A National Taxpayers strike from Jan 1 2010

mikedublin

The government are threatening massive tax rises against ordianary people to come in the December Budget, including a property tax and the levies being made permanent. I think ordinary workers, homeowners and taxpayers should start to organise from the ground up a national taxpayers strike to try and prevent this.
Its our jobs, homes and families that are under threat and we have to fight back. At the moment I feel like one of the steerage passengers on the Titanic, being told to stand back and wait so the First class can get to the lifeboats.
So if the goverment go ahead and try and bring in all these tax rises I think we should get militant and strike. Not against our employers, but against the government. So from Jan 1 next year ask your employers not to deduct PAYE / levies /tax from your wages, and if they say they have to, then down tools 25% earlier than usual (or come in 25% later). The only way to get the government to listen to ordinary people is to withhold their tax revenue.
Ask shops not to pay VAT on to the government and support shops that take part in the strike.
If enough people and shops are prepared to strike, the government will pull back and take some of the alternative methods of raising taxes that don't hurt ordinary people - such as raiseing corporation tax.

ParkRunner

Where were you on February 14th? Id prefer to force an election than deprive the State of much needed revenue personally.

mikemac

A property tax will probably be on multiple houses.
So it's the buy to let crowd who get hit, not people who own one home.

Should have been introduced years ago imo

Agent Smith

mikedublin wrote: »

The government are threatening massive tax rises against ordianary people to come in the December Budget, including a property tax and the levies being made permanent. I think ordinary workers, homeowners and taxpayers should start to organise from the ground up a national taxpayers strike to try and prevent this.
Its our jobs, homes and families that are under threat and we have to fight back. At the moment I feel like one of the steerage passengers on the Titanic, being told to stand back and wait so the First class can get to the lifeboats.
So if the goverment go ahead and try and bring in all these tax rises I think we should get militant and strike. Not against our employers, but against the government. So from Jan 1 next year ask your employers not to deduct PAYE / levies /tax from your wages, and if they say they have to, then down tools 25% earlier than usual (or come in 25% later). The only way to get the government to listen to ordinary people is to withhold their tax revenue.
Ask shops not to pay VAT on to the government and support shops that take part in the strike.
If enough people and shops are prepared to strike, the government will pull back and take some of the alternative methods of raising taxes that don't hurt ordinary people - such as raiseing corporation tax.

shouldnt they lower it, to make us a more attractive option for investment?

bobbbb

mikemac wrote: »

A property tax will probably be on multiple houses.
So it's the buy to let crowd who get hit, not people who own one home.

Should have been introduced years ago imo

Ive been told by someone, who was involved in the discussions, that its planned for all homes.
The tax relief we all get when renting (about €300 a year i think) is also going to be abolished.

Every single one of us will be hit. Renters, home Owners, Investors

Sleipnir

So, as my company *will* refuse to not pay PAYE, I'll tell them that I'm leaving early every day to compensate, they'll fire me for doing so and that'll hurt....the government? That is effectively striking against our employeers.

Raising corporation tax will hurt ordinary people.

Highsider

We don't pay enough tax as it is. I for one am all for paying more if it improves the state of our country.

is_that_so

This is the type of intemperate stuff that has been floating around since the pension levies were introduced. OP, aside from being illegal what does it serve? It certainly would bring that much dreaded TLA IMF a lot closer. I have no doubt that the OP would also be much put out by the state of our schools and our health system. It much be a touch harder to fix those if we're all withholding money. We have very low personal taxation, the current rates served up to buy us more FF. We need to pay more of it if hope to have substandard service we all complain about, fixed.
We are also, in case it hadn't been noticed and tbh this thread suggests that it hasn't, in a very,very bad place. We need to attempt to balance our books. That means more tax.

Akrasia

Agent Smith wrote: »

shouldnt they lower it, to make us a more attractive option for investment?

If we lower cpt we'd just enhance our reputation as a tax shelter and increase the incidence of 'transfer pricing' which are the kinds of shenanigans that got us into this mess in the first place.

leitrim lad

like mike dublin are you on tablets or something,

corporation tax ,do you even know what that is, you keep that down to create employment and attract foerign investments and start up sme.

by what your implying you want my employees to strike because i have to pay a bigger tax bill for them, fair enough they are down €50-€100 a week take home but they still have jobs, count your self lucky that has,

i can tell you now that if i person employed by me or subbed in by me arrempted to leave early or arrive late they would only do it the once ,it would be bye bye take a long holiday after that, your trying to bring the country to its knees,

Akrasia

Akrasia wrote: »

If we lower cpt we'd just enhance our reputation as a tax shelter and increase the incidence of 'transfer pricing' which are the kinds of shenanigans that got us into this mess in the first place.

i might have left my economics brain the pub last night but what's the problem with that? don't really see how it contributed anyway to our downfall.


i don't mind the levys too much.. we should stop throwing blame and being angry. we're ina mess so let's look at getting out of it.

ixoy

What a daft idea - it's even worse than 'ACT: There is a Better Way' which at least had some potentially good ideas in there.

I genuinely don't get it: Firstly, employers are not going to stop paying out tax to the government. Perhaps maybe a few SMEs but large enterprises - no chance. There's penalties and fines for doing so.
Secondly, if you have a "work 75% to rule" then your company would, quite rightly, sack you and replace you with any of the 500k workers chomping at the bit from the ever-expanding dole queue.
Thirdly, paying less money to the government coffers when the debt is ever-expanding does not compute. It would just be prolonging the pain. Reducing tax income would eventually hit those on social welfare for example.

A better question to ask is how the government is going to go about reducing costs - taxation will not be the only way, but it's how much of the cost cutting measures they employ as well. There's also going to be a period of re-adjustment with more taxes coming from people and less on unreliable means (housing...). When that finishes, over the next few years, the government finances should - hopefully - be in a less precarious position and more robust to weather out any falls in any one particular sector.

turgon

So were in an economic downturn with underemployment soaring, and mikedublins solution is to raise corporation tax to force more companies out of here, along with the jobs.

Even Cowen couldn't conjure up that sort of ridiculous nonsense.

mikedublin

Well I think the threat alone of a taxpayers strike by enough people, would be enough to make the government take a step back before the december budget, and think again about the effect that the threatened taxes would have on real world people.
People don't mind paying high taxes for things like schools, hospitals, fire-brigades etc, but what the government is planning now is to "tax the poor to save the rich". All these bankers and developers being bailed out by the government, obscene fees for tribuneral barristers. Thats whats making ordinary people so angry. Taxes have to be fair and they have to take account of people's ability to pay them.

Soldie

Slash corporation tax, cut out as much red-tape as possible and reduce minimum wage somewhat (dole would probably need to come down simultaneously) - then the likes of Dell wouldn't be so quick to pack up and leave, and it'd be sure to entice many more companies to set up here. In short; we need to keep the cost of doing business as low as possible in order to ensure a healthy private sector.

Akrasia wrote: »

If we lower cpt we'd just enhance our reputation as a tax shelter and increase the incidence of 'transfer pricing' which are the kinds of shenanigans that got us into this mess in the first place.

Can you elaborate?

leitrim lad

i agree with ixoy and turgon

its as simple as this

taxes in the short term reduce the standard of living, but and its a big but in the long term for say you your children and your grand children, taxes on income raise the standard of living by reducing the national debt and reducing the pain as ixoy put it , good point

where as bankers who made this mess, constantly reduce your standard of living full stop.

however corp tax is a company tax which should be reduced again in my eyes to draw in companies and create employment in the private sector which in turn would provide more income to the state

ART6

ixoy wrote: »

What a daft idea - it's even worse than 'ACT: There is a Better Way' which at least had some potentially good ideas in there.

I genuinely don't get it: Firstly, employers are not going to stop paying out tax to the government. Perhaps maybe a few SMEs but large enterprises - no chance. There's penalties and fines for doing so.
Secondly, if you have a "work 75% to rule" then your company would, quite rightly, sack you and replace you with any of the 500k workers chomping at the bit from the ever-expanding dole queue.
Thirdly, paying less money to the government coffers when the debt is ever-expanding does not compute. It would just be prolonging the pain. Reducing tax income would eventually hit those on social welfare for example.

A better question to ask is how the government is going to go about reducing costs - taxation will not be the only way, but it's how much of the cost cutting measures they employ as well. There's also going to be a period of re-adjustment with more taxes coming from people and less on unreliable means (housing...). When that finishes, over the next few years, the government finances should - hopefully - be in a less precarious position and more robust to weather out any falls in any one particular sector.

While I can't fault your reasoning, a number of experts have already pointed out that no country ever climbed out of recession by increasing taxes, just as no family every got out of financial trouble by demanding a higher income from employers. That family only ever recovered by cutting its costs to meet its income, and that is what, I believe, must happen here. Unfortunately, it looks to me at least, as if the current government is only tinkering at the edges of that. Five junior minister posts out of twenty axed, still hundreds of quangos, still massive consultants fees in the health service that is overburdened by excessive administrative structures etc etc.....

Soldie

leitrim lad wrote: »

where as bankers who made this mess, constantly reduce your standard of living full stop.

Can you explain how bankers made this mess? I'm sure those who used borrowed money to treat themselves to bigger houses, bigger cars, bigger TVs, etc. ad infinitum a couple of years ago might disprove your claim that bankers reduced the standard of living.

leitrim lad

explain this soldie

nationalise anglo at what ever cost it doesnt really matter as long as the lads in the tent are safe
€3500 000 000 to aib in a rescue package
€3500 000 000 to boi in a rescue package
€500 000 000 to il&p in a rescue package
and now €90 000 000 000 to bail out the scum who over valued land and houses to line their pockets , and leave people my age under30 in the situation that they cannot even buy themselves a family home and set them selves up

and the most of the houses that were built are now falling down because the scum cut corners ,again to line their own pockets.

so now soldie where are the big bankers now,

i can answer that for you

they are hiding because they are afraid what people like me will do to them , i run my own business and i cannot even get my own money out of the bank when i want it explain that before you take side with your scumbag banker friends

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Soldie

leitrim lad wrote: »

explain this soldie

nationalise anglo at what ever cost it doesnt really matter as long as the lads in the tent are safe
€3500 000 000 to aib in a rescue package
€3500 000 000 to boi in a rescue package
€500 000 000 to il&p in a rescue package
and now €90 000 000 000 to bail out the scum who over valued land and houses to line their pockets , and leave people my age under30 in the situation that they cannot even buy themselves a family home and set them selves up

and the most of the houses that were built are now falling down because the scum cut corners ,again to line their own pockets.

so now soldie where are the big bankers now,

i can answer that for you

they are hiding because they are afraid what people like me will do to them , i run my own business and i cannot even get my own money out of the bank when i want it explain that before you take side with your scumbag banker friends

I'm afraid that doesn't cut it, and your response is unsurprising. I asked you to explain how bankers made this mess, and you responded by making a lot of noise about bailouts. It was the government's decision to bail the banks out, much in the same way that it was the government's decision to use cheap credit, coupled with other policies, to inflate a property bubble. In spite of this, you direct your blame at bankers. Is that rational?

leitrim lad

Soldie wrote: »

I'm afraid that doesn't cut it, and your response is unsurprising. I asked you to explain how bankers made this mess, and you responded by making a lot of noise about bailouts. It was the government's decision to bail the banks out, much in the same way that it was the government's decision to use cheap credit, coupled with other policies, to inflate a property bubble. In spite of this, you direct your blame at bankers. Is that rational?

who lent billions to themselves, and when it came into the public spotlight they ran to hide as i said before from people like me who would finish them off.

and why are the criminal assets bureu demanding that the government instruct the garda commisioner to let the cab loose on the bankers and developers, to seize their fraudulent assets and put them inside for fraudulent lending, which also included lending to buy shares in the same company, i suppose it was the ordinary joe who created that mess too was it

Soldie

leitrim lad wrote: »

who lent billions to themselves, and when it came into the public spotlight they ran to hide as i said before from people like me who would finish them off.

and why are the criminal assets bureu demanding that the government instruct the garda commisioner to let the cab loose on the bankers and developers, to seize their fraudulent assets and put them inside for fraudulent lending, which also included lending to buy shares in the same company, i suppose it was the ordinary joe who created that mess too was it

I note that you've still failed to elaborate on your claim that bankers created this mess.

If banks are as crooked as you suggest, wouldn't you be more wise to target your disgust at the government for bailing them out? If a company is poorly run, then it should fail as a result - banks shouldn't be an exception. Rewarding shoddy business is a dangerous precedent, but who cares when you're using someone else's money, right?

For what it's worth, I accept that banks had some rather 'loose' business policies, but I'd argue that that wouldn't have been possible if interest rates weren't held so low - if they were higher I'm sure we'd have seen much more 'conservative' banking. Note that interest rates are now at a record-low level. How do you get out of a hole? You dig your way out, apparently.

leitrim lad

back fill it actually