into a heap of trouble while we probably would have been meeting these rules.
You can go further than that. We met these rules right up until 2008, while the economy was actively collapsing around us. This compact would have done nothing to prevent what happened here or anywhere in Europe except Greece.

[Macy]

However I think the treaty will be defeated in any case. I really cannot see it getting through with the current mood in the country. I have been very uncomfortable with some of the stuff coming from Germany and France through this crisis, the EU isn't meant to be dominated this way, and it's not so long ago they were the ones breaking financial rules and doling out the cash for the delinquents to spend on their exports. Leaks from the German parliament are hideously embarrassing and increase the perception that all our decisions are being made for us. Not strictly relevant to the question at hand but it certainly poisons the atmosphere against the EU.
I'd echo a lot of your post, but I'd just add Germany and France were actually the first ones* to break the financial rules out of the entire eurozone! *based on figures at the time, which may or may not have really been the case for Greece. There's also the whole issue of the definition of a structual deficit, of which there are many at the moment. It's very hard to judge the possible effect when we are not 100% sure on that.

I'm not sure how I'll vote. The mood music has already started to suggest it's effectively a referendum on staying in the eurozone, given that the other countries will ratify it, and it's not really logical to stay in with a different set of rules. I'm not sure that changes much, because for the same reasons outline by Mr A, I think there's a mood out they to tell them to stick it, and we'll default on all the ecb debt and peg to sterling. I'm don't necessarily agree with the rationale there either. I just hope there's a proper debate so I can make up my mind with some confidence.

[culloty82]

I'm not sure how I'll vote. The mood music has already started to suggest it's effectively a referendum on staying in the eurozone, given that the other countries will ratify it, and it's not really logical to stay in with a different set of rules. I'm not sure that changes much, because for the same reasons outline by Mr A, I think there's a mood out they to tell them to stick it, and we'll default on all the ecb debt and peg to sterling. I'm don't necessarily agree with the rationale there either. I just hope there's a proper debate so I can make up my mind with some confidence.

Well, it appears Enda has made the eurozone membership quote to the Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20120302-704206.html) - even implying that EU membership is at stake, which is patently false, given the UK and Czechs have opted out, and France's Socialist candidate, Francois Hollande also has his doubts. In any case, I'd agree with Macy that stressing the euro is hardly a vote-getter.

[legendz]

I'm pro-Euro but this is nothing to do with the Euro currency. There are 8 non-Euro countries in this agreement. This is a question of whether we want to be part of the agreement or not also.

Below is where I was coming from.


There's also an assessment by Cliff Taylor here: http://www.businesspost.ie/#!story/Comment/Cliff+Taylor/EU+treaty+explained%3A+What+the+treaty+really+says/id/19410615-5218-4f4d-01f5-91b778500710

In general, I think that being in a single currency , it's a good idea to have a set of rules that make it less likely that one member can go bananas (like the Greeks did pretty stylishly) and take everyone down with them. But I'm not sure these rules will really do that.

[mypost]

The Sunday Business Post has a list of 5 essential things you need to know about the treaty here: http://www.businesspost.ie/#!story/Home/News/5+things+to+know+about+the+Fiscal+Treaty/id/19410615-5218-4f50-8ecf-c58021195434

We'll see how those essentials apply to France and Germany, when it's their turn to be outside the budgetary limits. Didn't exactly help much the last time.

I don't think there's a big problem with the idea of stricter budget controls, unfortunately the reality on the ground is that some countries are so far out of kilter with the existing rules, that agreements like this could put them in a permanent straitjacket. Ireland is the worst Eurozone country after Greece, so we can't cope with those rules and the deeper austerity measures they will lead to.

[Lim till i die]

The Sunday Business Post has a list of 5 essential things you need to know about the treaty here: http://www.businesspost.ie/#!story/Home/News/5+things+to+know+about+the+Fiscal+Treaty/id/19410615-5218-4f50-8ecf-c58021195434


For those who can't be bothered reading FIVE whole things I've narrowed it down to two:

If you vote NO - ATM machines will leap out of the walls and run down the road screaming. Old people and puppies will die in ditches.

If you vote YES - Your aborted children will be conscripted to fight in the European Army.

[born2bwild]

You were overpaid. I'm overpaid. We're all overpaid, and borrowing is a good chunk of how that's come to be. We're going to have to accept that fact and adjust.
You shouldn't accept it, although, to be honest, all that I'm doing is complaining and accepting it.

Listen to me complain:

Borrowing by ordinary people wasn't at the core of what made this mess: Nosiree, it was stealing and stupidity.

Stealing:
At the height of the boom the biggest earners paid a maximum tax rate of 12.5% while the likes of us paid 20% on a good day.

That was and it still is stealing. Of course, the shibboleth of saying 'our' corporate tax rate makes 'us' 'competitive' was and still is the standard lie thrown around to bewilder and terrify the proles.

Stupidity:
We had a tax base that was idiotic - taxes on property transactions made the Celtic Tiger phase 2 (2001-06). When the arse fell out of the market the tax take evaporated. Then the Fianna Fail had to go borrowing.

Stealing:
When it turned out that no-one would lend them money anymore because the banks' liabilities were about to drag the whole country under, FF, supported by every mainstream party in the country decided to guarantee those liabilities. This stealing is stealing from our children and their children.

We have a referendum on whether to sign up to fiscal regulations designed by the ruling elites to serve their interests, not mine.

If they want my vote then I want at least the return of my 600eu.

There are alternatives to complaining about this on a football forum. But I'm too tired after working 2 people's jobs to seize control of the relations and means of production and turn them to the service of the rights of ordinary working people, and besides, I'm off to Tolka to do some stewarding.

[born2bwild]

For those who can't be bothered reading FIVE whole things I've narrowed it down to two:

If you vote NO - ATM machines will leap out of the walls and run down the road screaming. Old people and puppies will die in ditches.

If you vote YES - Your aborted children will be conscripted to fight in the European Army.

Robofoetuses stalking the battlefields of the 21st Century shooting jets of molten placenta into the massed ranks of the infidel hordes - good way of dealing with Shamrock Rovers' scum element, too.

[Charlie Darwin]

Stealing:
At the height of the boom the biggest earners paid a maximum tax rate of 12.5% while the likes of us paid 20% on a good day.
Huh? People at the top weren't taxed heavily enough but these figures are nonsense.

[John83]

Yes, I presume he's referring to the corporation tax. There are all kinds of crappy loopholes at the top though: get paid in shares, borrow against the asset for cash, and how much tax do you really pay? Even when you cash in on them, you only pay 30%.

[Charlie Darwin]

Yes, I presume he's referring to the corporation tax. There are all kinds of crappy loopholes at the top though: get paid in shares, borrow against the asset for cash, and how much tax do you really pay? Even when you cash in on them, you only pay 30%.
There are loopholes for individuals (not as many as people think), but people with large incomes are actually taxed quite heavily in this state. The Irish tax system is actually very steeply progressive considering what a low base it starts from. People in the middle get hammered, obviously, but the marginal rate does keep going up.

[If anyone read my second paragraph there, don't mind me. I was talking nonsense.]

[John83]

There are loopholes for individuals (not as many as people think), but people with large incomes are actually taxed quite heavily in this state. The Irish tax system is actually very steeply progressive considering what a low base it starts from. People in the middle get hammered, obviously, but the marginal rate does keep going up.

[If anyone read my second paragraph there, don't mind me. I was talking nonsense.]
Yeah, I've read that too, in several articles over quite some time. I find it hilarious that it's always the top x% earners pay X% of the tax, but it's never said what percentage of the total income they are paid.

Furthermore, there's been this bull about "broadening the tax base" recently, which seems to be Duckspeak for "introduce more regressive taxation".

[pineapple stu]

There are all kinds of crappy loopholes at the top though [...] and how much tax do you really pay?
Ask Peewee Flynn maybe? :p

However, the notion that the rich pay no tax is nonsense. You can see that here (http://www.revenue.ie/en/about/publications/statistical-reports.html) (go into the year of your choice, and then Income Distribution Statistics). In 2009, for example, 0.26% of PAYE workers earned E275k or more (table IDS5). They earned 4.08% of all the income that PAYE workers earned, and paid 10.83% of all PAYE tax. They paid an average effective tax rate of 34% (this isn't stated as such in the report, but you can work it out by dividing total tax by total pay). The average industrial wage (around E700 per week (http://www.cso.ie/quicktables/GetQuickTables.aspx?FileName=EHQ03.asp&TableName=Earnings+and+Labour+Costs&StatisticalProduct=DB_EH) - let's call it E35k per year); people there paid an average effective tax rate of 5½% (obviously a married couple on E35k between them would have twice the tax credits, which will reduce their tax bill a fair amount).

In 2004 - a year at the height of the boom, as born2bwild suggested - 0.17% of PAYE workers earned more than E275k. They earned 2.70% of all PAYE income, and paid 5.89% of all PAYE tax - an average effective tax rate of 33%. Meanwhile, those on E35k paid an average effective tax rate of 11%.

So not only is it not true that the high earners are paying less tax, but the between 2004 and 2009, it was the low earners are the ones who gained from new tax legislation - widened tax credit and standard bands mainly.

12½% - as others have noted - is the Corporation Tax rate and has nothing to do with personal tax rates. If the point is that companies pay less tax than people, well then the refutation is that without that tax rate, they maybe wouldn't be here at all.

So moving on to born2bwild's other points -


Borrowing by ordinary people wasn't at the core of what made this mess
It really, really was. Look at mortgage debt, how far it's gone up. Look at personal debt - car debt and credit card debt and general bank debt. E3bn in credit card (http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2012/0209/1224311520563.html) debt?! E172bn (http://www.smileireland.ie/news/5-crippling-irish-personal-debt-crisis-calls-for-actions-not-words) in personal debt?! You think that isn't at the core of this mess? Maybe we were forced to all buy our boom-time house* rather than renting?


Nosiree, it was stealing and stupidity.
This is true, as noted above. Stupidity is E172bn of personal debt - E35k for every single person in the country, from newborn babies to pensioners who, you'd imagine, should be nicely cash-flush after a lifetime's hard working. Stealing is paying without paying. Racking up debt, in other words. And then maybe looking for to be let off. (http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/finance/2012/0223/1224312241000.html)


Stealing:
At the height of the boom the biggest earners paid a maximum tax rate of 12.5% while the likes of us paid 20% on a good day.
Not true, as we've seen.


Stealing:
When it turned out that no-one would lend them money anymore because the banks' liabilities were about to drag the whole country under, FF, supported by every mainstream party in the country decided to guarantee those liabilities. This stealing is stealing from our children and their children.
The state and the people really aren't that separable. Why had the banks borrowed too much? Because we borrowed too much. I borrowed to buy nice and expensive things from you - expensive in part to pay your high wages. We're all responsible for this. Some more than others, sure, but the notion that this is all somehow someone else's fault and that I deserve all my money from the olden days is nonsense.

* - like me, before people start accusing me of being too smug

[John83]

However, the notion that the rich pay no tax is nonsense. You can see that here (http://www.revenue.ie/en/about/publications/statistical-reports.html) (go into the year of your choice, and then Income Distribution Statistics). In 2009, for example, 0.26% of PAYE workers earned E275k or more (table IDS5). They earned 4.08% of all the income that PAYE workers earned, and paid 10.83% of all PAYE tax. They paid an average effective tax rate of 34% (this isn't stated as such in the report, but you can work it out by dividing total tax by total pay). The average industrial wage (around E700 per week (http://www.cso.ie/quicktables/GetQuickTables.aspx?FileName=EHQ03.asp&TableName=Earnings+and+Labour+Costs&StatisticalProduct=DB_EH) - let's call it E35k per year); people there paid an average effective tax rate of 5½% (obviously a married couple on E35k between them would have twice the tax credits, which will reduce their tax bill a fair amount).
That's PAYE - not really surprsing the numbers work out like that. Self-employed is where it's at. That, and - as I mentioned - salary and bonuses in shares, at reduced rates where required to avoid tax (not an Irish example, but Apple famously paid Steve $1 a year, plus a special category of stock). Thanks for finding that number though; as I said, I've read a number of newspaper reports which didn't.

[pineapple stu]

That's PAYE - not really surprsing the numbers work out like that. Self-employed is where it's at.
Self-employed numbers are in the same link - go to table IDS2 where, in 2009, 2.84% of self-employed people including proprietary directors earned E275k+. They paid 24.76% of all self-employed tax at an effective rate of 25.7%. So better than PAYE, but those on E35k also fared (marginally) better, with a 5.1% effective rate. I imagine part of the reduction is the fact that simply doing an Income Tax return means you're more likely to make claims for medical expenses, bin charges, charitable donations, etc. The figures, I think, are taken from Income Tax returns; don't know how they account for stuff like share payments, etc. But still, the rich aren't exactly getting away lightly here.

[John83]

Self-employed numbers are in the same link - go to table IDS2 where, in 2009, 2.84% of self-employed people including proprietary directors earned E275k+. They paid 24.76% of all self-employed tax at an effective rate of 25.7%. So better than PAYE, but those on E35k also fared (marginally) better, with a 5.1% effective rate. I imagine part of the reduction is the fact that simply doing an Income Tax return means you're more likely to make claims for medical expenses, bin charges, charitable donations, etc. The figures, I think, are taken from Income Tax returns; don't know how they account for stuff like share payments, etc. But still, the rich aren't exactly getting away lightly here.
It might look that way to you, but that 5% you quoted for 35k doesn't account for the cost of living. Pay rent, food and bills for a family of four and run a car (which can be a necessity for work) out of that, and tell me again why paying 26% of €250,000 is a relatively high tax rate.

[pineapple stu]

I know what you're saying alright, but I think - and I don't have any back-up on this, so I'll happily stand corrected - that high-value mortgages are disproportionately in trouble. People on high salaries just spend more. Getting into debt is how you make money, after all (I remember an old boss saying that the one thing he enjoyed more than spending money was spending someone else's money). So for right or for wrong, it's too simplistic to say "Sure E250k is loads of money; we'll just take all the tax off the high earners".

I've no particular problems with, say, tax takes going up a flat percentage rate across all tax bands. And the OP was saying not that 26% was too low, but that the high earners were paying close on half the rate that the low earners were paying. So I think I've refuted that.

[bennocelt]

This is true, as noted above. Stupidity is E172bn of personal debt - E35k for every single person in the country, from newborn babies to pensioners who, you'd imagine, should be nicely cash-flush after a lifetime's hard working. Stealing is paying without paying. Racking up debt, in other words. And then maybe looking for to be let off. (http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/finance/2012/0223/1224312241000.html)

The state and the people really aren't that separable. Why had the banks borrowed too much? Because we borrowed too much. I borrowed to buy nice and expensive things from you - expensive in part to pay your high wages. We're all responsible for this. Some more than others, sure, but the notion that this is all somehow someone else's fault and that I deserve all my money from the olden days is nonsense.


Agree here, Ireland as a whole was rotten, and remember FF were voted in 3 times with everyone knowing full well how corrupt they were