Dont cut our pay, Tax everyone else instead!!!

c montgomery

So this is the public sectors unions solution to our current financial mess. Tax Everyone!!!

Do they even know the basics of economics? Currently we have reached the point of diminishing returns with regards to tax increases, the more you increase tax the less tax you actually take in.

The unions however believe that by maintaining the inflated salaries of the their members and then taxing everyone else including themselves will solve the problem. WTF

I have taken a pay cut of 11% already this year, i dont have a pension, my job is not secure and i have been subjected to all the same income levies as everyone else.

Im sick of hearing the unions talk about the 10% + pay cut they have taken this year already. You havent taken a pay cut, you have been subjected to the same levies as everyone else in the country and now you have to make a small contribution towards your pension (a pension which is insanely generous)

Lower paid civil servants should not have to take a cut but as the average industrial wage is 33,000 or thereabouts, maybe people in the public sector earning 50,000 + could take a cut. This cut could then increase as earnings increase.

If the government increase tax for everyone and leave the Public sector alone i doubt they would last til February. People will have just had enough!

NewDubliner

c montgomery wrote: »

I have taken a pay cut of 11% already this year, i dont have a pension, my job is not secure and i have been subjected to all the same income levies as everyone else.

If your employer is not deducting the PRSI that will ultimately entitle your to a state-guaranteed pension, worth considerably more than what you paid in, you should report him immediately.

c montgomery

I meant i dont have a private pension, im still entitled to the basic state pension as far as i am aware. I think????

ParkRunner

c montgomery wrote: »

So this is the public sectors unions solution to our current financial mess. Tax Everyone!!!

Do they even know the basics of economics? Currently we have reached the point of diminishing returns with regards to tax increases, the more you increase tax the less tax you actually take in.

The unions however believe that by maintaining the inflated salaries of the their members and then taxing everyone else including themselves will solve the problem. WTF

Is their position not to tax the uber-wealthy slightly more and make up the rest of the required savings for this year through expenditure cuts?

dresden8

EF wrote: »

Is their position not to tax the uber-wealthy slightly more and make up the rest of the required savings for this year through expenditure cuts?

You can't tax the uber-wealthy. They don't like paying tax. So there.

mikemac

EF wrote: »

Is their position not to tax the uber-wealthy slightly more and make up the rest of the required savings for this year through expenditure cuts?

Expenditure cuts like public service wage cuts?

P. Breathnach

c montgomery wrote: »

... Do they even know the basics of economics? Currently we have reached the point of diminishing returns with regards to tax increases, the more you increase tax the less tax you actually take in...

That's a big claim. Can you back it up?

ParkRunner

mikemac wrote: »

Expenditure cuts like public service wage cuts?

Who knows? Not me, not you, until we do Im living as if I am earning 5% less, minimum.

...i forgot the uber-wealthy should not be required to pay taxes, bless their cotton socks.

Warfi

c montgomery wrote: »

I have taken a pay cut of 11% already this year, i dont have a pension, my job is not secure and i have been subjected to all the same income levies as everyone else.

At least you have a job

Stark

c montgomery wrote: »

I meant i dont have a private pension, im still entitled to the basic state pension as far as i am aware. I think????

Get a private pension then.

dresden8

EF wrote: »

Who knows? Not me, not you, until we do Im living as if I am earning 5% less, minimum.

...i forgot the uber-wealthy should not be required to pay taxes, bless their cotton socks.

I think you'll find they're silk socks. Or some advanced space-age material.

Screw you and your chav-tastic cotton.

Stark

P. Breathnach wrote: »

That's a big claim. Can you back it up?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve . The folks in the Department of Finance will tell you that we're currently past the peak of the curve at present. Same issue is occurring with the tax intake on cigarettes.

jhegarty

dresden8 wrote: »

You can't tax the uber-wealthy. They don't like paying tax. So there.

You can't tax the uber-wealthy too much because they will move to Monaco at the drop of a hat.


You have to keep it at a level where becoming a tax exile is too much effort.

mickoneill30

EF wrote: »

Who knows? Not me, not you, until we do Im living as if I am earning 5% less, minimum.

...i forgot the uber-wealthy should not be required to pay taxes, bless their cotton socks.

In the Sunday Business Post of 01/03 (I know the date because there was a thread about it at the time) it had the article that 47% of the states income tax comes from 6% of the people. I'm not in the rich category but I don't think we can just keep looking at the rich and saying they should pay more taxes. Maybe they should but it won't fix our problems.

rugbyman

nice answer Stark,

by the way p.brethnach, may i ask, when you asked for the back up, did you not believe the poster?
regards rugbyman

dresden8

rugbyman wrote: »

by the way p.brethnach, may i ask, when you asked for the back up, did you not believe the poster?

Forum rule, when you post "facts" you should be able to link to proof.

dresden8

jhegarty wrote: »

You can't tax the uber-wealthy too much because they will move to Monaco at the drop of a hat.

That's what I said, rich scum would rather not pay tax. It's beneath them.

I didn't think we were disagreeing.

c montgomery

P. Breathnach wrote: »

That's a big claim. Can you back it up?

Vat.

Since Vat was increased in December to raise extra taxes, vat returns have nosedived.

stereo_steve

dresden8 wrote: »

That's what I said, rich scum would rather not pay tax. It's beneath them.

I didn't think we were disagreeing.

If someone earns a lot of money and pays the higher rate of tax on it , what's the problem?

Why should they have to pay more tax again? The wealthy already pay enough tax. The social welfare in this country is at insane levels.

P. Breathnach

rugbyman wrote: »

nice answer Stark,

It's not really an answer. The Laffer curve is beloved of doctrinaire right-wingers, and is invoked at every opportunity as if tax yields were already at their maximum.

It's an observable phenomenon that people generally would prefer not to pay tax than to pay it. But that proves nothing.

by the way p.brethnach, may i ask, when you asked for the back up, did you not believe the poster?

I didn't, and I still don't. Certain taxes might be at their maximum yield capacity, but it is not obvious to me that all are. Property tax is currently very low, at €200 p.a. on properties other than PPR. There seems to be plenty of scope for increase there.

P. Breathnach

c montgomery wrote: »

Vat.

Since Vat was increased in December to raise extra taxes, vat returns have nosedived.

Not necessarily because of a very small increase in the rate of tax. It's a fair guess that they would have nosedived anyway.

c montgomery

Warfi wrote: »

At least you have a job

Stark wrote: »

Get a private pension then.

This is my exact point.


I have a job, not secure but at least a job. The public sector workers want their jobs with complete security, massive pensions and no performance reviews. And now they want you to pay more for it.

c montgomery

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Not necessarily because of a very small increase in the rate of tax. It's a fair guess that they would have nosedived anyway.

Ill stick to the facts;)

itsonlywords

stereo_steve wrote: »

If someone earns a lot of money and pays the higher rate of tax on it , what's the problem?

Why should they have to pay more tax again? The wealthy already pay enough tax. The social welfare in this country is at insane levels.

I assume that you mean Social Welfare allowances that people did not pay into?There are many people on Jobseekers Allowances and Benefits that paid in for 30 and 40 years. Now you want to cut them? Rubbish. TD's and Ministers and the spongers in public services who are overpaid on their goodbye money and inflated pensions that they never paid into should have their wages and pensions cut to the same rate as a person on the average industrial wage. That is fair and equiptable. Cut doctors wages as they are paid from the public purse and we cant afford it.

c montgomery

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I didn't, and I still don't. Certain taxes might be at their maximum yield capacity, but it is not obvious to me that all are. Property tax is currently very low, at €200 p.a. on properties other than PPR. There seems to be plenty of scope for increase there.

If the govt brought in manditory taxes like this that are unavoidable if you owned property sure they would increase revenue.

I was talking about income tax as this is the tax that the unions are calling to be increased rather than have pay cuts.

Its crazy.
Imagine if a company was going out of business as their product was not selling. The company says it will have to reduce wages but the employees union comes up with a "better" plan, lets just charge more for our product.

As i said, crazy!

Stark

It's not like we're going into this blind. We have first hand experience of what happened in the 80s when we kept hiking up taxes ad naseum without looking at spending cuts. And the turnaround that followed when we finally decided to cut both taxes and spending.

MrMicra

Stark wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve . The folks in the Department of Finance will tell you that we're currently past the peak of the curve at present. Same issue is occurring with the tax intake on cigarettes.

I favour aggressive reductions in the public sector pay bill (ideally through pay reductions) however the Laffer curve has been discredited.

I accept that here is a tipping point in tax at which evasion becomes endemic and socially acceptable. However aggressive enforcement, and social pressure, can move this point up the scale markedly.

As an example in the 1980s when the top rate of tax was 60% evasion was endemic. It was normal (not legal and I am not suggesting that it was moral or acceptable) to double pay for goods on and off the books. Large companies did this as did professionals like solicitors and barristers.
The top tax rate in Ireland was lower than the UK which didn't have this culture of tax evasion (at least not to the same extent tax evasion was more common there thanit is now too). The Inland Revenue were more frightening than the Revenue Commissioners.

There is no reason to believe that we are anywhere near the point at which tax revenue might fall as a result of increasing rates.

Wikipedia wrote:

Demonstrated Wrong by Actual Results
Actual collected tax revenue slowed[6] after cutting taxes according to the Laffer Curve, instead of accelerating as predicted.

stereo_steve

itsonlywords wrote: »

I assume that you mean Social Welfare allowances that people did not pay into?There are many people on Jobseekers Allowances and Benefits that paid in for 30 and 40 years. Now you want to cut them? Rubbish. TD's and Ministers and the spongers in public services who are overpaid on their goodbye money and inflated pensions that they never paid into should have their wages and pensions cut to the same rate as a person on the average industrial wage. That is fair and equitable. Cut doctors wages as they are paid from the public purse and we cant afford it.

I'd love for someone to add up the amount of PRSI someone on the average age pays over a period of 30 - 40 years ( with inflation). Then work out what you get for it, say 20 years pension maybe 6 months/1 year with job seekers allowance. It might silence the "I'm entitled to it crowd, I paid for it"

I don't know the figures but I'd imagine PRSI is a very good investment for the average person, no doubt subsidised by the tax payer ( ie mostly from the wealthy).

Don't get me wrong I earn under the average wage in the private sector. I very much want to see public expenditure slashed to balance the books. I just cringe every time I hear people say tax the wealthy. It's not the way to have a healthy economy.

MrMicra

c montgomery wrote: »

Ill stick to the facts;)

That would be an interesting development! So far we have assertions without fact.

MrMicra

Stark wrote: »

It's not like we're going into this blind. We have first hand experience of what happened in the 80s when we kept hiking up taxes ad naseum without looking at spending cuts. And the turnaround that followed when we finally decided to cut both taxes and spending.

I agree that we need spending cuts and we need them now. However one of the problems in the '80s was that there was no stick for the Revenue Commissioners to use to beat evaders. Had there been the tax base would have been wider and some of the cuts that were made would have been unnecessary.

MrMicra

stereo_steve wrote: »

Don't get me wrong I earn under the average wage in the private sector. I very much want to see public expenditure slashed to balance the books. I just cringe every time I hear people say tax the wealthy. It's not the way to have a healthy economy.

Every society depends on taxing the wealthy. You can only tax people who've got money! IMH we have a very generous tax system for people who take the trouble to structure their affairs properly.

P. Breathnach

c montgomery wrote: »

Ill stick to the facts;)

So long as you recognise the fallacy in post hoc, propter hoc. [Then you have no usable facts.]

P. Breathnach

Stark wrote: »

It's not like we're going into this blind. We have first hand experience of what happened in the 80s when we kept hiking up taxes ad naseum without looking at spending cuts. And the turnaround that followed when we finally decided to cut both taxes and spending.

Taxes on income were higher in the 1970s than they are today, so in the 1980s they were increased from a high base.

People also paid rates in those days.

Stark

MrMicra wrote: »

I agree that we need spending cuts and we need them now. However one of the problems in the '80s was that there was no stick for the Revenue Commissioners to use to beat evaders. Had there been the tax base would have been wider and some of the cuts that were made would have been unnecessary.

It's not just about evaders. Granted, we need to close off loopholes that allow the super rich to get away with paying no tax or **** all tax. It's also about keeping people working. If you're charging tax rates of 60 to 70% (levies+prsi+paye etc.) on relatively modest incomes like 40k, then people are just going to say **** it and cut back on their hours, bonus pay activites whatever until they're back within the lower tax band. Why do an extra 5 hours a week just to hand over most of the returns to the Government when you could enjoy the free time and the reduced expenses instead?

MrMicra wrote:

As an example in the 1980s when the top rate of tax was 60% evasion was endemic. It was normal (not legal and I am not suggesting that it was moral or acceptable) to double pay for goods on and off the books. Large companies did this as did professionals like solicitors and barristers.
The top tax rate in Ireland was lower than the UK which didn't have this culture of tax evasion (at least not to the same extent tax evasion was more common there thanit is now too). The Inland Revenue were more frightening than the Revenue Commissioners.

There is a limit even in a 100% honest system. If you charge 100% tax, then you're returns will indeed be 0 as no-one will bother earning in the first place. In practice, you don't even need to charge 100%.

The discreditation is based on the belief that you'll see an immediate increase in returns with lower taxes. This is obviously not the case. Obviously the immediate effect will be a lower return as you're taxing the same output. For example, if you hike up the taxes on ciggies, you'll drive more people to the black market, but it's hard to get them back once you lower the tax again. It takes time to see the returns from a lower tax system. Short term pain is always necessary for long term recovery.

MrMicra

Stark wrote: »

If you're charging tax rates of 60 to 70% (levies+prsi+paye etc.) on relatively modest incomes like 40k, then people are just going to say **** it and cut back on their hours, bonus pay activites whatever until they're back within the lower tax band. Why do an extra 5 hours a week just to hand over most of the returns to the Government when you could enjoy the free time and the reduced expenses instead?

But what's wrong with that? It might get some other fellow off the dole (which unfortunately and I really do mean unfortunately also needs be reduced). And isn't it my own business how much I work as long as I provide for my family?

Stark wrote: »

There is a limit even in a 100% honest system. If you charge 100% tax, then you're returns will indeed be 0 as no-one will bother earning in the first place. In practice, you don't even need to charge 100%.

Tax rates of 100% are probably nonproductive. However we are a very long way from 100%. A psychiatrist or a deputy secretary (for example) each of whom are paid about 200,000 by the state and have little opportunity to hide money will pay a tax rate (including PRSI and levies) of about 50%.

There is alot of wiggle room between a tax rate of 50% and one of 100%.

The above sounds patronising and maybe it is but it isn't meant to be insulting.

SkepticOne

MrMicra wrote: »

But what's wrong with that? It might get some other fellow off the dole (which unfortunately and I really do mean unfortunately also needs be reduced). And isn't it my own business how much I work as long as I provide for my family?

Lowering taxes might also get someone off the dole. It would give hard pressed people a bit more spending money. A few less shops closing.

c montgomery

MrMicra wrote: »

That would be an interesting development! So far we have assertions without fact.

Well MrMicra, you sceme to be an expert in assertions

MrMicra wrote: »

I agree that we need spending cuts and we need them now. However one of the problems in the '80s was that there was no stick for the Revenue Commissioners to use to beat evaders. Had there been the tax base would have been wider and some of the cuts that were made would have been unnecessary.

MrMicra wrote: »

Every society depends on taxing the wealthy. You can only tax people who've got money! IMH we have a very generous tax system for people who take the trouble to structure their affairs properly.

Here's some facts about vat since it was increased by 0.5% in ireland and decreased in the north.

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/brendan-keenan/turn-for-the-worse-leaves-lenihan-facing-a-dilemma-1852376.html

c montgomery

MrMicra wrote: »

But what's wrong with that? It might get some other fellow off the dole (which unfortunately and I really do mean unfortunately also needs be reduced). And isn't it my own business how much I work as long as I provide for my family?


Tax rates of 100% are probably nonproductive. However we are a very long way from 100%. A psychiatrist or a deputy secretary (for example) each of whom are paid about 200,000 by the state and have little opportunity to hide money will pay a tax rate (including PRSI and levies) of about 50%.

There is alot of wiggle room between a tax rate of 50% and one of 100%.

The above sounds patronising and maybe it is but it isn't meant to be insulting.

Probably!!!!!!!!!!!!
Try defiantly. A tax rate of 60% would be non-productive never mind anything higher.

You have to have a reward for people who excel in their field or who work really hard. Taxing people who made something of themselves at a huge rate would act as a disincentive.

If people work hard and earn a high wage they shouldn't have to pay punitive rates of tax just pay decos dole or tinas child support.

What we need is to reduce spending and maybe broaden the tax base.

View

A cynic I know suggested that the ideal budget (for the Government) would involve massively increasing taxes while leaving lots of property-based tax breaks in place.

MrMicra

c montgomery wrote: »

Probably!!!!!!!!!!!!
Try defiantly. A tax rate of 60% would be non-productive never mind anything higher.

An assertion. An assertion with which I agree but just an assertion.

c montgomery wrote: »

Probably!!!!!!!!!!!!
You have to have a reward for people who excel in their field or who work really hard. Taxing people who made something of themselves at a huge rate would act as a disincentive.

60% is hardly punitive especiallyif it applied only to income over 200,000 or so. Hard work is not directly correlated with earnings.

c montgomery wrote: »

If people work hard and earn a high wage they shouldn't have to pay punitive rates of tax just pay decos dole or tinas child support.

I don't understand would every high earner be given a set of people on the dole to pay for? It mightn't be a bad idea but it is a bit leftfield. Would you be in contact with the people whose dole you were paying?

c montgomery wrote: »

What we need is to reduce spending and maybe broaden the tax base.

I agree.

MrMicra

c montgomery wrote: »

Well MrMicra, you sceme to be an expert in assertions
Here's some facts about vat since it was increased by 0.5% in ireland and decreased in the north.

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/brendan-keenan/turn-for-the-worse-leaves-lenihan-facing-a-dilemma-1852376.html

I certainly am an expert in assertions. By the way VAT is mentioned twice in that article. I don't quite get what you are driving at.

Diarmuid

dresden8 wrote: »

Forum rule, when you post "facts" you should be able to link to proof.

dresden8 wrote: »

That's what I said, rich scum would rather not pay tax. It's beneath them.
.

link please?

NewDubliner

c montgomery wrote: »

Vat. Since Vat was increased in December to raise extra taxes, vat returns have nosedived.

But you've left out two important facts. One is that sterling dropped against the Euro, making cross-border purchases more attractive, the other is that people are spending less money.

c montgomery wrote: »

A tax rate of 60% would be non-productive never mind anything higher. You have to have a reward for people who excel in their field or who work really hard. Taxing people who made something of themselves at a huge rate would act as a disincentive.

The marginal tax rate on a middle-ranking public sector worker is 60%.

Count Dooku

P. Breathnach wrote: »

It's not really an answer. The Laffer curve is beloved of doctrinaire right-wingers, and is invoked at every opportunity as if tax yields were already at their maximum.

Only neocons want to cut salaries for “poor” civil servants, majority of people will be happy to pay huge taxes and get nothing in return

Sometimes, when I am reading post from PS workers, I have impression that public exists for public services, not opposite

P. Breathnach wrote: »

It's an observable phenomenon that people generally would prefer not to pay tax than to pay it. But that proves nothing.

Taxes have been increased in April. But tax take only decreased.
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/budget-to-be-even-tougher-after-tax-shortfalls-1903381.html

Income tax and VAT are largely to blame for the shortfall. Despite the April income levies, income tax of €7.9bn in the first nine months of the year was down more than 9pc on last year. The income tax collected in September itself was more than a fifth less than the same month last year.

"September was awful," said Rossa White, chief economist at Davy Stockbrokers. "The numbers seem to stack up with our estimate that the total wage bill -- pay and employment -- across the economy will be down 11pc this year."

Lower personal spending, as well as lower prices for many goods and services, is hitting VAT receipts. "We have seen a 27pc decline in the retail and wholesale sector, and that provides 40pc of the VAT revenues," a Department of Finance official said.

Officials are braced for more bad news next month, because self-employed people pay their income tax in November. The crash in the property sector will be reflected in their tax returns.

On this basis, the department is forecasting that taxes will yield just €32.5bn this year. Spending is largely on target, although the HSE will have to find further savings of more than €100m to meet its budget. But total public spending will be over €54bn.

We can try it forever, until everybody will understand that solution is only to cut wages for PS workers , rather then overcharge people ineffective public services

thebiglad

c montgomery wrote: »

Lower paid civil servants should not have to take a cut but as the average industrial wage is 33,000 or thereabouts, maybe people in the public sector earning 50,000 + could take a cut. This cut could then increase as earnings increase.

c montgomery wrote: »

Lower paid civil servants should not have to take a cut but as the average industrial wage is 33,000 or thereabouts, maybe people in the public sector earning 50,000 + could take a cut. This cut could then increase as earnings increase.

Yes and perhaps any companies in the private sector proposing to reduce the salaries of staff below €33k should also be told this is not allowed.

When a private company wants to cut salary etc then it happens, why are the public sector so damn special.

Go ahead, strike make life difficult for everyone - the private sector employees who work in Insurance, Banking etc where you will know the work of person you are dealing with should make a special effort to delay any assistance to these people as a counter measure;)

Flex

thebiglad wrote: »

Yes and perhaps any companies in the private sector proposing to reduce the salaries of staff below €33k should also be told this is not allowed.

When a private company wants to cut salary etc then it happens, why are the public sector so damn special.

Go ahead, strike make life difficult for everyone - the private sector employees who work in Insurance, Banking etc where you will know the work of person you are dealing with should make a special effort to delay any assistance to these people as a counter measure;)

Ah but in fairness, public sector workers have it very hard at the moment. Just keep in mind the countless numbers who have been laid off in the public service as a result of economic conditions and you can understand why they dont deserve a pay cut. Its easy for those looking on from the private sector to lose sight of that fact. The poor buggers have been pushed so hard already

Count Dooku

Flex wrote: »

Ah but in fairness, public sector workers have it very hard at the moment. Just keep in mind the countless numbers who have been laid off in the public service as a result of economic conditions and you can understand why they dont deserve a pay cut.

How many of them were on permanent positions?
All of permanent workers in civil services are still keeping their jobs, because it will be more expensive to fire them, due huge redundancy packages.
I think that it is a good time to introduce 40% tax for everybody in civil service, who in permanent position and worked more then 5 years as price for job security.
Without cuts introduced, it will be impossible to fire all unused staff. So, lets them pay for their job security

Gurgle

Count Dooku wrote: »

I think that it is a good time to introduce 40% tax for everybody in civil service, who in permanent position and worked more then 5 years as price for job security.

To rephrase your post (and summarize half the other posts on this thread)

"I don't want to lose money, let someone else pay"

joolsveer

Count Dooku wrote: »

How many of them were on permanent positions?
All of permanent workers in civil services are still keeping their jobs, because it will be more expensive to fire them, due huge redundancy packages.

What redundancy packages? How are they calculated?

Count Dooku

Gurgle wrote: »

To rephrase your post (and summarize half the other posts on this thread)

"I don't want to lose money, let someone else pay"

Wrong
My post means that I and many other private sector workers don’t want to pay for overpriced public services.
If services will have to be reduced – it is fine. Country cannot afford luxury anymore.
You forgot that PS workers are not paying for anything, they paid by public to do their job.
Sounds like racketeer asking his victim, “Do you want to pay myself for my new BMW?”

gerry28

Count Dooku wrote: »

I think that it is a good time to introduce 40% tax for everybody in civil service, who in permanent position and worked more then 5 years as price for job security.
Without cuts introduced, it will be impossible to fire all unused staff. So, lets them pay for their job security

Very poor suggestion. 40% for someone on 23K and 40% on someone on 300K in the civil service. In your rage you can't see room for fairness at all.

What percentage of people in the private sector have taken paycuts?

As for the pension levy... it is a paycut. Money out of wages never to be seen again = paycut.

Whether someone believe morally we should be paying more towards our pensions still doesn't change the fact that its a paycut.

I earn 28K a year and i pay 6.5% towards my pension. When I retire i won't get a great deal more than the basic state pension.