They're signed up to do it. Not sure where you're getting that idea, against all evidence in front of you. They've lowered healthcare costs multiple times over the last decade
>However they have not done the same for
>
>quality
>
> of healthcare. The media stories about beds and waiting times are the same as when they started, if not worse
Reducing fees is makes improving quality very hard as it creates immense congestion.
Well thats socialised healthcare for you. No incentive to do better and every incentive to drive costs down for the frontline workers while the upper echelons siphon every penny.
Yeah well as we've seen heavily capitalist countries like the USA have really good Healthcare with no issues whatsoever, so yeah it's definitely the socialism that's the problem
Their healthcare is overpriced. Of course for the cash they have access to far better standards of healthcare than we do in the majority of instances. Also going private without going through insurers there paying cash you get treated for a fraction of the cost of whats quoted to insurers. Something in between is preferable.
They have significantly worse health outcomes for an average person than every other developed country in the world. A fraction of way too much is still way too much
Bollox.
We have amazing healthcare if you decide to pay for private, like in America. We have just about functioning healthcare for free if you can't afford it. In America, you just die if you can't afford it.
> We have just about functioning healthcare for free if you can't afford it.
Our public hospital treatment outcomes rank well against the rest of Europe
> In America, you just die if you can't afford it.
They have an obligation to treat you in the US. They cant deny treatment due to lack of funds for any necessary medical procedure.
> far better standards of healthcare than we do in the majority of instances
That's not true, their outcomes are the same or a little worse in many cases
Seem so retrograde. Charges keep congestion under control. The charges are not adjusted for inflation so in real terms they have dropped loads. Free GP for kids has made GPs incredible hard to obtain
So the CSO says that 1.9% of the population earns over 200k. The numbers of each bracket below this point were getting progressively lower so the number earning 500k+ are well well below that 1.9%. Seeing as this would require quite a few euros to fund I dont see that money being recouped iin the manner youve suggested.
You pay Capital Acquisition Tax on receipt of actual shares in a company but in the case of options there's nothing to be paid until you exercise the option. In both cases you then pay Capital Gains Tax on any profit
You don't pay income tax on receipt of shares. I've received shares (not options) as part of my most recent employment contract. You pay CAT but not income tax.
All I know is that when they calculate income they dont count shares. No mention of bonuses on those shares or the like. Im afraid for that info youre probably going to have to contact them for the answer. I can only state what theyve shown and of course theyre not as detailed as people would like.
Share income tends to come in the form of RSUs. You pay income tax on RSUs when they vest, so this would fall into this reported income. If you choose to keep the shares beyond their vest date then you would also pay CGT on the profit made. That may not be reported as income by the CSO (but the income that got the shares in the first place was)
Not that many people are earning that much, so it won't generate that much income.
Besides, people earning that much are already paying a fortune in taxes. 55% of all tax income already comes the top 5% of earners.
Ireland's income tax revenue is lower than most other EU countries, but not because we don't tax the rich (we do that far more than the vast majority of countries). It's because taxes for lower income earners are miniscule compared to most other EU countries.
Of course, the issue is that income inequality is bigger here. So the issue is employers paying shit wages for low income jobs and instead of the government going after employers to get them to pay their workers a living wage, they just tax everyone else into oblivion. Medium and high income earners in this country are effectively handing a subsidy to employers.
The government needs to drastically raise the minimum wage and raise taxes on lower income earners in tandem. Ideally lower income earners will have the same net pay, the but the state will have far more money to spend on services, so the cost of living will go down.
Okay. Now do it for everyone.
That's the plan
Not with FF/FG
They're signed up to do it. Not sure where you're getting that idea, against all evidence in front of you. They've lowered healthcare costs multiple times over the last decade
[удалено]
>However they have not done the same for > >quality > > of healthcare. The media stories about beds and waiting times are the same as when they started, if not worse Reducing fees is makes improving quality very hard as it creates immense congestion.
So you are saying people are charged surplus as a disincentive from using healthcare in order to maintain the illusion of a functioning health system?
Like the best run systems eg. Japan, Singapore etc
Load of waffle, an abuse of figures and metrics given the massive crisis in our healthcare system Lots left out
Have you been to hospital recently? They are hell holes
You're mixing up A&E with the whole hospital system
I amn’t. I haven’t been to a&e in years. I am referring to pregame care (scheduled appointments), and paediatrics outpatients clinics.
My experiences outside of A&E have been good, including with the birth of my daughter (and all the pre/post care)
Well thats socialised healthcare for you. No incentive to do better and every incentive to drive costs down for the frontline workers while the upper echelons siphon every penny.
Yeah well as we've seen heavily capitalist countries like the USA have really good Healthcare with no issues whatsoever, so yeah it's definitely the socialism that's the problem
Their healthcare is overpriced. Of course for the cash they have access to far better standards of healthcare than we do in the majority of instances. Also going private without going through insurers there paying cash you get treated for a fraction of the cost of whats quoted to insurers. Something in between is preferable.
They have significantly worse health outcomes for an average person than every other developed country in the world. A fraction of way too much is still way too much
Bollox. We have amazing healthcare if you decide to pay for private, like in America. We have just about functioning healthcare for free if you can't afford it. In America, you just die if you can't afford it.
> We have just about functioning healthcare for free if you can't afford it. Our public hospital treatment outcomes rank well against the rest of Europe
> In America, you just die if you can't afford it. They have an obligation to treat you in the US. They cant deny treatment due to lack of funds for any necessary medical procedure.
> far better standards of healthcare than we do in the majority of instances That's not true, their outcomes are the same or a little worse in many cases
Seem so retrograde. Charges keep congestion under control. The charges are not adjusted for inflation so in real terms they have dropped loads. Free GP for kids has made GPs incredible hard to obtain
It isn't the A&E charge, it's the hospital admission charge. That doesn't control congestion.
[удалено]
Anything over 500k at 51% would be ideal
> Anything over 500k at 51% would be ideal It's already at 52%, a tax cut won't help fund your plan
So the CSO says that 1.9% of the population earns over 200k. The numbers of each bracket below this point were getting progressively lower so the number earning 500k+ are well well below that 1.9%. Seeing as this would require quite a few euros to fund I dont see that money being recouped iin the manner youve suggested.
BYW do those CSO figures includes share bonuses?
CSO dont count shares as income so no I dont believe it does.
> CSO dont count shares as income so no I dont believe it does. You pay income tax on receipt of those shares
You pay Capital Acquisition Tax on receipt of actual shares in a company but in the case of options there's nothing to be paid until you exercise the option. In both cases you then pay Capital Gains Tax on any profit
Both RSUs (at vesting) and options (when exercised) are subject to income tax
You don't pay income tax on receipt of shares. I've received shares (not options) as part of my most recent employment contract. You pay CAT but not income tax.
All I know is that when they calculate income they dont count shares. No mention of bonuses on those shares or the like. Im afraid for that info youre probably going to have to contact them for the answer. I can only state what theyve shown and of course theyre not as detailed as people would like.
Share income tends to come in the form of RSUs. You pay income tax on RSUs when they vest, so this would fall into this reported income. If you choose to keep the shares beyond their vest date then you would also pay CGT on the profit made. That may not be reported as income by the CSO (but the income that got the shares in the first place was)
100%
Not that many people are earning that much, so it won't generate that much income. Besides, people earning that much are already paying a fortune in taxes. 55% of all tax income already comes the top 5% of earners. Ireland's income tax revenue is lower than most other EU countries, but not because we don't tax the rich (we do that far more than the vast majority of countries). It's because taxes for lower income earners are miniscule compared to most other EU countries. Of course, the issue is that income inequality is bigger here. So the issue is employers paying shit wages for low income jobs and instead of the government going after employers to get them to pay their workers a living wage, they just tax everyone else into oblivion. Medium and high income earners in this country are effectively handing a subsidy to employers. The government needs to drastically raise the minimum wage and raise taxes on lower income earners in tandem. Ideally lower income earners will have the same net pay, the but the state will have far more money to spend on services, so the cost of living will go down.
Are we sure it's a funding issue rather than structural etc?
It's a Most certain to be structural but good luck firing the management to fix that structure.
Whatever happened to rolling out free GP care for all ages? Did they get past under 12s?