Low tax econonmy?

cm2000

I've heard again and again from trade union heads etc. that we are a low tax economy, that there is actually scope for increased taxes, so I decided to do a rough calculation of the taxation of a wealthy individual.

Here is a single employee who earns a gross income of €200,000.
He pays 20% of his 1st €36400 which equals €7280.
He pays 41% of his next €163600 which equals €67076.
He is entitled to a single person tax credit and employee tax credit which knocks off €3660 altogether.
Now we're at €70696 in tax, but here come some levies.

Income levy: €76036@2%, €99,943@4%, 25020@6% for a grand total of €7000 more.

PRSI/Health levy; €75036@8% plus €124964@5% for another €12,251.
Now after some levies were up to a whopping €89,947 in actual tax paid.

But there's more. For we can all forget that the cost of employer PRSI is actually borne by the employer... an employer has x amount of money to hire an employee so he doesn't care if it goes to the employee or the state, its all the same to him on a balance sheet. The point is that the employee in this situation is actually the one who carries the extra burden of the 10.75% PRSI rate for another €21500.

That comes to a total €111,447 on a €200,000 salary, before he might want to buy anything so he can pay another 21% or god forbid he want a drink or but a car and he can be taxed up the arse for all that again.

My point? we are far far from a low tax economy and in reality we need to slash taxes as there are disincentives to work everywhere. Endemic in our tax code is punishment for success and subsidies for failure.

Cookie_Monster

compared to most EU countries when income tax is much much higher, 50%+ we are lowly taxed, also 1/3 of workers are outside the tax take at last count, that is shocking IMO

Corporation tax is very low too, only 12.5%.

The thing is for an average joe on 35k he pay quite low tax but pays more indirect taxes and pays a lot more for services (school books, GP, health, transport) than most EU countries.

meditraitor

cm2000 wrote: »

I've heard again and again from trade union heads etc. that we are a low tax economy, that there is actually scope for increased taxes, so I decided to do a rough calculation of the taxation of a wealthy individual.

Here is a single employee who earns a gross income of €200,000.
He pays 20% of his 1st €36400 which equals €7280.
He pays 41% of his next €163600 which equals €67076.
He is entitled to a single person tax credit and employee tax credit which knocks off €3660 altogether.
Now we're at €70696 in tax, but here come some levies.

Income levy: €76036@2%, €99,943@4%, 25020@6% for a grand total of €7000 more.

PRSI/Health levy; €75036@8% plus €124964@5% for another €12,251.
Now after some levies were up to a whopping €89,947 in actual tax paid.

But there's more. For we can all forget that the cost of employer PRSI is actually borne by the employer... an employer has x amount of money to hire an employee so he doesn't care if it goes to the employee or the state, its all the same to him on a balance sheet. The point is that the employee in this situation is actually the one who carries the extra burden of the 10.75% PRSI rate for another €21500.

That comes to a total €111,447 on a €200,000 salary, before he might want to buy anything so he can pay another 21% or god forbid he want a drink or but a car and he can be taxed up the arse for all that again.

My point? we are far far from a low tax economy and in reality we need to slash taxes as there are disincentives to work everywhere. Endemic in our tax code is punishment for success and subsidies for failure.

If i was coming home with €1,721 per week in the back pocket after taxes I wouldnt be complaining, who the hell deserves that much?

High or low tax economy, getting those wages for anything blue collar job is crazy.

pumpkinsoup

cm2000 wrote: »

I've heard again and again from trade union heads etc. that we are a low tax economy, that there is actually scope for increased taxes, so I decided to do a rough calculation of the taxation of a wealthy individual.

Here is a single employee who earns a gross income of €200,000.
.
.
.

Now after some levies were up to a whopping €89,947 in actual tax paid.

So thats €110,053 take home pay! That's hardly the typical salary of people that your "trade union heads" would claim to represent.

My point? we are far far from a low tax economy and in reality we need to slash taxes as there are disincentives to work everywhere.

€110,053 would be incentive enough for me.

gaz wac

depends on his job really !!

fontanalis

gaz wac wrote: »

depends on his job really !!

He'd want to be a regulator or working for a big bank like Anglo for that.

dearg lady

in reality, in recent years anyway, a person earning 200,000 would avail of various tax breaks to bring their tax bill down significantly.

cm2000

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

compared to most EU countries when income tax is much much higher, 50%+ we are lowly taxed, also 1/3 of workers are outside the tax take at last count, that is shocking IMO

Corporation tax is very low too, only 12.5%.

The thing is for an average joe on 35k he pay quite low tax but pays more indirect taxes and pays a lot more for services (school books, GP, health, transport) than most EU countries.

Income tax is not above 50% in most EU countries and the point I was making is that our income tax is effectively above 50%, not marginal but actual. There may be scope for expansion at the bottom, but we've topped out the higher rates, and the idea that we are a low tax economy in general is nonsense

pumpkinsoup

cm2000 wrote: »

Income tax is not above 50% in most EU countries and the point I was making is that our income tax is effectively above 50%, not marginal but actual.

No, your figures show an actual rate of under 45% when all levies are paid. You're confusing employer payments with income tax. As was pointed out to you, the employer already benefits from a very low corporation tax rate of 12.5%, which, by the way, is why Ireland has earned a reputation as a "low tax economy" and a tax haven for big business.

ei.sdraob

pumpkinsoup wrote: »

No, your figures show an actual rate of under 45% when all levies are paid. You're confusing employer payments with income tax.

your missing his point (which he didnt get across well)

if you are one of the main directors and employees of your own company (lets say a so called smart economy startup)

then employer side of PRSI does matter alot and does come into the equation, since like you are the employer too and you be paying yourself among others,
and most likely you as the founder have to work above and beyond and deal with responsibility and risk while building/running a company with other jobs depending on you and your idea and your drive

its hard to be motivated when half of your money is taken of you and pissed away to failed banks, fat public services and generous welfare, and by all looks of things you be taxed even more to support the irresponsible

pumpkinsoup wrote: »

As was pointed out to you, the employer already benefits from a very low corporation tax rate of 12.5%, which, by the way, is why Ireland has earned a reputation as a "low tax economy" and a tax haven for big business.

1. company can not benefit of corporation tax untill your wages/salaries and all taxes on them are paid

2. the low tax only applies to large companies effectively, there are all sorts of corporation surcharges for small companies (under 5 directors) bringing the effective rate to above 20%, look up "close company taxation"


alot of the posters above would come in for a shock if yee lot ever have the balls to start and run your own business

beeno67

meditraitor wrote: »

If i was coming home with €1,721 per week in the back pocket after taxes I wouldnt be complaining, .

So why don't you do a job that pays €200,000 a year? Oh yeah, it's not that simple.

beeno67

cm2000 wrote: »

That comes to a total €111,447 on a €200,000 salary, before he might want to buy anything so he can pay another 21% or god forbid he want a drink or but a car and he can be taxed up the arse for all that again.

My point? we are far far from a low tax economy and in reality we need to slash taxes as there are disincentives to work everywhere. Endemic in our tax code is punishment for success and subsidies for failure.

We are low tax for lower earners.

For example you are saying a person earning 200k will take home €111,500. Compare this to a low paid couple earning 30K each. They will take home almost €50,000. So you earn €140k more but only take home 61k more

ei.sdraob

beeno67 wrote: »

So why don't you do a job that pays €200,000 a year? Oh yeah, it's not that simple.

exactly

according to last CSO stats from 2006 (yeh i know "the boom" year), probably alot less than that by now...

there were just north of 80,000 people with incomes of more that 100,000 euro, and that figure includes some couples whose income was joinly accessed

@OP we dont have a low taxation system

we have a dysfunctional taxation system here


the majority of the tax brunt is carried by a very few people, half of the workforce is out of the taxnet, most of large companies can afford to effectively escape too

that leaves PAYE workers and small/medium businesses carrying the torch

pumpkinsoup

ei.sdraob wrote: »

your missing his point (which he didnt get across well)

if you are one of the main directors and employees of your own company (lets say a so called smart economy startup)

ah yes, that smart economy thing again, if I had a penny for every time that term was abused...

then employer side of PRSI does matter alot and does come into the equation, since like you are the employer too and you be paying yourself among others,
and most likely you as the founder have to work above and beyond and deal with responsibility and risk while building/running a company with other jobs depending on you and your idea and your drive

Lol. In your scenario a small startup can afford to pay one of its owners a salary of 200k but finds it difficult to pay PRSI of 21k! Clearly you know little about managing finances in small startups. There are much smarter and more tax-efficient ways to employ 221k in a small startup.

1. company can not benefit of corporation tax untill your wages/salaries and all taxes on them are paid

2. the low tax only applies to large companies effectively, there are all sorts of corporation surcharges for small companies (under 5 directors) bringing the effective rate to above 20%, look up "close company taxation"

As I said, it's a low tax economy for big business. For the rest of us it's not. But the absurd example of someone earning 200k having to pay 45% tax is hardly going to elicit much sympathy from me or from others in these quarters.

cm2000

ei.sdraob wrote: »

your missing his point (which he didnt get across well)

if you are one of the main directors and employees of your own company (lets say a so called smart economy startup)

then employer side of PRSI does matter alot and does come into the equation, since like you are the employer too and you be paying yourself among others,
and most likely you as the founder have to work above and beyond and deal with responsibility and risk while building/running a company with other jobs depending on you and your idea and your drive

its hard to be motivated when half of your money is taken of you and pissed away to failed banks, fat public services and generous welfare, and by all looks of things you be taxed even more to support the irresponsible

That is not what i meant at all.

I mean all PRSI payments are in effect borne by the employee.

If an employer has a budget of 221500 for an employee then that is what his outlay for that employee will be. By right the employee should receive a wage of 221500. In the absence of employer PRSI that is what the employee in this case would receive. Instead the employer gives 21500 to the state and 200000 to the employee.

MaceFace

pumpkinsoup wrote: »

But the absurd example of someone earning 200k having to pay 45% tax is hardly going to elicit much sympathy from me or from others in these quarters.

Well its a good thing that people in these quarters aren't running the country.

I am not sure how punitive the personal tax levels are for high earners in this country compared to the likes of the US or even the rest of Europe, but it is very important that we compete at this level, just as much as competing at the average wage level.

We have a large number of Multi Nationals based in this country, but the only reason they are hear is because of low corporate tax, foothold in Europe, English speaking etc.
We really need to move to the next level and have these Multi Nationals expand and potentially head quarter in this country.
One of the ways we can do this is from the ground up where we attract the talent from around the world to this country.
Someone on 200k a year would be very senior in a MNC and the more of them that are based in Ireland, the more likely the companies they work for will expand their operations here.

zielarz

cm2000, you're totally right but the problem is that majority of people are on salaries like 20k-30k and consider higher earners as rich and who can afford paying 41% tax...

If you think about it you'll realize that income tax is a legalized slavery. There is no place for income tax in a fair society. Government is taking your honestly earned money and giving it to somebody else. You're literally that person's slave. Slave is forced to work for his master. You are forced to pay on those people.

Don't get me wrong. I do have sympathy for poor people, I actually have much more sympathy for them than this inhumane government. But in my opinion it's better to teach people how to fish instead of giving them a fish...

Amhran Nua

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

also 1/3 of workers are outside the tax take at last count, that is shocking IMO

It makes sense, the real value of €100 to someone earning €1000 a month is a lot more than €100 to our hypothetical executive earning ~€18,000 a month.

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

Corporation tax is very low too, only 12.5%.

Remove that and kiss most of the remaining jobs in the country goodbye, though.

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

The thing is for an average joe on 35k he pay quite low tax but pays more indirect taxes and pays a lot more for services (school books, GP, health, transport) than most EU countries.

And yet the majority of taxes are paid by high earners (ie those not on the average industrial wage)?

zielarz wrote: »

If you think about it you'll realize that income tax is a legalized slavery.

Income tax serves a vital economic purpose in that it encourages spending and hence economic activity among the very wealthy, so they invest it in deductable expenses such as business costs. This is another reason why we have higher income taxes for higher earners. The tax regime has been fairly well thought through.

We don't need to raise taxes, we need to cut costs, which is the last thing union leaders want to hear. Nonetheless, eppur si muove.

Flamed Diving

zielarz wrote: »

cm2000, you're totally right but the problem is that majority of people are on salaries like 20k-30k and consider higher earners as rich and who can afford paying 41% tax...

If you think about it you'll realize that income tax is a legalized slavery. There is no place for income tax in a fair society. Government is taking your honestly earned money and giving it to somebody else. You're literally that person's slave. Slave is forced to work for his master. You are forced to pay on those people.

Don't get me wrong. I do have sympathy for poor people, I actually have much more sympathy for them than this inhumane government. But in my opinion it's better to teach people how to fish instead of giving them a fish...

But many people do not have the natural ability to fish, or to fish well. I would be interested to see your honest response to John Rawl's "Veil of Ignorance" proposition.

"Imagine that you have set for yourself the task of developing a totally new social contract for today's society. How could you do so fairly? Although you could never actually eliminate all of your personal biases and prejudices, you would need to take steps at least to minimize them. Rawls suggests that you imagine yourself in an original position behind a veil of ignorance . Behind this veil, you know nothing of yourself and your natural abilities, or your position in society. You know nothing of your sex, race, nationality, or individual tastes. Behind such a veil of ignorance all individuals are simply specified as rational, free, and morally equal beings. You do know that in the "real world", however, there will be a wide variety in the natural distribution of natural assets and abilities, and that there will be differences of sex, race, and culture that will distinguish groups of people from each other."

Would you choose a world of "some" redistribution based on income tax? Or would you stick to your guns?

cson

zielarz wrote: »

cm2000, you're totally right but the problem is that majority of people are on salaries like 20k-30k and consider higher earners as rich and who can afford paying 41% tax...

If you think about it you'll realize that income tax is a legalized slavery. There is no place for income tax in a fair society. Government is taking your honestly earned money and giving it to somebody else. You're literally that person's slave. Slave is forced to work for his master. You are forced to pay on those people.

Don't get me wrong. I do have sympathy for poor people, I actually have much more sympathy for them than this inhumane government. But in my opinion it's better to teach people how to fish instead of giving them a fish...

Hey go and create your own utopian paradise with no income taxes and see how it works. I'm sure the hospitals, schools, public transport will all be fantas.... oh wait; how will you pay for them? :rolleyes:

danman

What's that story about the 4 friends in the pub that meet every week and they buy the round of drinks according to their means?

I think it sums up this.

silverharp

Flamed Diving wrote: »

But many people do not have the natural ability to fish, or to fish well. I would be interested to see your honest response to John Rawl's "Veil of Ignorance" proposition.



Would you choose a world of "some" redistribution based on income tax? Or would you stick to your guns?

I'd take my chances, the proposition comes down to an individual's risk preferences. Plus even in an irish context that still gives me a 10% to 15% of being locked into generational unemployment, poor quality services and indolent neighbours. I'd prefer to be motivated into change my circumstances

bryaner

ei.sdraob wrote: »

exactly

according to last CSO stats from 2006 (yeh i know "the boom" year), probably alot less than that by now...

there were just north of 80,000 people with incomes of more that 100,000 euro, and that figure includes some couples whose income was joinly accessed

@OP we dont have a low taxation system

we have a dysfunctional taxation system here


the majority of the tax brunt is carried by a very few people, half of the workforce is out of the taxnet, most of large companies can afford to effectively escape too

that leaves PAYE workers and small/medium businesses carrying the torch

Did you ever think of feckin off?

Amhran Nua

Silverharp2 wrote: »

Plus even in an irish context that still gives me a 10% to 15% of being locked into generational unemployment

How's that, long term welfare recipients stood at maybe 1% of the workforce during the boom, and that included those on disability allowance and so on. Also, nobody is "locked" into anything, Ireland has a great many opportunities for advancement regardless of social background, one of the advantages of a classless society.

K-9

I just did a calculation of that on Budget 2010: Use our Tax Calculator:

It comes out at €113,875 or €2,190 per week.

A Public Servant, though not many are on that, would have to pay €17,375 in a Pension Levy, about €240 a week Net plus the old Pension levy, not sure how it works. Their Net Pay after those is well below €100,000. A Private Sector employee would need to be making Gross deductions of well over €30,000 to match that.

Now, compare that to the UK here, url=http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/calcs/paye.htm]HM Revenue & Customs: PAYE Tax calculator[/url]:

A wage of £170,000 equates to £2,050, so we are slightly lower than the UK.

The UK has a lower VAT Rate, less reliance on Private Health Insurance though they do have rates.

The problem with our system was that it relied on tax reductions and more Net Pay so that people could buy houses and cars. Now that nobody is buying those, we are fecked.

soden12

Part of the low-tax mantra professed by PD-ites involves low %age taxes where possible followed by fixed charges.

Previously your taxes paid for refuse, water , sewage and all the other stuff.

Then the PDs dropped the tax rate and fixed water, sewage and refuse at a set price. This set price formed a higher proportion of the average Joes income than it did of the Golden Circle. Face it - refuse charges of 350 hit someone on 19,550 much more than someone on 119,5050 ...

Anonymous1987

Silverharp2 wrote: »

I'd prefer to be motivated into change my circumstances

That's a noble idea but lets not ignore the reality that people are not of equal ability nor do people of equal ability face the same opportunities often because of their parent's wealth, contacts etc. Motivation is simply not enough in many cases. Obviously, a redistributive system will by its nature be inefficient, redistributing resources from productive areas of the economy to unproductive areas but we're not machines. Some productive inefficiency is desirable in that the marginal benefit that would have been gained by the most productive members of society most likely means far less to them than it does to does to those receiving the redistribution who is looking to make ends meet. Having said that the system is open to abuse especially if its too generous but the absence of a redistributive system would only amplify inequalities (in terms of opportunity) until it collapses in some way.

ei.sdraob

bryaner wrote: »

Did you ever think of feckin off?

yes

silverharp

Anonymous1987 wrote: »

Some productive inefficiency is desirable in that the marginal benefit that would have been gained by the most productive members of society most likely means far less to them than it does to does to those receiving the redistribution who is looking to make ends meet. Having said that the system is open to abuse especially if its too generous but the absence of a redistributive system would only amplify inequalities (in terms of opportunity) until it collapses in some way.

You cover up a lot of "crimes" with that comment. Or let me put it another way are you saying that the top 20% pay lets say a 10% tax to create a net for the bottom 10% eveyone else in the middle are capable of looking after themselves via savings, insurance etc.

I seem to find that your argument is used to justify the status quo and that the gov should be 40% plus of the economy?

zielarz

Flamed Diving wrote: »

But many people do not have the natural ability to fish, or to fish well.

Correct. That's why you need to provide appriopriate opportunities for everybody. Minimum wage law is taking that opportuity away for people with low skills. In conjunction with relatively generous welfare benefits and high cost of living people can't find their way out from their current miserable situation.

Flamed Diving wrote: »

I would be interested to see your honest response to John Rawl's "Veil of Ignorance" proposition.

Would you choose a world of "some" redistribution based on income tax? Or would you stick to your guns?

I can't accept any kind of income redistribution because I believe in freedom. I respect people right to property. The problem with income redistribution is that it's always done at expense of freedom.

Think for a while who really benefits from high income tax. Paradoxically it's the rich people. If you imagine a rich guy with a tonne of gold in his basement he doesn't care anymore about income tax. Honest, hard working and ambitious people are mostly hit by the income tax.

The truth is that people, even if they were born in a poor families and lack some abilities strive harder to get out of the poverty. Consider Rockefeller's example.

John Davison Rockefeller.
He is often regarded as the richest person in history. Rockefeller was the second of six children born in Richford, New York, to William Avery Rockefeller (November 13, 1810 – May 11, 1906) and Eliza Davison (September 12, 1813 – March 28, 1889). Genealogists trace his roots back to French Huguenots who later fled to Germany in the 1600s.[8][9] His father, first a lumberman, then a traveling salesman, billed himself as a “botanic physician” and sold dubious elixirs.

zielarz

It's hardly a paradise. It's just a free market economy with private healthcare, schools and transport. You'll continue to pay for those services the same way as you do today but only if you need them. They will be more efficient and cheaper.

cson wrote: »

Hey go and create your own utopian paradise with no income taxes and see how it works. I'm sure the hospitals, schools, public transport will all be fantas.... oh wait; how will you pay for them? :rolleyes:

Flamed Diving

Silverharp2 wrote: »

I'd take my chances, the proposition comes down to an individual's risk preferences. Plus even in an irish context that still gives me a 10% to 15% of being locked into generational unemployment, poor quality services and indolent neighbours. I'd prefer to be motivated into change my circumstances

Well the question is taking the entire world into context. Egalitarianism or libertarianism? The chances are excellent you would be born "coloured" and into poverty.

zielarz wrote: »

Correct. That's why you need to provide appriopriate opportunities for everybody. Minimum wage law is taking that opportuity away for people with low skills. In conjunction with relatively generous welfare benefits and high cost of living people can't find their way out from their current miserable situation.


I can't accept any kind of income redistribution because I believe in freedom. I respect people right to property. The problem with income redistribution is that it's always done at expense of freedom.

Think for a while who really benefits from high income tax. Paradoxically it's the rich people. If you imagine a rich guy with a tonne of gold in his basement he doesn't care anymore about income tax. Honest, hard working and ambitious people are mostly hit by the income tax.

The truth is that people, even if they were born in a poor families and lack some abilities strive harder to get out of the poverty. Consider Rockefeller's example.

Then the chances are excellent that having stepped out from behind the veil, you would be born in poverty, in a 3rd world country. For people in this scenario, all the hard work in the world won't make a damn difference. The point of the exercise is that ideologies don't count for squat, when it comes to this decision, you will choose the option which gets you the best deal. Unless you have no rationality and self-interest.

Anonymous1987

Silverharp2 wrote: »

You cover up a lot of "crimes" with that comment. Or let me put it another way are you saying that the top 20% pay lets say a 10% tax to create a net for the bottom 10% eveyone else in the middle are capable of looking after themselves via savings, insurance etc.

If by crimes you mean abuse of the redistributive system, then it depends on how well designed the system is. If the middle are capable of looking after themselves and avail of the same opportunities then there is no need to redistribute income to them. My primary concern is that all people have access to healthcare, education and a minimum standard of living that allows them to compete for the same opportunities whether they are poor or rich. It doesn't mean that the government must provide these services but the opportunities should exist.

Silverharp2 wrote: »

I seem to find that your argument is used to justify the status quo and that the gov should be 40 plus of the economy?

I was making the case in general terms that some redistribution is better than none, the level and method of redistribution is another thing. If I reinforce the status quo in general terms is that enough to refute my argument?

P. Breathnach

zielarz wrote: »

... I can't accept any kind of income redistribution because I believe in freedom. I respect people right to property...

Aye, there's the rub. There is a tension between property rights and freedom.

Amhran Nua

zielarz wrote: »

It's hardly a paradise. It's just a free market economy with private healthcare, schools and transport. You'll continue to pay for those services the same way as you do today but only if you need them. They will be more efficient and cheaper.

Until the top three operators band together and fix prices, and raise barriers to entry until no real competition is possible. The usual contranymously named libertarian response is that no monopoly was ever formed without government assistance, to which farcical position I point out that the first ever cartel conviction under the EU was in fact petrol station owners around Galway.

Some things are better off paid for with a pool of funds gathered from everyone, administered by elected representatives. Don't confuse a resistance to graft, corruption, and political regulatory capture with pure free market anarcho-corporatism, they are two very different things. Its the latter that dropped us in this shambles in the first place (see repeal of the Glass-Steagall act for reference).

ei.sdraob

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Don't confuse a resistance to graft, corruption, and political regulatory capture with pure free market anarcho-corporatism, they are two very different things. Its the latter that dropped us in this shambles in the first place (see repeal of the Glass-Steagall act for reference).

I like how you rewrote history there, where do I sign up for your newsletter?

Amhran Nua

ei.sdraob wrote: »

I like how you rewrote history there, where do I sign up for your newsletter?

I like how you didn't respond to the facts put forward, opting instead for an ad hominem.

thebman

We aren't really low tax, we just use taxes on purchases to make up the difference and now levies on purchases people will most likely make to try to make up for it.

We need to simplify our tax process but the government doesn't like to upset people by letting them know how much of their money they are actually taking. In some cases it just does make sense to have high taxes like road tax to maintain roads but it would make a lot more sense if it was spent on roads and you could argue to use it for public transport successfully IMO but it isn't being spent there as we basically don't have public transport in the country.

Anyway my point would be we should cut out all the extra VRT and stamp duty taxes and levies and just simplify it all and bring more people into the tax take in the first place and raise the lower rate of tax and then the government can have a more reliable revenue stream.

They obviously also have to cut down on all the loop holes to avoid paying tax which is just silly. As a friend of mine says, the problem with Ireland is for every rule there is an exception.

PeakOutput

we are low tax on the poor and high tax on the rich, which means the vast vast majority of people in this country live in a very low tax world

Fighting Irish

meditraitor wrote: »

If i was coming home with €1,721 per week in the back pocket after taxes I wouldnt be complaining, who the hell deserves that much?

High or low tax economy, getting those wages for anything blue collar job is crazy.

:rolleyes:

Fighting Irish

cm2000 wrote: »

punishment for success and subsidies for failure.

one of the things i hate about modern society

survival of the fittest ftw

Amhran Nua

Fighting Irish wrote: »

survival of the fittest ftw

Sure, lets go all the way and have mandatory sterilisation for undesireable members of society. :rolleyes:

Flamed Diving

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Sure, lets go all the way and have mandatory sterilisation for undesireable members of society. :rolleyes:

That would be the whole country, Ted.

Fighting Irish

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Sure, lets go all the way and have mandatory sterilisation for undesireable members of society. :rolleyes:

I didn't say that

kuntboy

Flamed Diving wrote: »

That would be the whole country, Ted.

I think rich people really despise poor people. Their attitude is, "I made some money, why can't you, you loser?"

PeakOutput

kuntboy wrote: »

I think rich people really despise poor people. Their attitude is, "I made some money, why can't you, you loser?"

i dont think they despise poor people i think they realise that poor people are inevtable there has to be someone at the bottom of the pyramid and as long as there are sufficient opportunities for people to work themselves out of the bottom of the pyramid if they choose there is no problem with this being the case

its the poor people who despise the rich because they have more money than them and they feel they are entitled to some of it for some reason

the only thing poor people are entitled to are basic human rights and the money needed to have these human rights, they arent entitled to a 3 bed semi d and enough social welfare so they can go for pints once a week

Flamed Diving

kuntboy wrote: »

I think rich people really despise poor people. Their attitude is, "I made some money, why can't you, you loser?"

I think despise is a strong word, and I think any attitude they have, generally comes from ignorance. I have a friend who comes from a reasonably well-off family, who would have a unsympathetic attitude to the poor, even our parents generation. But when I pointed out to him that secondary school wasn't free until the 1960s, he was genuinely surprised. Perhaps he thought the field was more level than he had realised.

silverharp

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Well the question is taking the entire world into context. Egalitarianism or libertarianism? The chances are excellent you would be born "coloured" and into poverty.

Are you sure? I though Rawls recognised borders and didnt impose obligations for social democracies to aid each other or other forms of states?

Flamed Diving

Silverharp2 wrote: »

Are you sure? I though Rawls recognised borders and didnt impose obligations for social democracies to aid each other or other forms of states?

Well, it's been nearly five years since I studied his work, so I could be mistaken. But I clearly remember the lecturer pitching it from a global perspective, but perhaps he was simplifying it down. However, I prefer it like that, in either case. Such thought exercises are meant to be reducible.

Nijmegen

I recall that The Frontline had a tax expert on pre-budget when the unions were saying 'raise taxes on the rich and we'll not need the €4bn cuts.'

The woman had worked out that in order to make the savings required, a couple with a combined income would have to pay 75% tax on all earnings over €75,000.

Considering that same unions class anyone earning less than €35,000 to be on a low income, that means that a couple who work and earn €37,500 each are going to pay 75% of any raise they get in tax back to the state.

So if you're earning €35,000 you're poor and if you're earning €38,000 you're rich in this country.

The average salary for a company managing director, or the director of a large business unit in a company with turnover above €50m, is €120,000. Let's assume he's single and works for a multinational, therefore is not a director. He pays out €49,281 in tax, or 41%.

A single woman on €35,000PA is going to pay €6,576 in tax, or 18.78% in income tax.

He earns 3.4 times her salary, and pays nearly 7.5 times the amount of tax.

Those earning well pay their dues.

silverharp

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Well, it's been nearly five years since I studied his work, so I could be mistaken. But I clearly remember the lecturer pitching it from a global perspective, but perhaps he was simplifying it down. However, I prefer it like that, in either case. Such thought exercises are meant to be reducible.

it comes out in his later book The Law of Peoples , which deals more with internatinal issues of justice. But his difference principle does stop at the border. he probably didnt want to turn off his readers.