The more you earn the less you pay.

The Muppet

Eleven millionaires in the Republic are paying no income tax, it emerged today. They show that 41 people with incomes of €500,000 or more paid no tax in 2001. Eleven of these, nine self-employed and two PAYE workers, had incomes of more than €1,000,000.

So the more you have the less you pay. Doesn't really sound like a fair system to me.

seamus

Link?

I doubt it's a case of not having to pay more, it's probably more to do with legal wrangling and tax loopholing.

The Muppet

Sorry Seamus I don't have an internet link yet the story is only breaking. Listen to the news for the rest of the day /weekend.

[edit]
Just found this

Link

[/edit]

koneko

http://www.rte.ie/business/2004/1022/revenue.html

Nuttzz

this is because they generally availed for property based tax incentive schemes which allowed them to off set losses against tax, nothing new here

impr0v

This is a slap in the face to anyone who keeps their affairs above board and pays the tax they are supposed to. I know that these individuals are not technically doing anything illegal, but 'Tax Avoidance' and 'Tax Evasion' are the same thing to the common paye worker, getting screwed to the tune of 42% as soon as they cross the threshold.

The argument can be made that the investments that these individuals have to make in order to qualify for the loopholes etc. are beneficial to the economy at large, but the fact that they can avail of so many avoidance measures at the one time so as to render their tax liability as zero from an income of 1 million plus is a travesty.

Perhaps McCreevey had some high level analysis available to him which suggests that allowing the top earners to slip through the tax net unhindered allows them to stimulate the economy by spreading around their huge disposable income and feels that the great unwashed hordes couldn't deal with this information if divulged, or perhaps he has some low level analysis available to him which suggests that the untaxed voter is a happy voter, and contributer. Either way, this government are once again shown to be the bedfellows of big business.

The Muppet

Nuttzz wrote:

nothing new here

Unfortunately thats true but do compliant tax payers have to settle for that and just shrug it off as being acceptable. For too long the wealthy and in the know of this country have evaded/avoided (same thing to me too) paying their full taxes while the PAYE worker and other compliant tax payers have shouldered the burden. as we hear today some of these millionaire spongers have contributed absoluteLy nothing in direct taxes.

Its nothing short of a disgrace.

frodi

The Muppet wrote:

So the more you have the less you pay. Doesn't really sound like a fair system to me.

Too right too, taxes are only for the little people.


Not in the €1,000,000 p.a. catagory.................yet!

Sleepy

I notice none of them are named...

So let's start naming them:

Bono
Larry Mullen
The Edge
Adam Clayton
Enya

Who're the others?

impr0v

Denis O'Brien isn't on the list anyway, he dosen't bother with the avoidance rigmarole, preferring to spend the regulation amount of time in Portugal so as to qualify as a citizen and pay tax there. He's believed to have saved 51 million euros in capital gains alone (from the esat sale) by moving there.

RainyDay

The current edition of Phoenix has a great article on how McCreevy brought in tax breaks (following lobbying by the part owner of the Blackrock Clinic) to 'encourage' the building of private hospitals. This break is being used by consultants taking rooms in the new Galway hospital and will cost the state about €42 million in lost income. It's great to see our tax dollars being so well utilised.

But don't make the mistake of thinking that this large state subsidy might ensure an open, pluralistic policy for the ethos of the new hospital. The strongly Catholic developer has ensured that no questionable treatments like IVF treatments will be carried out at the hospital. We wouldn't want any of those nasty people with fertility problems getting a bit of help to have their children, would we?

MrPudding

Sleepy wrote:

I notice none of them are named...

So let's start naming them:

Bono
Larry Mullen
The Edge
Adam Clayton
Enya

Who're the others?

Is this a comment on the tax free nature of income earned from arts? Personally I think that is fair enough.

I agree with it. I don't have an artistic bone in my body and so will never benefit from it but I think it is a good idea. The thing to remember is that the tax free bit only works on the earnings directly from artistic works. Pretty much anything they do with the money afer that is taxed. I know they will have accountants to help then reduce the amount of tax they will pay but they will still pay DIRT tax, VAT, VRT and stuff like that.

You also picked some of Irelands highest earning artists, what about the majority of artists that don't earn millions? Personally I would rather see the bloodstock industry pay a bit of tax than artists.

MrP

chill

impr0v wrote:

This is a slap in the face to anyone who keeps their affairs above board and pays the tax they are supposed to.
[SNIP}
Either way, this government are once again shown to be the bedfellows of big business.

What a load of TOSS.

These kinds of tax incentives are legitimate and have been in place for decade upon decade and have benefitted the country a million times over.

You clearly have no understanding or appreciation of the tax system and the importance of tax reliefs and allowances for investment. Else you believe in a communist or marxist system where citizens are denied the right to capital.

RainyDay

chill wrote:

You clearly have no understanding or appreciation of the tax system and the importance of tax reliefs and allowances for investment.

So please enlighten us - Give us some understanding or appreciation as to why the state should subsidise the building of a private hospital to the tune of €42 million (given that the private hospital will only be open to the priviliged one third of society that can afford private health insurance and will only offer procedures in line with Catholic church policy)? Why should the state subsidise an asset that will only help so few, at the expense of the many?

impr0v

chill wrote:

What a load of TOSS.

These kinds of tax incentives are legitimate and have been in place for decade upon decade and have benefitted the country a million times over.

You clearly have no understanding or appreciation of the tax system and the importance of tax reliefs and allowances for investment. Else you believe in a communist or marxist system where citizens are denied the right to capital.

I'm willing to be educated so instead of bemoaning my lack of understanding or painting me red, please elaborate on your justification for the ability of 242 people with incomes between 100 thousand and one million euros to pay zero tax to the government, while a single paye worker on the minimum wage for 48 hours a week (try engaging the services of a tax accountant with a diploma in loopholes on that wage) will pay nearly 3,500 euro in tax. Making some vague, and by its nature very hard to prove, statement about these 'tax incentives' benefitting the country 'a million times over' doesn't increase my appreciation of the tax system.

impr0v

impr0v wrote:

please elaborate on your justification for the ability of 242 people with incomes between 100 thousand and one million euros to pay zero tax to the government,

Well my initial repy to that without knowing what particular tax breaks these people availed of would be that they invested their earnings in areas which may have caused the economy to grow.
They didn't have to do that and wouldn't do so if the breaks weren't there.
Why would one spend tens of thousands refurbishing a house in a run down area and then renting it out for instance if there was no incentive to do so?

Before being overly critical on this, it would be helpfull to see a cost benefit analysis on the tax breaks versus the lack of income tax collected as a result of them.
It's never a cut and dry case of these people being bleeders.

RainyDay

Earthman wrote:

Why would one spend tens of thousands refurbishing a house in a run down area and then renting it out for instance if there was no incentive to do so?

If the state wants to subsidise rural housing, why doesn't it give a direct subsidy to those who live in the area, instead of giving the subsidy to the landlord or developer? It couldn't possibly have anything to do with the Fianna Fail tent at the Galway Races each year that overflows with builders & developers, could it?

A Dub in Glasgo

Tax breaks and write offs to give an incentive for millionaires, no tax breaks or write offs for the PAYE worker

Well it seems to me such a cruel irony
He's richer now than ever he was before
Now my cheque is spent and I can't afford the rent
There's one law for the rich, one for the poor

Christy Moore Ordinary Man

impr0v

Earthman wrote:

Why would one spend tens of thousands refurbishing a house in a run down area and then renting it out for instance if there was no incentive to do so?

I'm not arguing for the abolition of incentives, I'm arguing against a system that allows for an individual to avail of so many of these incentives at the same time so as to reduce a potential tax bill of hundreds of thousands to zero. In the case you mention, sure there are spin off benefits to the wider economy of that investment, but the net beneficiary at the end of the process is the person receiving the rental income from the house which was refurbished at a significant cost to the state. This to me seems like the model for the major of the incentives, incidental benefits to the economy, eventual and substantial benefits to the individual.

Cork

Sleepy wrote:

I notice none of them are named...

So let's start naming them:

Bono
Larry Mullen
The Edge
Adam Clayton
Enya

Who're the others?

Why is a persons work constantly the target of tax?

When FF brought in a property tax - It was the middle classes who threw a fit.

When the government taxes consumption - people call it a stelth tax.

Many people don't pay tax. They may live outside our state, avail of tax breaks or may not be active in the labour force.

This is not new.

Reliefs for the horse racing industry and artiests are around for years.

FF, Fg and Labour all could have dropped many of these tax breaks but decided not to.

SkepticOne

Cork wrote:

Many people don't pay tax. They may live outside our state, avail of tax breaks or may not be active in the labour force.

This is not new.

Well, I don't think many states tax those with no income or people living abroad. I don't think you can lump these categories together and say, "hey, poor people don't pay tax, why not the very well off?" The reasons for each case are very different.

It is true that it is not new that artists and the horse industry receive tax breaks, but these things should be reviewed occasionally. Is there any need to give mult-millionaire commercial recording artists tax breaks? I belive the rule was brought in to help poorer artist and writers who previously were leaving the country.

Cork

SkepticOne wrote:

It is true that it is not new that artists and the horse industry receive tax breaks, but these things should be reviewed occasionally..

They should be reviewed. The tax breaks for student accomadation have allowed many students to get decent accomadation while in college. Tax breaks for car parks have catered for the growing car usage in this country.

Tax breaks are not a bad thing in themselves. They need however to be open to regular review.

RainyDay

RainyDay wrote:

If the state wants to subsidise rural housing, why doesn't it give a direct subsidy to those who live in the area, instead of giving the subsidy to the landlord or developer? It couldn't possibly have anything to do with the Fianna Fail tent at the Galway Races each year that overflows with builders & developers, could it?

Now don't be so cynical, there were plenty of BES schemes and rural and urban housing schemes in operation during the last rainbow government.

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Tax breaks and write offs to give an incentive for millionaires, no tax breaks or write offs for the PAYE worker [/url]

Actually there are plenty of tax breaks for the paye earner including many of write offs leading to this sensationalist headline.

impr0v wrote:

I'm not arguing for the abolition of incentives, I'm arguing against a system that allows for an individual to avail of so many of these incentives at the same time so as to reduce a potential tax bill of hundreds of thousands to zero.

The key word here that people seem to be missing is the word earned
These people didn't have to earn this money in Ireland , they could in all likelhood have earned it elsewhere or not have earned it at all if there was not enough incentive to be on such a high pay scale.
The very fact that they are able to avail of the tax incentives to do something which otherwise would have been unworthwhile and not done at all says it all in my view.
In the light of that , in my view , to say the more you earn the less you pay is not the right way to look at it at all.
You may as well say the more you earn the bigger a car you can buy and say that's not right as well.
Remember two things, these people are investing at least 40%-50% more along with the governments contribution via the tax incentive so they are doubly entitled to a return in that they've promoted something that the government on it's own mightnt necessarally have been able to encourage as much and secondly they have ploughed money they would have left after tax into this also.
BES schemes are risky in a lot of cases also but they provide jobs too.

but the net beneficiary at the end of the process is the person receiving the rental income from the house which was refurbished at a significant cost to the state.

The state is a significant beneficiary too, given that VAT will have been paid on the building materials(and not claimed back assuming most of these individuals would not be the builders) not to mention the wages of the builders etc etc.
I wouldn't discount corporation tax paid by some of the companies involved in the BES schemes either or the downstream positive affects to the local economy of the wages paid to and of course the tax paid by the employee's.
Some of these tax breaks greatly benefit the film industry here too which like the other things I've mentioned provide jobs as well as having untold benefits in terms of revenu for the country via the tourist industry.

A Dub in Glasgo

Earthman wrote:

Actually there are plenty of tax breaks for the paye earner including many of write offs leading to this sensationalist headline.

Please elaborate

Hobbes

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Please elaborate

Get someone to do your taxes and they will list them out for you.

Due to contract reasons some years ago work did my taxes for me and anything they got back they got to keep. The amount of cash they got back was insane.

There are all number of tricks. A taxi driver was telling me about the tax certs being a load of crap as it is possible to claim off a whole load of stuff to offset the form.

A Dub in Glasgo

Hobbes wrote:

Get someone to do your taxes and they will list them out for you.

Due to contract reasons some years ago work did my taxes for me and anything they got back they got to keep. The amount of cash they got back was insane.

There are all number of tricks. A taxi driver was telling me about the tax certs being a load of crap as it is possible to claim off a whole load of stuff to offset the form.

Still does not elaborate how a PAYE worker can avail of these magical write offs, incentives and 'tricks' (I assume you mean truthful tax avoidance)

RainyDay

Cork wrote:

Tax breaks for car parks have catered for the growing car usage in this country.

But Cork, don't these whole relief programs go against your oft-quoted enthusiasm for the free market economy? Or perhaps the 'free-market' is only a great thing when used as a whipping stick for the public service.

Tax reliefs for car park development clearly demonstrates the lunacy of these schemes. Why on earth should the state subsidise the development of car parks, when the official policy of the state is to encourage public transport. Car drivers should pay the full economic cost of their parking, not a state-subsidised cost. Surely any funds (or reliefs) available in the transport area should go to public, mass transport. Why wouldn't the state offer tax reliefs to private coach operators, for example?

The Irish/FF obsession with property development is the only good reason.

impr0v

Earthman wrote:

The key word here that people seem to be missing is the word earned
These people didn't have to earn this money in Ireland , they could in all likelhood have earned it elsewhere or not have earned it at all if there was not enough incentive to be on such a high pay scale.

Not enough incentive to be on a high pay scale? Surely the generally linear relationship between quality of life and salary in this country is enough incentive? The whole beauty of the basic capitalism model is that people don't need an incentive to earn more money, everyone wants to be rich. All the paye workers over the 20% threshold and getting taxed at 42%, but not availing of any loopholes, or incentives still want to earn more money. This argument doesn't hold any water in my opinion. And they could have earned it elsewhere? Why would they when they get to keep it all in this country? I think it's safe to say that the majority of these people wouldn't be making these salaries in any comparable European country at least, even without a breakdown of their areas of employment, given the performance of our economy relative to our near neighbours. You'd have to travel some distance to get an economy performing as well, though of course, you'll attribute this to incentivising the refurbishment of run-down cottages.

Earthman wrote:

The very fact that they are able to avail of the tax incentives to do something which otherwise would have been unworthwhile and not done at all says it all in my view.

Who judges whether the incentivised activity is worthwhile or not? They are availing of the tax incentives to make themselves money and to avoid paying tax, not to regenerate run down areas (to continue with your example). It seems to me that the incentives are primarily worthwhile to the individual, rather than worthwhile to society in general, which is what their tax payment is theoretically supposed to contribute towards.

Earthman wrote:

In the light of that , in my view , to say the more you earn the less you pay is not the right way to look at it at all.

Not my words, and I think the simplification was applied by the original poster because the words 'The more you earn the more you should consider engaging the services of a well briefed tax accountant to show you around the loophole and incentives showroom with the aim of leagally removing your obligation to pay tax' would have made a sensationalist and unweildly thread title (without wishing to put words in his/her mouth ).

Earthman wrote:

You may as well say the more you earn the bigger a car you can buy and say that's not right as well.

It's not like saying that at all. The more you earn the more your purchasing power increases is a fact of a commodity based economy, there is no argument to it. This is the incentive to earn a higher salary.

Earthman wrote:

Remember two things, these people are investing at least 40%-50% more along with the governments contribution via the tax incentive so they are doubly entitled to a return in that they've promoted something that the government on it's own mightnt necessarally have been able to encourage as much and secondly they have ploughed money they would have left after tax into this also.

Please clarify what type of incentive exactly you're referring to here, is it the run-down housing example, or section 23/50 type relief? Where does the 40-50% come from?

BES schemes are risky in a lot of cases also but they provide jobs too.

Absolutely, Business Expansion Schemes can create employment, but not at the moment as the EU has suspended them in order to investigate whether they are in effect anti-competition state aid. The schemes can also be abused, in that there is intense competition for the money and generally it is only given to start-ups whom are a pretty sure bet to return it, making it effectively a low interest loan system where the money being loaned by the lender is not his/her own, but money foregone by the exchequer.

Earthman wrote:

The state is a significant beneficiary too, given that VAT will have been paid on the building materials(and not claimed back assuming most of these individuals would not be the builders)...

The vast amount of people within that salary bracket will be self-employed, and therefore eligable to claim the VAT back.

Earthman wrote:

...not to mention the wages of the builders etc etc.

So the argument then effectively is: let the high earners keep their tax liability to get work carried out on their behalf, and let the people doing the work for them pay their taxes on their wages, it filters down that way?

Earthman wrote:

I wouldn't discount corporation tax paid by some of the companies involved in the BES schemes either or the downstream positive affects to the local economy of the wages paid to and of course the tax paid by the employee's.

Seems it is. Tax those in the lower earnings brackets, then we're effectively taxing the higher earners too.

Earthman wrote:

Some of these tax breaks greatly benefit the film industry here too which like the other things I've mentioned provide jobs as well as having untold benefits in terms of revenu for the country via the tourist industry.

The Section 481 tax relief for money invested in film will end on the 31st of December this year. This type of relief I don't have a problem with because cost benefit studies have been carried out and have shown the money foregone by the exchequer to have been more than accounted for in the money generated from the returns. If this was carried out for each of the incentives or loopholes then they would perhaps be easier to justify.

However, as I stated earlier I'm not arguing against the idea of incentives, I'm arguing against a system which allows somebody to avail of these incentives to such an extent so as to pay zero tax, on what is frequently a very high salary. Your argument is essentially that these incentives are just as good as taxing the high earners, because we all benefit eventually anyway, but they benefit to much larger extent than anyone else does, otherwise they wouldn't avail of them. Is my argument rooted in some sort of begrudgery? Possibly there are some elements of that, but I consider it unfair that the average worker sees a quanitifiable and almost tangible amount of money taken out of their weekly wage to go to tax, and while the rates aren't overly punitive in comparison to other countries, they're positively crippling compared to the special high-earner zero percent rates quoted in the articles at the start of this thread.

Victor

Tax breaks are an actual disincentive to (a) earning (b) work (as in real work, not rents, etc.) as somewhere else someone is paying higher tax. While, in times past and for specific social objectives they might have been justified, they aren't in an overheated property market.

Lads, the argument on VAT is daft. Not only are property developers paying the lower rate of VAT, they would be paying VAT on something else anyway. Nobody can reclaim VAT on property (it does get written off as an expense though).

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,176-1325944,00.html

The Sunday Times
October 24, 2004
Leading article: A non-taxing solution

Income tax is designed to be progressive: the more you earn, the more you pay. It is a simple and equitable proposition, but it is turned on its head when tax incentives so distort the system that the reverse becomes the reality: the more you earn, the less you pay. Last week it was revealed that 11 individuals earning more than €1m paid not a cent in tax in 2001, along with a further 41 people who earned more than €500,000. While it is possible to admire their ingenuity in legally avoiding any tax liabilities, it is clearly unjust.
Tax incentives can be a legitimate part of government strategy because they encourage investment in unfashionable or high-risk areas: the Irish film industry, for example, has prospered on the back of incentives while city centres have been regenerated. Incentives have a role, but when it is possible for even a few individuals to avoid any obligation to the state, they fall into disrepute. Ireland’s enlightened approach to taxation — particularly the sharp reductions in corporation tax, capital gains tax and personal income tax — played a significant part in the economic awakening that has delivered sustained growth for more than a decade. Tax revenues have soared, international corporations have invested and full employment has replaced high unemployment.

Politics, however, has not kept pace with Ireland’s transformation: despite the real evidence that low taxation creates a virtuous economic circle, the believers in high taxation have not gone away. Their cause is helped by misguided tax incentives that allow the very wealthy to shield all their income.

There is a solution. Brian Cowen, the minister for finance, should consider a minimum tax rate. The minimum tax is not an additional revenue raiser: it affects only high earners and prevents them from reducing their tax bill below a minimum threshold of, say, 10% or 20%. It leaves room for the very wealthy to reduce their tax bills substantially by making investments that can contribute to the public good, but ensures that every citizen of means makes a contribution to the state. A tiny minority shouldn’t taint the system.

impr0v

impr0v wrote:

Not enough incentive to be on a high pay scale? Surely the generally linear relationship between quality of life and salary in this country is enough incentive?

Rise the tax rates to the people we are talking about and withdraw the incentives and see what happens, have a wee look back to the eighties and early ninties when educated people with the potential to earn here , left in droves.
It's not just the few who have made enough to be able to write off all their income in these schemes, who are using them, there are many on more modest earnings availing of them too.

{qualification}I appreciate that further down in your post you emphasise that it's not an end to the incentives you want but an end to, where they allow a zero tax bill-I've dealt with this further down too,from my point of view, emphasising what tricking around with incentives might do to the perception or value of these {/Qualification}

They are availing of the tax incentives to make themselves money and to avoid paying tax, not to regenerate run down areas

Exactly but ergo the private money wouldn't be invested there otherwise.
Whats left? The public coffers? Well to finance that , you are talking higher taxes and pop goes a lot of the weasel then in terms of incentive.

It seems to me that the incentives are primarily worthwhile to the individual, rather than worthwhile to society in general, which is what their tax payment is theoretically supposed to contribute towards.

Of course they are worthwhile to the individual.
On a relative scale they are worthwhile to any individual once their disposable income means they can afford to make that choice.
You are always going to have people at various stages of the income ladder, there will always be a higher rung and different opportunities as you climb the rungs. Governments should tap into that as a resource in my view in a way that incentivises development and growth rather than a way that disincentivises it.

The more you earn the more your purchasing power increases is a fact of a commodity based economy, there is no argument to it. This is the incentive to earn a higher salary.

Exactly as is the way a government in my view should incentivise what you do with that money to promote growth.
Effectively what I am talking about here now is allowing Joe soap to be involved in basic public private partnerships and essentially that is what BES schemes and Sectioned housing are-The government invests what you might pay in extra tax and you invest what would have been your after tax income in an activity that promotes growth rather than in a frivolous activity.
The government don't give tax breaks to private individuals, that I'm aware of, for foreign holidays for instance.

Please clarify what type of incentive exactly you're referring to here, is it the run-down housing example, or section 23/50 type relief? Where does the 40-50% come from?

I'm referring to that portion of your income that you would have left after tax if you are at the higher rate if you dont avail of a BES or a film fund or whatever is currently available.

Absolutely, Business Expansion Schemes can create employment, but not at the moment as the EU has suspended them in order to investigate whether they are in effect anti-competition state aid.

I understand from commentary on yesterdays news at one iirc that the individuals referred to in the news report availed of BES schemes, which is the relevancy to this discussion. They were certainly available for that tax year.

The vast amount of people within that salary bracket will be self-employed, and therefore eligable to claim the VAT back.

Are you sure that they would be able to claim the VAT back on items not related to the business in which they practice? I wouldn't like trying to explain it in an audit situation :eek:

So the argument then effectively is: let the high earners keep their tax liability to get work carried out on their behalf, and let the people doing the work for them pay their taxes on their wages, it filters down that way?

I've emphasised the earners because you effectively seem to be saying that because they earn so much, they should be treated differently.
The " differently" I mean is that beyond a certain point the incentives open to lower income earners should be curbed... ie they should just be taxed at a higher rate and let the government spend it for them.
That sure would be an incentive killer in my view. What the government are doing to my eyes is keeping the incentive for people to earn more and saying heres what you can do with it when you get it.
Otherwise the alternative is, We(the government) will take it off you and spend it for you and the flipside is you can be as frivolous as you like with whats left with no incentive to assist the economy in a more effecient way.

I'm arguing against a system which allows somebody to avail of these incentives to such an extent so as to pay zero tax, on what is frequently a very high salary. Your argument is essentially that these incentives are just as good as taxing the high earners, because we all benefit eventually anyway, but they benefit to much larger extent than anyone else does, otherwise they wouldn't avail of them. Is my argument rooted in some sort of begrudgery? Possibly there are some elements of that, but I consider it unfair that the average worker sees a quanitifiable and almost tangible amount of money taken out of their weekly wage to go to tax, and while the rates aren't overly punitive in comparison to other countries, they're positively crippling compared to the special high-earner zero percent rates quoted in the articles at the start of this thread.

Don't get me wrong,I can see your point of view.
It's just that my view on this is rooted in peoples freedom to be able to earn high amounts of income and the incentive to attain a level of income/sucess in their job/profession that they want to.The ability to avail of various schemes is always relevent to how much you earn.It's the same with taxes unless you go down the realm of socialism and start taking out the incentive altogether in favour of total equality eg the same for the exceptionally qualified or the exceptionally hard worker as for the slacker.
Thats a subject for a whole different thread though.

Victor

Earthman wrote:

Exactly but ergo the private money wouldn't be invested there otherwise.

Can I scream "over-heated free market economy with tax subsidies" fast enough?

Exactly as is the way a government in my view should incentivise what you do with that money to promote growth.

Fair enough, but a lot of the property expenditure is frivolous. It's being spent on €750 gold taps from Germany, not floor space or roofs over people's heads.

The government don't give tax breaks to private individuals, that I'm aware of, for foreign holidays for instance.

(a) the self-employed / corporate types refer to them as "business trips", not "holidays". (b) remind me how much VAT & excise the government makes on international flights and hotel stays abroad?

Victor

Victor wrote:

Can I scream "over-heated free market economy with tax subsidies" fast enough?Fair enough, but a lot of the property expenditure is frivolous. It's being spent on €750 gold taps from Germany, not floor space or roofs over people's heads.(a) the self-employed / corporate types refer to them as "business trips", not "holidays". (b) remind me how much VAT & excise the government makes on international flights and hotel stays abroad?

Victor you do realise I'll have ask you for links to surveys done on how many gold taps from Germany are in these appartments and to how many frivolous mar- dhea holidays are done...

And when in the last decade has our economy been overheated by the way,if by overheated you mean house price falls and bust rather than boom?

Victor

OK, anecdotally, do you think gold taps sold better in (a) 1984 (b) 1994 (c) 2004?

Earthman wrote:

how many frivolous mar- dhea holidays are done...

I would respond, but Charlie abolished departure tax, a key measuring factor in determining the figures.

Earthman wrote:

And when in the last decade has our economy been overheated by the way,if by overheated you mean house price falls and bust rather than boom?

... and the rest of the construction industry and personal services and health and pubs & restaurants and retail and energy & utilities and government services and consumer products ...

Remind me how much a bar of chocolate these days?

RainyDay

Earthman wrote:

Rise the tax rates to the people we are talking about and withdraw the incentives and see what happens, have a wee look back to the eighties and early ninties when educated people with the potential to earn here , left in droves.
It's not just the few who have made enough to be able to write off all their income in these schemes, who are using them, there are many on more modest earnings availing of them too.

Are you trying to reassure us, or rile us up even more? So now you find it acceptable that those on 'modest' earnings don't need to pay any tax either, once it is routed into one of these schemes supposedly to encourage 'growth'? This is just crazy. Our public services are in a mess, partially because we simply don't take in enough tax income (Yes, there are mis-management issues too, but that's a question for another day). We need to cut these schemes and fund some decent public services for our citizens.

Earthman wrote:

Exactly but ergo the private money wouldn't be invested there otherwise.

It is fairly clear from your posts that you are a smart guy, so I know you really didn't fall for this oul scaremongering. Do you really believe that there would be fewer car parks in Dublin city centre without these tax breaks? Or fewer stud farms in Kildare? Or fewer private hospitals currently in construction?

These developments will happen without any requirement for the state to subside them through tax relief. They may well end up being a little less profitiable for the developers and/or a little more expensive for the consumers, but they will still happen. There is no good reason for state funds to be used to subsidise these developments.

If there is state funding available to 'encourage' development in the health service, why isn't it being routed into the public health system. And if there is state funding available to 'encourage' development in transport, why isn't it being routed into the public transport system?

Earthman wrote:

I've emphasised the earners because you effectively seem to be saying that because they earn so much, they should be treated differently.
The " differently" I mean is that beyond a certain point the incentives open to lower income earners should be curbed... ie they should just be taxed at a higher rate and let the government spend it for them.

You are missing the point. No-one is proposing a higher tax rate on high earners on this thread. Several posters are simply proposing that the same tax rate which applies to ordinary factory & office workers will also apply to the super-high earners. It is about equity & fairness.

Victor

Victor wrote:

Remind me how much a bar of chocolate these days?

I could tell you that a packet of tayto in the 70's was probably around 1 or 2p Victor.
I can tell you that , I was in power city in sallynoggin yesterday and it was packed to the rafters with people carting out expensive items ranging from american style fridges to flat screen tv's ie there was plenty of money in evidence and not much sign of Bust.

RainyDay wrote:

You are missing the point. No-one is proposing a higher tax rate on high earners on this thread. Several posters are simply proposing that the same tax rate which applies to ordinary factory & office workers will also apply to the super-high earners. It is about equity & fairness.

If it's about equity and fairness, why is it being alluded to in this thread that because people earn money beyond a certain level that their access to certain reliefs should be curbed? Surely their rights to such earning capacity shouldn't be curbed, it's an infringement of their proven capabilities.
They have after all worked to get to that stage.

These developments will happen without any requirement for the state to subside them through tax relief. They may well end up being a little less profitiable for the developers and/or a little more expensive for the consumers, but they will still happen. There is no good reason for state funds to be used to subsidise these developments.

Well thats your point of view,take it up with the politicians,but while the relief is available,might I suggest not denograting peoples rights to take up the relief that is there, just because they have earned more resources to avail of it.

If there is state funding available to 'encourage' development in the health service, why isn't it being routed into the public health system. And if there is state funding available to 'encourage' development in transport, why isn't it being routed into the public transport system?

Well I'd agree with you on the public transport system,so would you mind then if someone who has earned massive amounts of income was able to offset all or most of it against investment in that area?

As regards private investment in the public health service, well regrettably, I doubt any sane wealthy individual would be too willing to plough funds into that without significant structural reform.
The blame for the state of the health services cannot hardly be held at the door of the people availing of tax incentive schemes-we've had many sucessive governments in charge of that debacle.

RainyDay

Earthman wrote:

I can tell you that , I was in power city in sallynoggin yesterday and it was packed to the rafters with people carting out expensive items ranging from american style fridges to flat screen tv's ie there was plenty of money in evidence and not much sign of Bust.

Carting out expensive items is not a sign of wealth. It is a sign of debt. I was amazed to overhear (OK - I was doing my very best to earwig) a couple purchasing a €4k plasma screen asking for the in-store finance package (APR around 29% iirc). If you can't afford to buy such luxury items, you really shouldn't be going into debt (very expensive debt) to get them.

Earthman wrote:

If it's about equity and fairness, why is it being alluded to in this thread that because people earn money beyond a certain level that their access to certain reliefs should be curbed? Surely their rights to such earning capacity shouldn't be curbed, it's an infringement of their proven capabilities.
They have after all worked to get to that stage.

I didn't see any such allusions on this thread. I saw direct statements that those with very high incomes should pay the same level of tax as the rest of us. No more, no less.

Earthman wrote:

Well thats your point of view,take it up with the politicians,but while the relief is available,might I suggest not denograting peoples rights to take up the relief that is there, just because they have earned more resources to avail of it.

I don't get your logic. You seem to assume that the existance of these reliefs is a 'given'. They are not a 'given' - the reliefs exist solely because certain Governments have explicitly decided to offer state subsidise to private developments. Once again, my problem isn't with the level of earnings, it is with the reliefs that allow such individuals to legally avoid tax.

And while we are at it, why is the mortgage interest relief given to property investors uncapped/unlimited, while the relief offered to home owners has a fairly low cap. Why should the state subsidise investors to help them to outbid first time buyers?

bonkey

Earthman wrote:

If it's about equity and fairness, why is it being alluded to in this thread that because people earn money beyond a certain level that their access to certain reliefs should be curbed?

Because those benefits are designed purely and solely to benefit the rich - they are benefits which typically are not available to the lower earner, or are simply not cost-effective (as the accountant costs would be as high, if not higher, then the money being saved).

If you want to keep it equal, then view it as a call to remove these "certain reliefs" from everyone. The net effect is the same, and - to be honest - thats how it would be implemented anyway.

What you're arguing seems to be that removing existing inequality is not about equity and fairness....which would be counter-intuitive.

jc

Redleslie2

Apologies if this was already posted but it sounds sensible to me.

Economist proposes flat-tax for wealthy.

A Dub in Glasgo

Why not put everybody on a flat 15% tax? I would prefer if the reliefs, write offs and tricks were found and closed.

Earthman - http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=2011546&postcount=24

RainyDay

RainyDay wrote:

Carting out expensive items is not a sign of wealth. It is a sign of debt. I was amazed to overhear (OK - I was doing my very best to earwig) a couple purchasing a €4k plasma screen asking for the in-store finance package (APR around 29% iirc). If you can't afford to buy such luxury items, you really shouldn't be going into debt (very expensive debt) to get them.

Indeed I'm sure that happens but the people that I saw yesterday were paying with either credit cards or cash.
If they weren't maintaining those cards they would be declining the purchase.
The fact remains that there is oodles of earnings in this country, there may be oodles of debt too, but for the large part its a well maintained debt. Theres hundreds of houses being built in my area anyway and not much sign of re possessions.

I didn't see any such allusions on this thread. I saw direct statements that those with very high incomes should pay the same level of tax as the rest of us. No more, no less.

Which is an opportunity open to all just as much as the opportunity to avail relatively of tax reliefs is open to all.

bonkey wrote:

Because those benefits are designed purely and solely to benefit the rich - they are benefits which typically are not available to the lower earner, or are simply not cost-effective (as the accountant costs would be as high, if not higher, then the money being saved).
jc

I disagree, accountants costs are tax deductable at whatever rate you are on, you don't have to be super rich to buy as your home a house with some form of sectioned relief on it.
I have one friend for instance who is a wood work teacher and who works after school putting in kitchens, tiling and all sorts of carpentry and building work.He's very highly motivated and clearly works very hard but aint uber rich by a long shot yet he is living in a sectioned house and has bought another one which he is doing up himself.
The money he is earning outside of teaching is covering his mortgage costs.

If you want to keep it equal, then view it as a call to remove these "certain reliefs" from everyone. The net effect is the same, and - to be honest - thats how it would be implemented anyway.

Well yeah thats true to an extent, it wouldnt help my friend above or anyone who aspired to becoming wealthy but then thats subjective isn't it?

What you're arguing seems to be that removing existing inequality is not about equity and fairness....which would be counter-intuitive.

No I am not.
What you said previously there regarding abolishing the reliefs for everybody would be equality and fairness but doing so may cause other problems like deadening some of the incentives to rise up a salary scale if a government decided it had to rise tax rates to cover increased expenditure in areas benefiting from the schemes.
What I am consistantly arguing for in this thread is for some regard for the fact that people have earned this money beyond the point that they need have done and are being encouraged to do something non frivolous with it.

bonkey

Earthman wrote:

I disagree, accountants costs are tax deductable at whatever rate you are on,

So?

Do the math. If you are paying tax at 20% (I'm picking easy numbers, not real figures) and spend €1000 on an accountant per year, thats a whole €200 you get back on your tax bill. So if your accountant doesn't save you more than an additional €800 on top of what he costs himself, you're still worse off.

Until you get to the point where what the accountant is able to save you is over and above the cost of the accountant, you're worse off. Now, if accountants were able to make everyone better off, why wouldn't they be touting aggressively for this business? The fact that they aren't suggests that its because they also know that its just not worthwhile below a certain earnings-threshold.

you don't have to be super rich to buy as your home a house with some form of sectioned relief on it.

Nice sweeping statement, but I'm pretty sure if you look at the typical minimum cost of such an item, and work out the percentage of the population who can afford to pay such prices for houses, you will end up well below 50%.

You mightn't need to be super-rich, no. You will just need to be in the top n%, where the lower a value n has, the more you get to save off your tax bill both as a percentage, and as a hard value.

Well yeah thats true to an extent, it wouldnt help my friend above or anyone who aspired to becoming wealthy but then thats subjective isn't it?

But its not about helping people to become wealthy. Its about rewarding them unnecessarily for having become wealthy. They're wealthy - what do they need additional tax breaks over and above the non-wealthy for?

What I am consistantly arguing for in this thread is for some regard for the fact that people have earned this money beyond the point that they need have done

Thats a semantic argument. Anyone earning above minimum wage has earned money above the point that they "need have done". Why don't we give all of them tax breaks, but instead set the bar at some notional higher point, and say "this is the "more than you need have done" earnings-point after which you get rewarded".

More importantly, having earned more than they need have done, why should they pay less overall tax then had they not done so? Why not say that they pay the same tax as you or I on the first (picking an easy number) €250,000, and everything after that is valid for these dodges, or at a lower rate, or just plain tax-free? But telling someone that earns €1,000,000 that his tax-contribution to the state should be less then the guy who earns €40,000 isn't showing a regard to his extra earnings...its spitting in the face of the €40,000 earner and saying that he has to pay for the running of the state but only because he's not rich enough.

and are being encouraged to do something non frivolous with it.

Non-frivolous as compared to paying tax? First time I've seen a suggestion that tax is frivolous...

jc

bonkey

bonkey wrote:

So?

Do the math. If you are paying tax at 20% (I'm picking easy numbers, not real figures) and spend €1000 on an accountant per year, thats a whole €200 you get back on your tax bill. So if your accountant doesn't save you more than an additional €800 on top of what he costs himself, you're still worse off.

jc

Bonkey obviously in that case yes,It's not practical but you are going way down beyond the point of middle income to give me that example.
You may as well bring up the case of some one who is unemployed... as being a reason for in equity.
If you want to do that,I raise another example of an old school pal of mine , the same age as me who has never worked a day in his life and never will, he's always been on some social scheme or other through no disability, just total laziness.
Should we remove the incentives for people to invest their earnings just because it's unfair to him? It would be the egalitarian thing to do after all.

Nice sweeping statement, but I'm pretty sure if you look at the typical minimum cost of such an item, and work out the percentage of the population who can afford to pay such prices for houses, you will end up well below 50%.

Are you saying less than 50% of families own their own homes here? could you give me a link to that, because it would be news to my impression.
And again I see these houses every day and the builders aren't putting them up for the cod, they are occupied, either by people that can afford the market rent or by home owners.

Thats a semantic argument. Anyone earning above minimum wage has earned money above the point that they "need have done". Should we give all of them tax breaks?

The fact is, that we are! ... down to even simple rent relief, I saw a trend in this thread towards removing the relative ability of the large earner to gain more from these reliefs (with I might add again non frivolous side effects) than those who may not yet have attained that income level.

More importantly, having earned more than they need have done, why should they pay less overall tax then had they not done so? Why not say that they pay the same tax as you or I on the first (picking an easy number) €250,000, and everything after that is valid for these dodges, or at a lower rate, or just plain tax-free? But telling someone that earns 1,000,000 that his tax-contribution to the state should be less then the guy who earns €40,000 isn't showing a regard to his extra earnings...its spitting in the face of the €40,000 earner and saying that he has to pay for the running of the state but only because he's not rich enough.

I've put the word dodges in bold in the above statement because it seems to be indicative again of an ideological objection to what people who become wealthy enough can be encouraged to do with their loot.

Non-frivolous as compared to paying tax? First time I've seen a suggestion that tax is frivolous...

Bonkey if you take the time to read back over my initial contributions to this thread, you will see where I pointed out the difference between encouraging people to put a portion of their income that would otherwise be taxed plus that which would not have been taxed(the after tax bit) into these schemes is where the individual is being encouraged to be non frivolous with the larger sum.
Without the schemes , he could be frivolous with the entire remaining untaxed sum.
Nowhere does that even hint at me saying tax is frivolous.
To save you time I'll quote myself from earlier in the thread and link you:

Effectively what I am talking about here now is allowing Joe soap to be involved in basic public private partnerships and essentially that is what BES schemes and Sectioned housing are-The government invests what you might pay in extra tax and you invest what would have been your after tax income in an activity that promotes growth rather than in a frivolous activity.

and that was said here

Sleepy

MrPudding wrote:

Is this a comment on the tax free nature of income earned from arts? Personally I think that is fair enough.

I agree with it. I don't have an artistic bone in my body and so will never benefit from it but I think it is a good idea. The thing to remember is that the tax free bit only works on the earnings directly from artistic works. Pretty much anything they do with the money afer that is taxed. I know they will have accountants to help then reduce the amount of tax they will pay but they will still pay DIRT tax, VAT, VRT and stuff like that.

You also picked some of Irelands highest earning artists, what about the majority of artists that don't earn millions? Personally I would rather see the bloodstock industry pay a bit of tax than artists.

MrP

Promoting the Arts is fine and good but once an artist is earning more than the average industrial/commercial wage why should the rest of the country continue to support them?

The exemption should only apply to say the first €30,000 of an artists income, after that point they should face the same tax laws as the rest of us.

bonkey

Earthman wrote:

Bonkey obviously in that case yes,It's not practical but you are going way down beyond the point of middle income to give me that example.

Am I? Then why aren't the accountants touting for far more business from the middle-income earners? Equally, why does the article discsuss techniques that the super-rich are using to pay no tax. Why doesn't it discuss the techniques that everyone earning average or above can use to pay no tax?

You may as well bring up the case of some one who is unemployed... as being a reason for in equity.

Why would I? They've already been given all the equitability they could possibly have, on teh grounds that their net contribution to the government is negative (i.e. they are a net receiver of money). They're already paying less than the mid-income earners and the millionaires.

While the unemployed may or may not receive sufficient amounts to reach an acceptable standard of living, we are not discussing the social welfare payments, but rather who funds that system.

Should we remove the incentives for people to invest their earnings just because it's unfair to him?

No, we should ensure that investment of earnings is fairly done. Removing the tax that was paid on other earnings because of the investment is not fair.

Look - I have no problem saying that someone can have the tax back on any money they invest (as long as they are taxed on profit and on divestiture of the investment). What I have a problem with is that these millionaires areavoiding paying tax on all of their earnings, not just on the part that was invested.

Are you saying less than 50% of families own their own homes here?

You referred to the guy who could afford to buy a sectioned house. How you could interpret my response to mean that I was referring to "any house" is beyond me.

The fact is, that we are!

/me checks back to the original article. Yup...it does say that the ultra-rich are paying no tax. Now you're telling me that everyone earning enough to be taxed is getting these tax breaks? So no-one is paying tax?
Or everyone could avoid paying tax if we only went to an accountant?

Or would you not agree that everyone is not in this position...

Bonkey if you take the time to read back over my initial contributions to this thread, you will see where I pointed out the difference between encouraging people to put a portion of their income that would otherwise be taxed plus that which would not have been taxed(the after tax bit) into these schemes is where the individual is being encouraged to be non frivolous with the larger sum.

So if you work out the math....the only way one can avoid paying tax is to invest all of your money, because anything you don't invest gets taxed by that logic.

So how are the ultra-rich paying no tax??? They're not investing every penny, unless you count their rich lifestyles etc. as an investment as well.

Without the schemes , he could be frivolous with the entire remaining untaxed sum.

Could be, yes. Equally, he could choose to invest the after-tax amount instead, and also stand to gain from return-on-investment.

You seem to be suggesting that the only reason some of these people are investing is because they're being given an incentive over and above the return on investment to do so. So is there some critical threshold? a X% return wouldn't be enough, but X% plus a reduction in this years tax bill is?

To save you time I'll quote myself from earlier in the thread and link you: and that was said here

Yeah, I'm reading that and seeing the term "what you might pay in extra tax" and not understanding how "extra" means "any". Again, the article is complaining about people who are given the ability to pay a sum total of 0 Euro and 0 cent to the government as their tax-bill, not people who avoid paying tax on large percentages of their earnings because they re-invest.

jc

A Dub in Glasgo

I have already asked Earthman on 2 occassions to elaborate on his statement he made which implies that the PAYE worker can do a lot of these write offs.

Actually there are plenty of tax breaks for the paye earner including many of write offs leading to this sensationalist headline.

bonkey

bonkey wrote:

Am I? Then why aren't the accountants touting for far more business from the middle-income earners? Equally, why does the article discsuss techniques that the super-rich are using to pay no tax. Why doesn't it discuss the techniques that everyone earning average or above can use to pay no tax?

Bonkey, it's true that they aren't advertising,I've not seen too many accountantants advertising widely ever really although around BES closing time, there were many fund arrangers advertising their wares without too many restrictions as to who got involved,iirc there might have been a minimum investment in some cases which may have left it outside your 20% taxpayers in some cases pocket but not middle income earners.

Equally, why does the article discsuss techniques that the super-rich are using to pay no tax. Why doesn't it discuss the techniques that everyone earning average or above can use to pay no tax?

Because thats the focus of the article Bonkey and the focus of the labour party bringing up the topic in the first place.
Thats journalism Bonkey and is just as important as say an article highlighting the black economy which aint as much of an issue nowadays because we have low direct taxation. It's the issue of the day, it's news.

While the unemployed may or may not receive sufficient amounts to reach an acceptable standard of living, we are not discussing the social welfare payments, but rather who funds that system.

I wasn't discussing social welfare either.
I mentioned him merely to present the other extreme where the person hasn't earned enough to avail of the funds and to pass comment on whether the existence of individuals who abstain from active earning is reason enough to abolish incentives from active earners.

No, we should ensure that investment of earnings is fairly done. Removing the tax that was paid on other earnings because of the investment is not fair.

Why is it not fair, if for one it's only removed relative to how much you earn and done to encourage those with more wherewithall relative to others(money that they they have earned) to invest not just what would otherwise be taken in tax but the rest aswell in a non frivolous activity?

Could be, yes. Equally, he could choose to invest the after-tax amount instead, and also stand to gain from return-on-investment.

Yes but with these schemes there is certainty that those availing of them are investing in non frivolous activities.
If they don't partake theres no certainty and the money left over after tax can be used on anything.

You referred to the guy who could afford to buy a sectioned house. How you could interpret my response to mean that I was referring to "any house" is beyond me.

I take it then that you weren't saying that way less than 50% of families here own their own homes,I'll admit theres some difficulty with supply and demand on houses, there should be more supply, perhaps there should be an incentive for landowners to supply the land I know for a fact in co wicklow unless you are zoned near a town,even the family of a landowner have great difficulty getting planning permission for a house on their own land.

Look - I have no problem saying that someone can have the tax back on any money they invest (as long as they are taxed on profit and on divestiture of the investment). What I have a problem with is that these millionaires areavoiding paying tax on all of their earnings, not just on the part that was invested.

But thats only because they have earned enough money to wipe out their taxable income with these schemes, others on less can only wipe out some, but the former have made more of an individual impact with what they have done.
Everything in life is relative.

So how are the ultra-rich paying no tax??? They're not investing every penny, unless you count their rich lifestyles etc. as an investment as well.

Without access to their accounts,I couldn't give a definitive answer to that, but I'd hazzard a guess that it wouldn't be possible for them to have a zero liability every year as they would then exhaust their savings from years that they did actually have a taxable income.
They have to be living on something.It's very likely that their lavish lifestyles( and I say that loosely as I dont even know if they have one as the individuals names arent here in front of us) are funded out of wealth which thay have legally earned and legally invested.
It's true that the end result of a BES scheme could be that you get your money back at the end of 5 years or whatever but thats part of the incentive, you could just as easily lose your shirt on one of them.

You seem to be suggesting that the only reason some of these people are investing is because they're being given an incentive over and above the return on investment to do so. So is there some critical threshold? a X% return wouldn't be enough, but X% plus a reduction in this years tax bill is?

Yes they are, the incentive is there to encourage them to invest in something that otherwise wouldn't be attractive.It's a form of public private partnership as I mentioned earlier.

Yeah, I'm reading that and seeing the term "what you might pay in extra tax" and not understanding how "extra" means "any".

It's relative as I said , they earned enough to take maximum advantage of the various schems, their input and the net effect of their input via the schemes is greater.
Whether you or anyone has a problem with that, probably equates to you or anyone having a problem with someone opting out of earning through laziness at the other end of the scale.

Again, the article is complaining about people who are given the ability to pay a sum total of 0 Euro and 0 cent to the government as their tax-bill, not people who avoid paying tax on large percentages of their earnings because they re-invest.

Yes and the reason for that is?
yup they have invested suffecient of their own earned income in the schemes to have that net effect on their tax liability.
They are doing the exact same as others who don't earn as much but are taking perhaps bigger risks in the process.

A Dub in Glasgo

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

I have already asked Earthman on 2 occassions to elaborate on his statement he made which implies that the PAYE worker can do a lot of these write offs.

Hobbes replied to you earlier,I'm assuming you have access to the internet:rolleyes: theres plenty of pdf files on www.revenue.ie that should get you started on your interest in this matter without me doing the research for you.

A Dub in Glasgo

Earthman wrote:

Hobbes replied to you earlier,I'm assuming you have access to the internet:rolleyes: theres plenty of pdf files on www.revenue.ie that should get you started on your interest in this matter without me doing the research for you.

Hobbes said go and see an Accountant :rolleyes:

As for checking out the revenue site... no thanks. It was you who made the rather bold statement that PAYE workers can access the write offs that would result in the same kind of tax incentives. You obviously posted that statement with some knowledge of the situation but you do not back it up!!! Not one example.

:rolleyes:

A Dub in Glasgo

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

t was you who made the rather bold statement that PAYE workers can access the write offs that would result in the same kind of tax incentives.

Well if you actually bothered to read the article in the first place, you would discover that two of the eleven people involved are PAYE workers...
QED

A Dub in Glasgo

I did notice that but I don't know any PAYE workers on 1Million plus salaries therefore I don't think the fact that they were PAYE workers was the reason for paying no tax.

What about someone on median salary in Ireland? What chances do they have of availing of all these loopholes, tricks, write offs and incentives? Do the Revenue Commissioners give the median PAYE guy a chance to avail of these said schemes. Over to you

A Dub in Glasgow

A Dub in Glasgow wrote:

Over to you

yes
Have a look at the revenue website for details.