Sir, – Vincent Browne makes an irrefutable case for reducing the bloated salaries of senior civil servants and for taxing the rich in the forthcoming budget (Opinion, November 23rd). His figures seem well researched and if they are accurate €7.5 billion can accrue with zero austerity to the poor and working poor.
If some small degree of austerity were to apply, the figure could be €9 billion or €10 billion. Problem solved! Bond market available; IMF/EU sent packing. The effect of taxing/reducing the income of the rich will hardly affect the domestic market as the excess income is probably spent largely on foreign homes, cars, yachts, etc. Is that why Germany doesn’t want us to tax the rich? It is afraid sales of Mercedes and BMWs will drop too much? – Yours, etc,
Sir, – I agree wholeheartedly with the views put forward by Vincent Browne (Opinion Analysis, November 23rd) and Pat Browne (Letters, November 23rd) that the more comfortable and wealthy sectors of our society should pay more taxes. Given the extreme state of our public finances, and the likelihood of severe social unrest if cutbacks are pursued too vigorously, the principle of low taxes for the low paid and high taxes for the high paid is a matter of pure commonsense.
Should our fortunes pick up we might again be able to afford the luxury of ideological debate on taxation, but for the present our public finances need the cash, end of story.
Likewise, while the incomes of public servants on lower to middle scales (up to approximately €40,000 per annum) need to be protected, I would concur with Vincent Browne that the salaries of better paid public servants (such as myself) should be reduced on a sliding scale. Again this should hardly warrant debate: needs must.
Along with property taxes, the above should be the big-ticket items in the forthcoming budget. Consumer taxes on luxuries; a betting tax; and environmental levies could also raise substantial public funding in a fair and efficient manner. Furthermore there remains a myriad of ways in which small, but cumulatively significant, savings could be made in public expenditure, one example being reductions in mileage expenses and overnight allowances.
All of these measures taken together would be sufficient to bridge our budget deficit in an equitable, if not particularly pleasant manner and allow us to regain a significant level of independence, without having to make a misery of the lives of the poor in our society, and without jeopardising the education of our children. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – I read with interest Vincent Browne’s comments (Opinion, November 23rd) regarding protection of the wealthier citizens’ income. It rang a bell with me since the same issue is being debated in this country.
Since I am quite proud of my dual citizenship (acquired through my grandmother), I am concerned about the Irish economy and what has happened to the land of my heritage.
Greed and interest know no boundaries, but somehow I expected more from Ireland. How naive of me! – Yours, etc,
Sir, – May I query the number of medical cards in existence? In approximate terms, the population is 4.5 million and the number of full medical cards is a staggering 1.8 million. This amounts to some 40 per cent of the population. I know there are different requirements in order to get a card but it appears that one must have an income somewhere below a figure like €12,000. Is it true that 40 per cent of the population have such an income? Where do all the people in Dundrum shopping centre, on the golf courses, or in Dublin airport at any time of the day, come from? It is, of course, imperative that assistance should go to those who need it. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – Is Minister for Health James Reilly losing the plot? Free GP access for those with long term illness cards while at the same time suggesting that the income threshold for medical cards will be increased! Remember the “over 70s” medical cards?
As for closing community hospitals/nursing homes, that’s a sure recipe for exacerbating the significant difficulties accessing step-down beds, with inevitable consequences for overcrowding/acccess to beds in the secondary care sector. Community hospitals provide invaluable services such as respite care, community support beds for those whose illnesses can be managed by the GPs and nursing staff in these hospital, palliative care and longer term care for those who are unable to return home.
So much for enhancing care in the community! – Yours, etc,
Sir, – I thought when I voted in the general election, I was voting for change.
The politicians who made pre-election promises obviously made them to be broken. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – A couple of suggestions for the upcoming budget: 1. Give wealthy individuals the chance to opt out of the children’s allowance. A communication to every recipient of the allowance could be phrased: “tick the box if you would like to redistribute your children’s allowance to parents in greater need”. It could also include the phrase “parents/guardians have the right to re-apply to receive the children’s allowance at any time”. 2. Offer a sort of amnesty (similar to the tax amnesties) to return the hand-out that the government gave them on the Special Saving Investment Accounts (SSIAs) that matured in 2006. The SSIAs were arguably one of the ugliest manifestations of the Celtic tiger widening the gulf between the haves and the have-nots. Poor people could not afford to save because they needed all their income for things like food, rent, fuel and medication whereas wealthy people were able to save, without any disturbance to their spending power, until it was draw-down time and the new car/kitchen extension/holiday could be purchased.
The amnesty could be made tax deductible with an option to specify local community projects that would benefit from the return of funds – such as improvements to parks, libraries or playgrounds. It might become known as the ROSSI: Return of Special Savings Interest.
It is never the wrong time to do the right thing. – Yours, etc,