69% Tax? No Thanks!

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

bonkey

Originally posted by daveirl
Will people actually go in for this?

It depends what they will get out of it.

Higher taxes carry the premise of more money being spent on more stuff. What its being spent on and how that will effect all of us should decide whether or not its needed.

jc

ReefBreak

What we might get out of it is actually lower tax revenue - as the higher rates kill off the incentive to work and take risks.

ionapaul

Yes, it that were to happen lower tax revenue would be certain. I would definitely leave the country, as would (I think) many people who currently pay the highest rates of tax or expect/hope to someday pay the highest rates of tax.

I doubt Sinn Fein will ever get into a position to decide tax rates in any case. At some point the vast middle class will realise that Sinn Fein cannot offer anything to them (in addition to the fact they still employ a private army!) and that will be the end of Sinn Fein's appeal. They will never get more than 15% of the popular vote and will never dictate economic policy in any coalition, I would guess.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

ReefBreak

I would hope that their vote has peaked - but I wonder how much more of the electorate is so gullible as to vote for them and their nonsense policies. Certainly, anyone that I've ever met that has admitted to voting for them (including a close friend) couldn't give me any real reasons why - apart from the usual vague rubbish about, "oh, they'll make things better, cos they'll invest more in stuff". Not one single, reality-based policy was forthcoming - apart from raising taxes across the board.

thejollyrodger

I read the article, looney lefties... they are simply squandering whatever money we have gained. Pre boom they were against the ecommic policies and if we voted for them then we would be in a terrible situation now.

Its easy for anyone to publish a document saying ahh just spend more and everything will be ok, ignoring the tax implications ... in the long term they will shaft us:mad: :mad:

we cant allow terrorist scum to get into government down south:(

leeroybrown

69% is pretty rediculous figure and I'm assuming it's just to illustrate the pie-in-the-sky reasobning behind some SF policies. As it is an average entry level college graduate getting a decent salary and few bonuses is almost paying top bracket taxes.

One thing I would be in favour of is a tri-band income taxation system.

oscarBravo

Originally posted by leeroybrown
One thing I would be in favour of is a tri-band income taxation system.

Why?

pork99

Great news - they have no chance of getting elected to government with policies like that

They have got things arse-about face. Any increased Govt. spending should be on those things which facilitate the functioning of the economy like transport & communications infrastructure, education & training.

As the economy expands, facilitated by this type of spending, then you have increased tax revenue (without necessarily putting up tax rates) to put into the "non-productive" areas like health and social housing.

ixoy

Oh yeah, I'd really be willing to pay that amount :rolleyes: As it is, it's horribly easy to be pushed into the upper tax bracket for even a small portion of your income. I don't want to have to consider paying 69% on all future increases when, as the past few years would seem to show, I'm not getting very much value for my money once I've factored in education (that'll teach me not to use the major roads, never get sick or never claim social welfare).

milltown

69% eh?

They'd better not sever their ties with the IRA just yet. They'll need them if they ever get into a position to implement these policies. They'll be first up against the wall when the inevitable revolution comes

But seriously. I don't think the votes SF have been receiving are a true indication of the level of support thay have. I think a lot of people, myself included, have used the SF option on the ballot as an alternative to spoiling the vote and voting against the government and their "opposition" parties.

Hopefully people will see this as a wake up call, that Sinn Féin are actually having delusions about running the country at some point, and start using the vote more wisely. Or just spoiling it properly.

seamus

Originally posted by oscarBravo
Why?

Our rich/poor divide is stretching, as they are wont to do. There are other ways of generating revenue than Income tax, but for the most part, if a country needs to raise taxes, it should take more from the higher band, as increasing the taxation on the lower band will only make a poor person's situation worse by taking more income from them.

A triband system would allow us a few things, badly needed in Ireland -
Protection of income for lower wage earners. Anyone earning less than €20,000, and not living at home, is going to struggle, or start struggling as they get older. Unless they're a single male in a three-bed flat share in Artane, they haven't a whole lot of disposable cash. Raising the taxation level in the lower band is the best way to make more money, but can cause more problems than it solves. Say a lower band finished at €22,000, and we lowered the rate to 18%, we would ease the burden on a lot of younger people, and those in social housing and low-paid jobs. Not a bad thing.
Middle-income earners would have a lower taxation rate. "Boo-hoo" I hear you say, but in Modern Ireland, we have a strange situation. The average industrial wage now sits in the upper tax band - The band traditionally used to tax those who have enough money in their basic cash (up to the lower tax band), that they can afford the balance of their wages to be heavily taxed. But no more. The average industrial wage cannot afford the mortagage on a home in Dublin, yet still pays heavy taxes on a portion of their income. How do we expect this country to rise out of its rut and spiralling prices, when the average worker has 40% of all his future wage rises taken in taxes? Middle-income earners now are just as strapped for cash as those in social housing. Many people who are well into the higher tax band are struggling to make ends meet and have debtors banging on their doors. Make a third tax band between €22,000 and €40,000, taxed at 30%, and see what happens. More people able to afford homes and children.

Sounds reasonable to me. I don't see how we can justify taking 40% out of the wages of people who can barely afford it.

Imposter

Originally posted by seamus
Make a third tax band between €22,000 and €40,000, taxed at 30%, and see what happens. More people able to afford homes and children.

Sounds reasonable to me. I don't see how we can justify taking 40% out of the wages of people who can barely afford it. [/B]

But wouldn't that just put more money into the economy and if anything cause house prices to climb still further while also leading to higher inflation?

ixoy

Originally posted by seamus
Sounds reasonable to me. I don't see how we can justify taking 40% out of the wages of people who can barely afford it.

Damn straight. Paying even a small amount of my income in that bracket annoys the hell out of me. I don't have that much disposable income and I couldn't even fathom buying a house but, given that I've breached this bracket there's a perception I'm in a "high income" situation. The hell I am. A tri-band system would at least help alleviate financial burdens and make certain things, like property ownership, only next to impossible as opposed to beyond it.

ionapaul

One of the reasons Sinn Fein could imagine levying a 69% tax rate is none of their supporters would pay this. Most are earning too little, and their most ardent supporters, though earning far more, are not paying any tax at all! Remember when that RTE interviewer tried to pin Adams down to condemn/make a statement on the IRA commanders/leaders making millions from smuggling/cigs/drugs and he refused? Doesn't go for the old 'politics of condemnation' of course...:)

What a horrible isolated hole of a place Ireland would become if they ever had a say in running the country.

leeroybrown

Originally posted by oscarBravo
Why?

1) Increased taxation on very high earners.
2) Facilitates a reduction in the bottom band for low earners.
3) A middle band that allows a person to gain a good reward from extra earnings while still paying tax at a reasonable rate.

Ultimately a system like that should be able generate the same taxation income while leaving the low paid and middle earners better off.

ixoy

Wasn't Ireland originally a tri-band system, before the tax credits system? Why was it removed (beyond lack of foresight)?

seamus

Originally posted by Imposter
But wouldn't that just put more money into the economy and if anything cause house prices to climb still further while also leading to higher inflation?

Well, they were only suggested limits. The ones I gave would actually raise the tax bill of the average worker

leeroybrown

Tax Credits are really just a less easily understandable implementation of the original Tax Free Allowance. TBH, I still wonder why they bothered.

When I say tri-band tax rates I mean three %-bands with credits/allowance also. The tax free allowance (implemented via tax credits now) is one of the most important ways to make low incomes worthwhile.

Imposter

Originally posted by seamus
Well, they were only suggested limits. The ones I gave would actually raise the tax bill of the average worker

But giving more money back to those who are just inside the higher tax band at the moment is what you are suggesting and that would have these consequences. Barring a property price crash, or some direct intervention by the government in the area of housing, I can't see anyone in that sort of wage bracket being any more able to afford a house, even if they have more take home pay, than they are now.

oscarBravo

Originally posted by seamus
A triband system would allow us a few things, badly needed in Ireland -
Protection of income for lower wage earners.

Wouldn't raising the threshold for the upper tax band and/or increasing tax credits achieve this?

Middle-income earners would have a lower taxation rate.

...and this?

The average industrial wage now sits in the upper tax band

...and this?

I'm not convinced of the need to further complicate the tax system to meet those goals.

Originally posted by leeroybrown
1) Increased taxation on very high earners.
2) Facilitates a reduction in the bottom band for low earners.
3) A middle band that allows a person to gain a good reward from extra earnings while still paying tax at a reasonable rate.

See above. Very high earners will always find ways of reducing their tax liability, in the absence of a fairly thorough overhaul of the taxation system - and, all come to all, they'll just move to Guernsey. The bottom band exists already, in the form of tax credits, and the middle band can be widened by increasing the threshold for the top tax rate.

Tax Credits are really just a less easily understandable implementation of the original Tax Free Allowance. TBH, I still wonder why they bothered.

If you were used to TFAs, the tax credit system seems harder to understand at first. Clear your mind of the concept of allowances, think about what it means to get a tax credit, and see if it makes more sense then.

As to why they bothered - I get the impression it's a first step along the road to a "basic income" concept, which might not be a bad thing.

seamus

Originally posted by oscarBravo
Wouldn't raising the threshold for the upper tax band and/or increasing tax credits achieve this? ...and this? ...and this?

Yes, but you'd need to seriously adjust the higher and/or lower tax rate to compensate. Either way you're going to do something which either lumps more tax on the already poor or (if you increase tax credits) takes unreasonable amounts of tax from those in the higher band.

oscarBravo

Originally posted by seamus
Yes, but you'd need to seriously adjust the higher and/or lower tax rate to compensate.

I'm sorry, I don't see it. Can you illustrate?

Either way you're going to do something which either lumps more tax on the already poor or (if you increase tax credits) takes unreasonable amounts of tax from those in the higher band.

Again, I don't see it.

Assuming that we increase tax credits by (say) €2k per annum - wouldn't that have a proportionally greater effect on low- than on high-income earners?

seamus

Originally posted by oscarBravo
I'm sorry, I don't see it. Can you illustrate? Again, I don't see it.

Assuming that we increase tax credits by (say) €2k per annum - wouldn't that have a proportionally greater effect on low- than on high-income earners?

Disregarding tax credits, if you raise the lower tax band, to say €33,000, then you lose the difference in tax between 40% and 20% - €1,000 in the case of the full €5,000 - per taxpayer earning €28,000 or more. If you increase tax credits, say by €2000 per person, then you lose €2000 per taxpayer.
So obviously, you're going to have to adjust somewhere to compensate.

Civilian_Target

When does the upper tax band kick in?

Devious

€28k for a single individual, €37k for married, rising to €56k depending on spouses income.

sceptre

Originally posted by Civilian_Target
When does the upper tax band kick in?

28,000 for a single person with no kiddies.

All (including the credits) listed here.

mike65

Back to the topic, SF. If they ever got their hands on the levers of power (which they wont) the brain drain and
flight of capital would be on a Third World Marxist Coup scale. No doubt we'll have the usual suspects to tell us how crippling levels of high rate tax can make economic sense. It did'nt in the 80s when the level was at 55% (as far as I recall) and emmigration was running at 40,000 pa while the levels of unemployment averaged 12-14%, and the GDP/debt ratio was around 125%.

Mike.

arcadegame2004

Originally posted by Bonkey
Higher taxes carry the premise of more money being spent on more stuff. What its being spent on and how that will effect all of us should decide whether or not its needed.

But higher rates of tax can actually reduce revenue. And lowering tax rates can actually increase revenue. Remember the doubling of revenue from capital-gains tax after Charlie McCreevy halved the rate of CGT from 40% to 20%.

SF are Reds and they are only proving this by their reported plans to join the Communist Party in the European Parliament. They have shown their true colours and I would rather climb Mount Everest naked than vote for them.

sceptre

Originally posted by mike65
No doubt we'll have the usual suspects to tell us how crippling levels of high rate tax can make economic sense.

I doubt I'm one of the usual suspects (at least not on this one) but crippling levels of high rate tax can make economic sense if the vast majority (and I'm talking /vast/ majority as in "pretty much almost everyone") feel that the return on that tax bill is enough to make the take worth it (and you'd need a level of services so high that we won't be doing it this century at least). Stating the obvious really and you'll still get tax exiles. Thomas More called it "Utopia" for a darned good reason.

Obviously there's a balance to be struck. Some of the more extreme noob supply-side economists are as wacked as whoever writes this stuff for Sinn Fein , they just come at it from the other side. Reduce all tax to nothing and the state can't pay for anything unless everything is free, increase tax to 100% and almost no-one will work, study or do anything useful.

It did'nt in the 80s when the level was at 55% (as far as I recall)

65% Mike:D

(April 83 to March 85)

Sparks

69% tax is pretty comparable to scandanavian countries at the moment, and given their quality of life, it wouldn't bother me all that much.

However, they don't have the EU zone's highest indirect taxes, they don't have the EU zone's highest cost of living, they don't have the house price problem we do, and they have a lot of other advantages.

Still, though, were SF to get to the position where they could dictate taxation levels like that, my problem wouldn't be so much the tax level, as the fact that we'd be being governed by a party with ties to a standing private terrorist army and politicians with some serious criminal records for things like possession of explosives, possession of illegal firearms, gun-running, and so on...

mike65

The highest top rate of income tax is in Sweden at 56%.

Mike.

bonkey

Originally posted by mike65
The highest top rate of income tax is in Sweden at 56%.

Yes. But the 69% figure being bandied about here is a combination of income tax and Social Insurance.

Whats the PRSI in Sweden?

jc

sceptre

Originally posted by bonkey
Whats the PRSI in Sweden?

Swedish social security charges are almost always paid completely by the employer but there's a general pension contribution to be met by the employee. No idea of the rates.

edit: quick google

Originally posted by bonkey
Whats the PRSI in Sweden?

jc

I'd be kind of thinking that a more pertinent question would be whats the spend per head on health in Sweden versus Ireland...
Theres a lot of things to be got right effeciency wise in the Irish health system before we start raising taxes to the work incentive killing and emmigration fueling levels of the 1980's to throw more money at it...

Sand

Excellent news today - SF are so far to the left that they make Chinese Communist Party look like anarcho capitalists. Their economic polices are insane, literally reversing every good thing that was done to make Ireland attractive for much needed foreign investment, and to persuade qualified Irish people to stay in Ireland rather than emigrate and to reduce the incentives for people to hide their gains abroad rather than declare them in Ireland.

This will effectively destroy any chance of them becoming significant factor in an irish government, assuming Irish people in general are halfway sane and/or have been paying attention during the last decade. I was listening to a Shinner on the Newstalk 106 this morning talking about nationalising the banks. I dont think its President of Ireland that Gerry adams is after, more like Commissar.

Comparisons to the Scandinavian model might hold true if Ireland suddenly discovered North Sea oil of its coast. Ireland doesnt have a host of natural resources. Were not conveniently positioned close to the hub of europe, our workforce is great but not unique and were having troubles getting enough people into science fields, our infrastructure is not as developed as most of europe. The rules of economics do actually apply to us.

AngelofFire

A 69% tax rate in fairness is an awful lot. But i do think we should raise the higher rate of taxation by 2-3 percentage points and lower stealth charges and relieve some of the tax burden from the PAYE sector and cut back on concessions given to race course owners etc.That will help to create more equity between socio economic classes.Ok in scandanavia they do have higher taxes but stealth charges dont gobble up large percentages of their disposable income.Because of the high rate of tax working class people in denmark have on average more disposable income than working class people in ireland, as healthcare,childcare and dentalcare etc are already paid for.Low taxes and high stealth taxes only benefit the wealthy.

Im sick of the tainaste always glossing herself up over the great job she has done at "lowering the taxes".There are more people in the PAYE sector paying at the higher rate of taxation than there was 7 years ago.whilst the rich are paying less tax than they were 7 years ago.

shotamoose

Originally posted by Sand
Comparisons to the Scandinavian model might hold true if Ireland suddenly discovered North Sea oil of its coast.

Doesn't apply to Sweden.

Were not conveniently positioned close to the hub of europe

Again, neither is Sweden.

were having troubles getting enough people into science fields

Now this is where the comparison becomes really interesting: Sweden spend over three times as much on R&D as we do, they turn out the most science, maths and technology Phds in Europe, AND they have the most applications to the European Patent Office per head. source

our infrastructure is not as developed as most of europe.

And their infrastructure is much better than ours.

The rules of economics do actually apply to us.

Yeah, and it looks like paying for more R&D out of higher taxes might actually be a good idea. It certainly seems to be working for Sweden. But if the state can't afford to invest in innovation and infrastructure, you run the serious risk of losing competitiveness.

So yeah, I'd pay a bit more income tax to be a bit more like Sweden. 15 points more might be pushing it - if Sinn Fein really proposed that they're clearly still a bit politically clueless.

[edit: having read the original article, I see they haven't actually proposed that - the Examiner just got some economist to make up some scary figures for them. It's completely dishonest, since there's other ways to raise money apart from a direct hike in the top rate of tax, which might not even raise that much money due to avoidance etc]

Sparks

Originally posted by Sand
Excellent news today - SF are so far to the left that they make Chinese Communist Party look like anarcho capitalists.

So left=evil?
:rolleyes:

Comparisons to the Scandinavian model might hold true if Ireland suddenly discovered North Sea oil of its coast.

And suddenly developed a greater sense of civic responsibility and regard for rules...
But then, I think that's what we pointed out above.

and were having troubles getting enough people into science fields

That's not the only problem, we're now cutting funding to third level (TCD's budget cuts are now running at over 20%) and demanding that the third level universities just run a more business-like service. Wonderful idea, that. Take the one natural resource we have, slash the funding that produces it, and then throw out over four hundred years of expertise in producing it so we can get a Gordon Gecko in as Provost....

jank

Aww yes good old sinn fein bashing

How can we live without it

ionapaul

Originally posted by jank
Aww yes good old sinn fein bashing

How can we live without it

'All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.'

Edmund Burke (1729-1797)


It would be wrong for any of us to be silent seeing the recent rise of Sinn Fein. I know some of you think Sinn Fein =/= evil, but many more of us disagree with you.

jank

Yea the rise of sinn fein will see the destruction of irish civilisation as we know it:rolleyes:

Why cant people give them a chance, remember in the first days of our government in the 1920's TD's from both sides brought weapons with them to the dail to protect themselves in case of a "heated debate"

Luckily they werent to be used but dont forget the origans of the "NOBLE", "CLEAN" and "ULTRA-LAWFULL" of FF and FG, now can anybody spell corruption!

Yea we all know that sinn fein's past is kinda dodgey but if we keep looking at the past and trying to nitpick (read the examiner articale and it is something the sun would be very proud of in terms of sheer sensationalisim) then we should be living in caves and hunting deer

In fairness to them they are trying to put the past behind them and to look forward both in the north and the south

I can see them as part of a government in the next 20 years and all the bashing here and in the media wont stop that

And by the way i dont vote for them but I dont fall for the easy trap of
sein fein = evil, lets kill the bastards:dunno:


LOOK TO THE FUTURE NOT THE PAST

:cool:

Lemming

Originally posted by jank
Yea the rise of sinn fein will see the destruction of irish civilisation as we know it:rolleyes:

Why cant people give them a chance, remember in the first days of our government in the 1920's TD's from both sides brought weapons with them to the dail to protect themselves in case of a "heated debate"

<snip>

LOOK TO THE FUTURE NOT THE PAST

Ignoring the private army bit, SF have absolutely sod all experience outside of the context of N.I. and letting them run the country anytime inside at least the next 15/20 years is tantamount to allowing a 6 year old become CEO of a large bank.

ie. not very good.

spongebob

Originally posted by jank
I can see them as part of a government in the next 20 years and all the bashing here and in the media wont stop that

I can see them as part of a Government within 2 years, along wioth the DUP.

If they are a success there then they may even be part of a government here within 5-10 years.

Failure to deal with the soul brothers in the DUP will probably mean that they will NOT be part of a government here within the next 20 years ......once a completely new generation of leaders has flushed out those who failed . The leadership of SF has been static for almost 20 years now ..........unlike every other party except the soul brothers in the DUP.

M

ionapaul

Don't ask a historian to ignore the past, just not gonna happen...:)

They don't just have a 'dodgy past', they have a 'dodgy' (criminal and facist-leaning) present. I know a good few people who wouldn't dare give out about them in public (i.e. where others can hear) for a fairly good reason - THEY HAVE A PRIVATE ARMY OF THUGS who are still out knee-capping and punishment-beating people! I do think that moves towards peace in the North are commendable - I also think that a drug pusher deciding to pack it in and get a proper job is commendable, but doing the right thing after years of screwing up isn't something particularly noble or heroic.

Obviously some posters will think I am over-reacting, that Sinn Fein are 'not so bad' and on the right path...all I can say is that I disagree with you and see them as a serious threat to a happy and prosperous Ireland.

Civilian_Target

Exactly. Sinn Fein are terrorists, they're the political wing of the IRA. It took years to get the guns out of Irish politics (remember the Arms Crisis), and electing Sinn Fein will put the guns right back in there.

Villain

Originally posted by Civilian_Target
Exactly. Sinn Fein are terrorists, they're the political wing of the IRA. It took years to get the guns out of Irish politics (remember the Arms Crisis), and electing Sinn Fein will put the guns right back in there.

Can you please provide links with evidence that

Sinn Fein are terrorists

.

Because otherwise your talking pure crap and obviously are living in the past.:rolleyes:

Jank I agree very much with what you said, but people here don't want to move forward they would rather live in the past.

spongebob

Originally posted by Civilian_Target
Exactly. Sinn Fein are terrorists, they're the political wing of the IRA. It took years to get the guns out of Irish politics (remember the Arms Crisis), and electing Sinn Fein will put the guns right back in there.

Ohh dear, this is a bit simplistic, other politicians have a chequered past too.

Pat Rabbitte is leader of Labour .

During the 1970s 1980s and 1990s Pat was a MEMBER of a party with a military wing, they were Sinn Fein the Workers Party until 20 years ago and thereafter the Workers Party. The military wing , together with LARGE scale counterfeiting of US currency , funded the party during the lean late 1970's and much of the 1980's .

Pat and the more 'democratic' ones left in the 1990s, formed Democratic Left and got into government. They did not dare do so 10 years before when the military wing (the Official IRA) was still quite active, especially in fundraising matters but also in the enforcement of "Democratic Centralism" as they so charmingly described their internal decision making process. Pat Rabbitte NEVER condemned the Official IRA during the 1970s and the 1980s , fear myopia and careerism are a lethal combination sometimes , I am not minded to speculate on the relative weightings that may be ascribed to either or all of them . .

Once Democratic Left left the Workers Party and their (by then insignificant) military wing behind they were in government in very short order. Then they merged with the Labour party and now Pat could be the next Taoiseach. I assert here that I consider Pat a true democrat and that I think he would be a Good Taoiseach .

I ALSO assume that there are democrats of Pats 'calibre' in Sinn Féin itself as well, I expect to see them in charge AFTER another 10-20 years once it is manifestly obvious that the current lot are fossilised in war mode . In the meantime there is the by now 'traditional' issue of the private army.......once which is more active now that the Officials were 20 years ago.

M

ionapaul

Please stop with the 'living in the past' bit, it is a truism to say that we become blind if we ignore the lessons learnt in the past. Who needs to ignore the past except people whose past is problematic? If I were the head of a fascist organisation I would tell people to ignore the past too, or maybe concentrate on history prior to 1920 and since 1945 (and totally ignore Spain and Portugal until quite recently of course ) and ignore the intervening years!

Again, they don't just have a private army in the past, they have one today as well! Any no, I am not going to provide any links to prove the IRA still exists as an organisation.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.