Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Are Enda Kenny and Michael Noonan giving themselves a pay rise?

Options
  • 08-10-2014 9:22am
    #1
    realitykeeper
    Registered Users Posts: 4,138 ✭✭✭


    This morning I heard Enda Kenny saying that his finance Minister will most likely reduce the top tax bracket from its present rate of 52%. This move would be most beneficial to people with a substantial part of their salary in the top bracket.

    The cohort which would benefit most from this move include the Taoiseach himself, but also the finance Minister Michael Noonan and of course the lavishly paid gombeens in the upper echelons of the civil service who advise them.

    A more inclusive alteration to the top bracket would be to increase the entry point at which salaries are taxed at the top rate of tax.


«1

Comments

  • Options
    #2
    Valetta
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,611 ✭✭✭Valetta


    realitykeeper wrote: »
    This morning I heard Enda Kenny saying that his finance Minister will most likely reduce the top bracket of income tax from its present rate of 52%. This move would be most beneficial to people with a substantial part of their salary in the top tax bracket.

    This cohort would include the Taoiseach himself, but also the finance Minister Michael Noonan and of course the lavishly paid gombeens in the upper echelons of the civil service who advise them.

    A more inclusive alteration to the top bracket would be to increase the entry point at which salaries are taxed at the top rate.

    There is no rate of 52%.

    That is the marginal rate paid by anyone earning over approc. €35,000.

    Did they say how they were going to reduce it?

    If it is done at the lower rate, or the lower band is widened, then it will benefit all taxpayers equally.


  • Options
    #3
    Riskymove
    Registered Users Posts: 10,885 ✭✭✭✭Riskymove


    realitykeeper wrote: »
    This morning I heard Enda Kenny saying that his finance Minister will most likely reduce the top tax bracket from its present rate of 52%. This move would be most beneficial to people with a substantial part of their salary in the top bracket.

    people are jumoing to conclusions

    the top rate of tax is not 52% it is 41%; the Taoiseach indicated a cut to the 52% overall rate but not how it would be done

    while he and higher earners in the public service would indeed benefit from a reduction in the 52% so would the hundreds of thousands of private sector workers who are paying the vast bulk of tax in this economy


  • Options
    #4
    Rabbo
    Registered Users Posts: 637 ✭✭✭Rabbo


    As mentioned, the upper rate of 41% is paid on any wages over €32,800 which is just above the average industrial wage.

    The effective rate of income tax is huge at this level and effects a significant amount of the workforce.


  • Options
    #5
    Idbatterim
    Registered Users Posts: 17,840 ✭✭✭✭Idbatterim


    low income earners up to 17k ish, pay virtually nothing in direct taxes, then you enter a point where it is probably a reasonable amount and then stratospheric. The entry threshold is a mere E32.800. Of course due to debt reasons and buying off all and sundry, somebody has to take the hit, its fairly obvious who it is. You can lose one vote (or in the case of FG) none, but with all the money they are thievening from the countries workhorses, they can buy votes from pensioners, those on welfare, students etc.

    There needs to be another band, possibly two IMO. The rate of what you pay should be based on your earnings. i.e. low, low rates, middle a medium rate, say 30-40%, "high" say over 80,000 a year and then a top band, incomes over maybe 150,000 at highish forties %.

    Bear in mind not only are they creaming off those ludicrous type of sums, what you pay in has no correlation to what you get out. The system is beyond penal, I used to often pay by card for a service, I now pay anyone who can benefit from it, in cash. I see on a daily basis the damage that those penal rates are doing, anyone denying they would screw the system that screws them if they had they chance, is a liar...
    As mentioned, the upper rate of 41% is paid on any wages over €32,800 which is just above the average industrial wage.
    yes "income tax" it at 41% at that level, but as I said above, the only thing the USC and PRSI here get you, is ruled out of the who list of freebies etc, no correlation of benefits based on what you paid in. So they can call it 52% income tax or 20% income tax, 20% Bertie tax, 10% bank bailout tax etc for all that I care. They are taking 52%, I couldn't care less what the different taxes are called or what way they spin it, are we meant to feel better about it, that is 3 separate income taxes at rate less than 52%, when all added up makes 52%?


  • Options
    #6
    Geuze
    Registered Users Posts: 13,066 ✭✭✭✭Geuze


    Rabbo wrote: »
    As mentioned, the upper rate of 41% is paid on any wages over €32,800 which is just above the average industrial wage.

    The effective rate of income tax is huge at this level and effects a significant amount of the workforce.

    The killer is that average earnings are above 32,800.

    They are 688 pw / 36,000 approx.

    http://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/er/elcq/earningsandlabourcostsq12014finalq22014preliminaryestimates/#.VDUcIfldWSo


    So even below average earnings, you face a MTR of 52%.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    It is getting bad when a reduction in income tax for everybody is seen as a pay rise for public servants (well Ministers in this case)


  • Options
    #8
    nice_guy80
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,723 ✭✭✭nice_guy80


    A reduction in the USC would see far more money being returned to tax payers.


  • Options
    #9
    Sheldons Brain
    Registered Users Posts: 1,394 ✭✭✭Sheldons Brain


    Godge wrote: »
    It is getting bad when a reduction in income tax for everybody is seen as a pay rise for public servants (well Ministers in this case)

    One of the disadvantage of prosperity is that all those public servants will benefit as well. Many people would rather see the country bust, in the hope that those who cure them, teach them and defend this will suffer.


  • Options
    #10
    professore
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,857 ✭✭✭professore


    Reducing taxes is far preferable to increasing PS pay or minimum wage.


  • Options
    #11
    professore
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,857 ✭✭✭professore


    Reducing taxes is far preferable to increasing PS pay or minimum wage.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    professore wrote: »
    Reducing taxes is far preferable to increasing PS pay or minimum wage.


    The OP equates reducing taxes with increasing PS pay!!!!!


  • Options
    #13
    jmayo
    Registered Users Posts: 13,078 ✭✭✭✭jmayo


    Sheldons Brain wrote: »
    One of the disadvantage of prosperity is that all those public servants will benefit as well. Many people would rather see the country bust, in the hope that those who cure them, teach them and defend this will suffer.

    Ah the much mentioned sacred cows. :rolleyes:

    What percentage of civil servants/public servants/semi state workers/council workers/anyone basically in receipt of their salary courtesy of the state and/or working in an institution owned by the state, are actually doctors/nurses/teachers/Gardaí ?

    BTW it is akin to claiming the private sector is represented by either software programmers or bankers.


  • Options
    #14
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    jmayo wrote: »
    Ah the much mentioned sacred cows. :rolleyes:

    What percentage of civil servants/public servants/semi state workers/council workers/anyone basically in receipt of their salary courtesy of the state and/or working in an institution owned by the state, are actually doctors/nurses/teachers/Gardaí ?

    BTW it is akin to claiming the private sector is represented by either software programmers or bankers.


    http://databank.per.gov.ie/Public_Service_Numbers.aspx?rep=CS


    The civil service has 36,117 employees.

    5,836 of them work in Revenue, I think we need them, they are hardly typical civil servants.
    3,432 work in the Prison Service, mostly prison officers, ditto
    933 work in the Courts Service, I kind of think they are essential too.
    3,150 work in the Department of Agriculture, most of them either Inspectors (do we want another food scandal?) or processing grants to farmers
    2,078 civilians working in the Gardai, freeing up gardai for essential garda work
    1,658 in the OPW, working on capital projects, maintenance, heritage sites etc.

    All of them add up to 17,087, about half. I haven't even looked at other civil service frontline staff such as Passport Office staff, Social welfare office staff, etc.

    There are 91,589 employed in the education sector (this is separate to the 1,490 employed in the Department of Education). This 92,000 are 90% teachers, SNAs and lecturers.

    The figures are there if you look for them.


  • Options
    #15
    robp
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,934 ✭✭✭robp


    jmayo wrote: »
    Ah the much mentioned sacred cows. :rolleyes:

    What percentage of civil servants/public servants/semi state workers/council workers/anyone basically in receipt of their salary courtesy of the state and/or working in an institution owned by the state, are actually doctors/nurses/teachers/Gardaí ?

    BTW it is akin to claiming the private sector is represented by either software programmers or bankers.

    There are 322,800 in the public sector excluding semi-sate bodies.

    The Gardai comprise 12,900
    Education is 110,100
    Health is 118,500

    In total that is 241,500 or 74.8% of the public sector workforce and I have not even included defence. Many in health are not nurses or doctors but nevertheless if you combine nurses, doctors and teachers you have huge chunk of the public sector. The public sector is far less diverse then the private sector.


  • Options
    #16
    ardmacha
    Registered Users Posts: 7,476 ✭✭✭ardmacha


    robp wrote: »
    There are 322,800 in the public sector excluding semi-sate bodies.

    The Gardai comprise 12,900
    Education is 110,100
    Health is 118,500

    In total that is 241,500 or 74.8% of the public sector workforce and I have not even included defence. Many in health are not nurses or doctors but nevertheless if you combine nurses, doctors and teachers you have huge chunk of the public sector. The public sector is far less diverse then the private sector.

    Even if 90% do useful things at good value, we'll always hear incessantly about the rest.


  • Options
    #17
    realitykeeper
    Registered Users Posts: 4,138 ✭✭✭realitykeeper


    Valetta wrote: »
    Did they say how they were going to reduce it?

    If it is done at the lower rate, or the lower band is widened, then it will benefit all taxpayers equally.

    Well surprise surprise! Now that the budget is out we see that I was right after all. Enda Kenny`s finance minister, Michael Noonan did cut the higher rate of tax just as I had interpreted from the pre budget hints.

    In other words Michael Noonan and Enda Kenny just gave themselves a massive pay rise and the vast majority of ordinary working class people will be required to pay for it. As a non socialist, the fact that I would say such a thing speaks volumes about the lack of leadership in this country.

    Ireland is still running a multi billion euro deficit so Noonan and Kenny are borrowing from abroad and putting the whole country even deeper in debt to pay for their salary increase.


  • Options
    #18
    BoJack Horseman
    Registered Users Posts: 12,248 ✭✭✭✭BoJack Horseman


    realitykeeper wrote: »
    Well surprise surprise! Now that the budget is out we see that I was right after all. Enda Kenny`s finance minister, Michael Noonan did cut the higher rate of tax just as I had interpreted from the pre budget hints.

    In other words Michael Noonan and Enda Kenny just gave themselves a massive pay rise and the vast majority of ordinary working class people will be required to pay for it. As a non socialist, the fact that I would say such a thing speaks volumes about the lack of leadership in this country.

    Ridiculously skewed post.

    Public servants were paid by the taxpayer yesterday..... They will be tomorrow.
    Nothing has changed.

    Looking at the Times budget calculator , the Taoiseach will benefit by €482 per year.

    Or.... 1/100th of a cent per citizen.

    Your faux outrage looks petty.


  • Options
    #19
    Riskymove
    Registered Users Posts: 10,885 ✭✭✭✭Riskymove


    realitykeeper wrote: »
    WIn other words Michael Noonan and Enda Kenny just gave themselves a massive pay rise and the vast majority of ordinary working class people will be required to pay for it. .

    massive pay rise?

    they pay 1% less Income tax like everyone else affected


  • Options
    #20
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    Riskymove wrote: »
    massive pay rise?

    they pay 1% less Income tax like everyone else affected

    Only on that part of their income up to 70k.


  • Options
    #21
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    realitykeeper wrote: »
    Well surprise surprise! Now that the budget is out we see that I was right after all. Enda Kenny`s finance minister, Michael Noonan did cut the higher rate of tax just as I had interpreted from the pre budget hints.

    In other words Michael Noonan and Enda Kenny just gave themselves a massive pay rise and the vast majority of ordinary working class people will be required to pay for it. As a non socialist, the fact that I would say such a thing speaks volumes about the lack of leadership in this country.
    They actually cut the higher rate of tax while adjusting USC to compensate for the change. In other words for higher earners they gave with one hand and took with the other.
    Do the sums on it. After yesterday's budget someone in the "ordinary working classes" earning €35k will see their take home increase by 1.4%, while someone on €100k will see it increase by 1.26%. Someone on €150k will see it increase by just 0.5%.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #22
    Riskymove
    Registered Users Posts: 10,885 ✭✭✭✭Riskymove


    Godge wrote: »
    Only on that part of their income up to 70k.

    ?

    does the 40% not apply on all income over the 33k?


  • Options
    #23
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    Riskymove wrote: »
    ?

    does the 40% not apply on all income over the 33k?

    There was an increase of 1% in USC on incomes over 70k which claws back the cut from 41% to 40% for any income over 70k.

    So if you earn 80k, the benefit of the cut from 41 to 40 only applies to your income between 33 and 70 as the USC increase takes all the gain above that. In some cases, e.g. where you have rental income or other income sheltered from income tax, you could be losing all of the benefit and/or paying more.


  • Options
    #24
    pwurple
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,449 ✭✭✭✭pwurple


    It's only just occured to me the effect of the 11% USC for earners over 100k. It's the self-employed only.

    The government ministers on 100k + are excempt from it.

    That's a lighting disgrace. Why have they singled out the self-employed there, and left themselves out of that particular net?


  • Options
    #25
    creedp
    Registered Users Posts: 5,597 ✭✭✭creedp


    pwurple wrote: »
    It's only just occured to me the effect of the 11% USC for earners over 100k. It's the self-employed only.

    The government ministers on 100k + are excempt from it.

    That's a lighting disgrace. Why have they singled out the self-employed there, and left themselves out of that particular net?


    I remember reading somewhere recently that you would want to be a very unenlightened self employed persons to be admitting to €100k+ taxable income in this little country


  • Options
    #26
    Sheldons Brain
    Registered Users Posts: 1,394 ✭✭✭Sheldons Brain


    pwurple wrote: »
    It's only just occured to me the effect of the 11% USC for earners over 100k. It's the self-employed only.

    The government ministers on 100k + are excempt from it.

    That's a lighting disgrace. Why have they singled out the self-employed there, and left themselves out of that particular net?

    There is an employer's PRSI contribution for employees. Self employed do not pay this.


  • Options
    #27
    K-9
    Registered Users Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    pwurple wrote: »
    It's only just occured to me the effect of the 11% USC for earners over 100k. It's the self-employed only.

    The government ministers on 100k + are excempt from it.

    Employees over 70k also will have USC increased.
    That's a lighting disgrace. Why have they singled out the self-employed there, and left themselves out of that particular net?

    As Noonan has said, the budget was targeted at the "squeezed middle classes" under 70k.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Options
    #28
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    pwurple wrote: »
    It's only just occured to me the effect of the 11% USC for earners over 100k. It's the self-employed only.

    The government ministers on 100k + are excempt from it.

    That's a lighting disgrace. Why have they singled out the self-employed there, and left themselves out of that particular net?

    The increased USC for self-employed earning over 100k came in two years ago. It only went up by 1% like all the other high USC rates this year.

    While there was an initial outcry about this, the self-employed are not too anxious to have their ability to hide money legitimately from the taxman scrutinised too closely.

    I learned a lot from my accountant last year.


  • Options
    #29
    Idbatterim
    Registered Users Posts: 17,840 ✭✭✭✭Idbatterim


    Care to disclose what you learned godge?


  • Options
    #30
    pwurple
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,449 ✭✭✭✭pwurple


    Godge wrote: »
    While there was an initial outcry about this, the self-employed are not too anxious to have their ability to hide money legitimately from the taxman scrutinised too closely.

    So, the high USC is to counteract all the under the table dealings that the self-employed do?

    That's not very fair to those who play it straight is it? Would almost encourage a black market. Seems like crackpot policy thinking to be honest, making it an even worse idea.

    I'd say the outcry died down, because someone with a job, probably employing people, working hard and earning a decent income is seen as someone who isn't "vunerable" and therefore can be ridden sideways for tax without the general population giving a toss.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #31
    Idbatterim
    Registered Users Posts: 17,840 ✭✭✭✭Idbatterim


    That's not very fair to those who play it straight is it? Would almost encourage a black market. Seems like crackpot policy thinking to be honest, making it an even worse idea.
    The rates are well passed the point of encouraging a black market, be it 52%,51%,50%49% etc makes little difference to me, they are off the wall rates...


Advertisement