Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/

Taxpayer Vs Citizen

  • 15-04-2010 02:05PM
    #1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 24,639 ✭✭✭✭


    So when did the change over happen. Everything in the paper these days is about how we, the taxpayer fund this and that etc. When did we stop becoming citizen and suddenly become taxpayers?

    The Celtic Tiger era, or post it?

    Is this term restricted to just Ireland or has it become a common EU/US term these days?

    Did it spring from the media or government and what is the ultimate point of it, to split those who contribute taxes from those less well off, to further split the populace to take pressure off the gov ala the public vs private "war" or is it simply the media trying to have a go at the government?


«13456

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 39,019 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 24,612 ✭✭✭✭Sleepy


    Not just an Irish thing, the taxpayers in the UK are quick to distinguish themselves from non-contributing citizens too.

    I'd never suggest that all citizens should be expected to contribute. Only the hardest of hearts would insist on those past retirement age, incapable of work due to disability, currently unemployed etc are 'lesser' members of society. I'm not sure that argument could be extended to those who simply aren't prepared to contribute to society and live a parasitic existence off the efforts of their fellows.


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 18,555 CMod ✭✭✭✭Nody


    As noted a citizen don't fund anything; a tax payer does.

    The two are not interchangable as a person here on visa or a member from another EU state is not a citizen but would be a tax payer. As a tax payer they have every right to ask that the money they pay in are used in the best way possible since they are the once paying the bill, the citizen by definition does not (though the citizen may be a tax payer as well).


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 54 ✭✭pumpkinsoup


    I think citizen is more appropriate. If government revenue is being spent on a particular project, then that revenue is not available for spending on other services which are potentially to the benefit of all citizens, not just taxpayers.

    My small children for instance are too young to be taxpayers. Money spent on a bank bailout is money diverted from schools and hospital services that they might avail of. The bailout is being funded by them too.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,364 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob


    government spending like aid helps people in other countries

    are they "citizens" too by your reasoning @pumpkinsoup

    dont confuse "vulnerable/dependant" with "citizen" with "taxpayer", the 3 are there separate but mostly overlapping sets


  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 7,714 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    We were never 'the citizen'..
    we were 'the consumer' before..


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 331 ✭✭simplistic2


    The word taxpayer doesnt make much sense to me. Paying for something implies that the action is voluntary. Theft payer does not sound right either but theft victim does.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,011 ✭✭✭✭Sand


    Citizenship isnt directly linked to your payment of tax as far as I know. Certainly the constitution doesnt define citizenship in such terms. Tax evaders dont have their citizenship taken from them.

    There are people in the country who are taxpayers without being citizens. There are Irish citizens who dont pay Irish taxes. Theres not much linkage other than Irish taxpayers and Irish citizens both tend to be resident in Ireland.

    Political inclinations can be revealed through use of either term - but some things are factual: taxpayers are funding the bailout. Thats just reality. And at the risk of revealing my own political inclinations I think its good that people are reminded that they are the people underwriting this circus and they get angry over the waste, incompetence and corruption that characterises the way in which their money is employed.

    Citizens just wont get as angry - after all, its someone elses money, isnt it?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 24,639 ✭✭✭✭Cookie_Monster


    Sand wrote: »
    Citizenship isnt directly linked to your payment of tax as far as I know.

    no its not, and I didn't mean in exact terms for the point of this debate. Just in the general sense everything seems to be about the "taxpayer of this country" these days rather than the "citizens of this country"


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,364 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob


    no its not, and I didn't mean in exact terms for the point of this debate. Just in the general sense everything seems to be about the "taxpayer of this country" these days rather than the "citizens of this country"

    yes because the burden of all this **** that was created by few is being put on the taxpayers

    there is a parallel thread where we discuss the figures, and its quite shocking only about half of the workforce pay any direct taxes

    if more "citizens" actually paid anything or something at all they might get more interested and involved in the running of the country


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,574 ✭✭✭✭dsmythy


    I think it comes from the media. Lets their audience think they are with them, the taxpayer.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    no its not, and I didn't mean in exact terms for the point of this debate. Just in the general sense everything seems to be about the "taxpayer of this country" these days rather than the "citizens of this country"

    Largely because the current mess is financial. During other types of scandals the preferred media term is "citizens". It doesn't really tell you anything beyond that.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,089 ✭✭✭✭P. Breathnach


    The word taxpayer doesnt make much sense to me. Paying for something implies that the action is voluntary. Theft payer does not sound right either but theft victim does.

    I thought this was a forum for discussion, but simplistic2's point seems to me more like sloganeering.

    I am a compliant taxpayer (and that includes disclosing some income that I know I could successfully conceal). I do not see myself as the victim of theft, because I believe in social solidarity. Further, I get a lot in exchange for my taxes. Probably, if I had enough data available and had an interest in doing so, I could establish that the direct benefits to me amount to less than the taxes I pay, making me a net contributor. That's okay with me: my next door neighbour is disabled, and dependent on disability benefit, and I am content to contribute to that.

    Yes, you can point to some waste, and you can tell me about welfare cheats, and I will agree with you that such things are wrong and should be dealt with. But you don't deal with such things by dismantling the whole apparatus of state, any more than you deal with an ingrown toenail by amputating a leg.

    Taxation is not theft; the real thieves are those who evade tax, and I take a jaundiced view of those who create and exploit some tax avoidance schemes.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 16,786 ✭✭✭✭Hagar


    Taxation is not theft; the real thieves are those who evade tax
    The real thieves are those who misuse the tax paid in good faith and put into their trust.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,364 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob


    I thought this was a forum for discussion, but simplistic2's point seems to me more like sloganeering.

    I am a compliant taxpayer (and that includes disclosing some income that I know I could successfully conceal). I do not see myself as the victim of theft, because I believe in social solidarity. Further, I get a lot in exchange for my taxes. Probably, if I had enough data available and had an interest in doing so, I could establish that the direct benefits to me amount to less than the taxes I pay, making me a net contributor. That's okay with me: my next door neighbour is disabled, and dependent on disability benefit, and I am content to contribute to that.

    Yes, you can point to some waste, and you can tell me about welfare cheats, and I will agree with you that such things are wrong and should be dealt with. But you don't deal with such things by dismantling the whole apparatus of state, any more than you deal with an ingrown toenail by amputating a leg.

    Taxation is not theft; the real thieves are those who evade tax, and I take a jaundiced view of those who create and exploit some tax avoidance schemes.

    Do you agree with spending billions on NAMA, Bailouts and continue to spend billions more than we have on welfare and public services?

    As a taxpayer I have every right to demand better value for money

    If we dont hold the government responsible and in check they endup doing stupid things, and thats exactly what they have done alot of lately

    since they bribed enough people out of the taxnet, they can get away with murder on the economic front without meeting much resistance from people who no longer pay (yet) for any of the past and present mistakes


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,025 ✭✭✭Tipp Man


    The major problem is we have far few people in the taxpayer subset reletive to the demands of the citzen set

    This needs to change


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,089 ✭✭✭✭P. Breathnach


    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    Do you agree with spending billions on NAMA, Bailouts

    When I consider the alternatives, yes. I won't go further than that in this thread, because there are enough other discussions either related to NAMA or derailed to become NAMA discussions.
    and continue to spend billions more than we have on welfare and public services?

    No. Again, I choose not to elaborate because we have a sufficient number of discussions on those matters.
    As a taxpayer I have every right to demand better value for money

    And so have I, and I am willing to do so. But here's the rub: we don't have full agreement on what constitutes good value for money.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,364 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob


    we don't have full agreement on what constitutes good value for money.

    For me value for money means fiscal responsibility
    the idea of having to borrow alot of money just to pay wages and keep the country going, money that will have to be payed back + interest by me and future generations
    is downright perverse

    you only borrow money to invest in capital projects like infrastructure that will benefit everyone in the long term, paying wages by borrowing is just madness

    I find it very funny that they Greens harp on about saving the planet and environment for future generations, but are willing and are complicit in saddling those generations with debt


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 237 ✭✭MazG


    While many people are out of the income tax net due their their low earnings (eg single person earning less than €18,300 will not be subject to income tax - that's only €800 or so p.a. above minumum wage), the fact remains that such people still contribute by paying indirect taxes along with their PRSI and income levy. VAT of 21% is charged on all goods except for staple food items and children's shoes and clothes. If a low-wage earner has a car then he/she pays car tax, VAT and levies on petrol/diesel. These indirect taxes also apply to those in receipt of Social Welfare payments.

    We are all taxpayers


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,089 ✭✭✭✭P. Breathnach


    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    ... I find it very funny that they Greens harp on about saving the planet and environment for future generations, but are willing and are complicit in saddling those generations with debt

    I have declined to be diverted into discussions about NAMA or social welfare or the public service.

    Now I decline to be diverted into discussing an attack on the Greens.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 24,612 ✭✭✭✭Sleepy


    MazG wrote: »
    While many people are out of the income tax net due their their low earnings (eg single person earning less than €18,300 will not be subject to income tax - that's only €800 or so p.a. above minumum wage), the fact remains that such people still contribute by paying indirect taxes along with their PRSI and income levy. VAT of 21% is charged on all goods except for staple food items and children's shoes and clothes. If a low-wage earner has a car then he/she pays car tax, VAT and levies on petrol/diesel. These indirect taxes also apply to those in receipt of Social Welfare payments.

    We are all taxpayers
    But only some of us pay income tax and that is what the term 'Taxpayer' generally refers to.

    Why shouldn't someone on minimum wage be contributing something?

    Or to take the argument further, why should little Jimmy who's earning minimum wage in his part time job on Saturdays whilst living at home with mammy and daddy get to drink every penny he earns whilst his dad who's supporting a family could be left with less disposable income since he has to pay tax on his income?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 237 ✭✭MazG


    Sleepy wrote: »
    But only some of us pay income tax and that is what the term 'Taxpayer' generally refers to.

    Why shouldn't someone on minimum wage be contributing something?


    Who says that the term 'taxpayer' refers exclusively to those paying income tax? Income tax is just a category of taxation. And besides, someone on minimum wage does contribute something - they would be subject to the 2% income levy*. As tax categories go, surely this one belongs in the 'income' category, thus complying with your requirement.


    *Assuming a full-time job on minimum wage = 39 hrs p.w @ €8.65 p.h x 52 weeks = €17,542.20; above the income levy lower limit of €15,028


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 237 ✭✭MazG


    Sleepy wrote: »
    Or to take the argument further, why should little Jimmy who's earning minimum wage in his part time job on Saturdays whilst living at home with mammy and daddy get to drink every penny he earns whilst his dad who's supporting a family could be left with less disposable income since he has to pay tax on his income?


    Little Jimmy's Dad will have to take that up with Little Jimmy, I reckon!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,903 ✭✭✭✭Riskymove


    MazG wrote: »

    *Assuming a full-time job on minimum wage = 39 hrs p.w @ €8.65 p.h x 52 weeks = €17,542.20; above the income lower limit of €15,028

    even if you were right and I am not 100% sure you are...thats about €50 a year i think


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,089 ✭✭✭✭P. Breathnach


    Sleepy wrote: »
    But only some of us pay income tax and that is what the term 'Taxpayer' generally refers to.

    Why shouldn't someone on minimum wage be contributing something?

    Or to take the argument further, why should little Jimmy who's earning minimum wage in his part time job on Saturdays whilst living at home with mammy and daddy get to drink every penny he earns whilst his dad who's supporting a family could be left with less disposable income since he has to pay tax on his income?

    If little Jimmy spends all his money on drink, he might be paying more tax than his dad.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 237 ✭✭MazG


    Riskymove wrote: »
    even if you were right and I am not 100% sure you are...thats about €50 a year i think


    Thanks for the vote of confidence :rolleyes:, however it would seem that it is your calculations and not mine that are inaccurate.

    You've multiplied €17,452.20 by 2% and come up with €50? Check the batteries in your calculator... ;) Fair enough though, the figure is not huge, it's about €350. Still a (small) contribution though!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,903 ✭✭✭✭Riskymove


    MazG wrote: »
    Thanks for the vote of confidence :rolleyes:, however it would seem that it is your calculations and not mine that are inaccurate.

    You've multiplied €17,452.20 by 2% and come up with €50? Check the batteries in your calculator... ;) Fair enough though, the figure is not huge, it's about €350. Still a (small) contribution though!

    well I said I was not sure

    I thought you would only pay the 2% on earnings above the threshold


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 237 ✭✭MazG


    Nope - once you're above the threshold you pay 2% on the lot. Reasonable assumption though...:)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,364 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob


    Now I decline to be diverted into discussing an attack on the Greens.

    Just pointing out the many "oddities" of modern day Ireland

    You might like to stick spuds in ears and sing la-la-la, that's your choice

    But its there, it happened and downright hypocritical :(
    If little Jimmy spends all his money on drink, he might be paying more tax than his dad.

    We should encourage more people to drink so, might cover the 20 billion hole in our finances


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,903 ✭✭✭✭Riskymove


    MazG wrote: »
    Nope - once you're above the threshold you pay 2% on the lot. Reasonable assumption though...:)

    out of interest I used a tax calculator and it indicates that someone on 17,452.20 would actually pay €1660 PAYE and €524 PRSI on top of the €350 levy

    it seems to indicate that the htreshold for income tax is around the €14,000 mark so certainly people in minimum wage could in fact pay tax


Advertisement