so taxes...

ei.sdraob

looks like increasing taxes will be an akin to trying to fill an Olympic pool by pissing into it...

Back in 2008, Ireland’s top 11,714 earners (those who earned more than €275,000 in a year), paid almost 18% of all income tax.
Forget the fact that many of these individuals are now broke.
Doubling their tax rates would deliver less than €10 billion in tax revenue over the next 5 years – hardly a drop in the sea of new public debt being created. Quadrupling taxes on Irish median earners – those with income around €25,000 mark – will yield no more than €5 billion in new revenue through 2014.
A full one third of all income earners back in 2008 were outside the tax net.
These workers, with incomes below €17,000 per annum, are about to be thrown to the wolves by our policies as the Government sets out to plug the twin budget and the banks black holes.
Taxed at the standard rate, they will be in for some €0.9 billion tax burden annually.
So where will the rest of €205 billion come from?


In reality, the Government simply cannot avoid hiking taxes on businesses. Budget 2010 forecasts corporation tax revenue to reach €3.16 billion.
Doubling the rate of tax to 25% can be expected to yield no more than €12-14 billion through 2014.
So even this amount will not correct for the public sector and banks’ debts.

from this article contains a lot of figures...

comrades! we should tax the rich more (thats if there are any left)

ninty9er

ei.sdraob wrote: »

comrades! we should tax the rich more (thats if there are any left)

Let's tax everyone for a start, then we discuss who we're going to tax more.

thebman

We could cut spending on things like quangos.

We could save billions without loss of essential services.

Some of the boys may have to lose out on jobs though.

ei.sdraob

ninty9er wrote: »

Let's tax everyone for a start, then we discuss who we're going to tax more.

Of course, if anything it do country good expanding the taxnet since people might get more involved in politics and day to day affairs if it hurts their pocket

"behavioural modification" as the Greens like to call it

Tho per calculations in article even if we tax everyone in workforce 80% and increase the corpo rate (lets not forget that would lead to job losses as companies leave country, shrinking the workforce more)
its still barely would scratch the surface

97i9y3941

like it or not,i think we going back to the 80s,taxing people to death,i dont see how increasing tax and rates on rent or fuel will encourage business when infact it just drive them out,i know there was an agreement on rent freeze but they didnt bother their arse to bring down rent to encourage business growth..

SeaFields

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Of course, if anything it do country good expanding the taxnet since people might get more involved in politics and day to day affairs if it hurts their pocket

This occurred to me the other day...what about a NAMA tax? (or any other name put on it - something that reflects the consequences of paying back for the bust economy we have.) Pooling all the tax increases, income levie, etc.

I figure if the next government placed a name on such a tax that reflects the position we were governed into by the present shower in the Dail it might bring about some "behaviour modification" in the form of doing away with the ballot box amnesia that often occurs in the country..."era we'll vote for good old jimmy fianna fail, he's a great man"

People might not be so quick to give FF no. 1 when they see for the next 40/ 50/ 60 years this tax on their pay slip thats there because of the last time FF were in Leinster house.

Just thinking out loud...:p

ei.sdraob

SeaFields wrote: »

This occurred to me the other day...what about a NAMA tax? (or any other name put on it - something that reflects the consequences of paying back for the bust economy we have.) Pooling all the tax increases, income levie, etc.

I figure if the next government placed a name on such a tax that reflects the position we were governed into by the present shower in the Dail it might bring about some "behaviour modification" in the form of doing away with the ballot box amnesia that often occurs in the country..."era we'll vote for good old jimmy fianna fail, he's a great man"

People might not be so quick to give FF no. 1 when they see for the next 40/ 50/ 60 years this tax on their pay slip thats there because of the last time FF were in Leinster house.

Just thinking out loud...:p

they should tax debt

we've plenty of that

ninty9er

SeaFields wrote: »

This occurred to me the other day...what about a NAMA tax?

People might not be so quick to give FF no. 1 when they see for the next 40/ 50/ 60 years this tax on their pay slip thats there because of the last time FF were in Leinster house.

All well and good, but NAMA is designed to be wound up at a revenue neutral conclusion within 10 years. It might cost maybe €5/€10bn and run for 15 years, but I wish people would get their heads around that.

However, carry on, no need to let the facts get in your way.

Also, see the reducing the deficit thread for my tax ideas.

Count Dooku

ninty9er wrote: »

All well and good, but NAMA is designed to be wound up at a revenue neutral conclusion within 10 years.

It is best case scenario
but if government will decide to increase taxes, it will force emigration.
Emigration will reduce demand for properties and will put a lot of investors in difficult situation. Government will have no choice, except bailing out banks again. It will mean more borrowings or expulsion from Euro.
Reduced demand for properties will mean that property prices will continue to fall.
High taxes will mean that NAMA will have little chances to be revenue neutral

Eliot Rosewater

Well, a Labour Party government are getting into power in a few years, so expect taxes to rise. It's a problem because taxes and regulations make it harder to do business, so there are less people making money and providing employment. Also, it's not as if you can justify the level of spending in Ireland with some of the things the government throw money at.

Scarab80

Count Dooku wrote: »

It is best case scenario
but if government will decide to increase taxes, it will force emigration.
Emigration will reduce demand for properties and will put a lot of investors in difficult situation. Government will have no choice, except bailing out banks again. It will mean more borrowings or expulsion from Euro.
Reduced demand for properties will mean that property prices will continue to fall.
High taxes will mean that NAMA will have little chances to be revenue neutral

If NAMA makes a loss, the losses will be recovered from the participating institutions via a surcharge.

ninty9er

Count Dooku wrote: »

Reduced demand for properties will mean that property prices will continue to fall.
High taxes will mean that NAMA will have little chances to be revenue neutral

NAMA didn't buy the properties, it bought the loans...it's up to the developers to sell the properties and service the loans.

ei.sdraob

Scarab80 wrote: »

If NAMA makes a loss, the losses will be recovered from the participating institutions via a surcharge.

that was discussed to death, the above will not happen

the banks are deeply insolvent... ever hear of squeezing blood from a stone?

Scarab80

ei.sdraob wrote: »

that was discussed to death, the above will not happen

the banks are deeply insolvent... ever hear of squeezing blood from a stone?

The surcharge happens on the wind up of NAMA, 10 years down the line. At that stage either we have solvent banks or we have no banks.

I am only talking about 3 of the 5 participating institutions here, we all know Anglo and INBS are sunk. BOI already seem to have taken measures to ensure solvency, AIB we will find out in a few months. EBS, we are only talking about a few billion and we don't worry about amounts that small in this country anymore

ei.sdraob

considering we own 70% of all the Irish banks (some a little less, some a little more or fully) and paid 20-30 times over for what these banks are worth

the surcharge is just a bad joke then since if it is called it be us who be paying for most of it, sigh depressing

hinault

Quangos need to be shut down.

And idiotic ideas like building hospitals in Kenmare would also help.


I hinted that taxes will increase on another thread which will remain nameless - because it is clear that the 2010 tax take continues to drop.

ardmacha

Taxes for 2010 are pretty much bang on target and are not dropping. However they remain a smaller proportion of GNP than can reasonably run government.

hinault

ardmacha wrote: »

Taxes for 2010 are pretty much bang on target and are not dropping. However they remain a smaller proportion of GNP than can reasonably run government.

We've been though this on another thread.

Tax revenue for 2010 is down in absolute terms and in comparative terms compared to 2009.

ei.sdraob

hinault wrote: »

We've been though this on another thread.

Tax revenue for 2010 is down in absolute terms and in comparative terms compared to 2009.

I like how a 10% drop as compared to 2009 is "not dropping"

hinault

ei.sdraob wrote: »

I like how a 10% drop as compared to 2009 is "not dropping"

Don't mention the war:rolleyes:

johnnyskeleton

ninty9er wrote: »

All well and good, but NAMA is designed to be wound up at a revenue neutral conclusion within 10 years. It might cost maybe €5/€10bn and run for 15 years, but I wish people would get their heads around that.

However, carry on, no need to let the facts get in your way.

Also, see the reducing the deficit thread for my tax ideas.

And magic beans are designed to grow overnight into giant beenstalks, but when I explain this fairly simple concept to people, they just can't get their heads around it.

Nijmegen

We can't tax more, we need to cut, cut, cut. And bejasus, anyone who says we run a lean, mean fightin public sector machine and can't afford to cut... Well, clearly they've just been kidnapped by aliens and held in a study group perfect Ireland, now to be returned to witness their reactions to what it's really like.

ardmacha

I like how a 10% drop as compared to 2009 is "not dropping"

There is a difference between :

tax take remains lower than in 2009 true
and
tax take continues to drop untrue

And bejasus, anyone who says we run a lean, mean fightin public sector machine and can't afford to cut...

Of course there should be cuts, many of those in the McCarthy report have not yet been implemented. However many parts of the public sector are already relatively efficient by European standards and huge gains cannot come from cuts, unless you reduce the service below that typically found in European countries. If you do not want to reduce service below that typically found in European countries then you must collect a typically European proportion of GNP in taxes.

K-9

ardmacha wrote: »

Taxes for 2010 are pretty much bang on target and are not dropping. However they remain a smaller proportion of GNP than can reasonably run government.

Problem is: The horse has bolted!

The time to bring these taxes in, or cut reliefs like S.23, FTB Interest Relief was during the bubble.

FTB Interest Relief was recommended to be scrapped a few years ago, what did FF do? (the opposition were no better), double it!

They are now bringing these in with an economy that has to solved a huge structural deficit.

Just as they followed the popular belief then and it proved wrong, they shouldn't follow it now and tax, tax, tax to save PS pay.

Nijmegen

Of course there should be cuts, many of those in the McCarthy report have not yet been implemented. However many parts of the public sector are already relatively efficient by European standards and huge gains cannot come from cuts, unless you reduce the service below that typically found in European countries. If you do not want to reduce service below that typically found in European countries then you must collect a typically European proportion of GNP in taxes.

Here I'm a fan of smaller government. An Israeli university did some research into 'most regulated countries' in terms of state bodies specifically set up to run things, and we came second. Far, far too many quangos where we could have small departments within existing departments, rather than organizations with their own building, CEO, directors, PA's to directors, doubled up infrastructure, etc etc etc etc.

Also, the waste and mismanagement in so many different organizations I deal with on a daily professional basis is staggaring - and I've experience working with everything from local councils through the courts service, and of course as an individual with many other branches.

I think we all have such experiences. Of course, nobody in public life will freely admit it, or we'll simply get promises of reform (for pay increases... Where have I heard that one?)

It's amazing that we run our state on completely different rules and even accept framing discussions about it in an entirely different light to how a well run private sector company would. There are companies out there with a larger, more diverse workforce than our public sector that are run quite well.

We are constrained in our cost saving measures by childish political frameworks.

Nody

ardmacha wrote: »

Of course there should be cuts, many of those in the McCarthy report have not yet been implemented. However many parts of the public sector are already relatively efficient by European standards and huge gains cannot come from cuts, unless you reduce the service below that typically found in European countries. If you do not want to reduce service below that typically found in European countries then you must collect a typically European proportion of GNP in taxes.

Wrong; that would hold true if, and only if, the debt mountain was also relative in size which is not the case. Due to this the answer is yes, Ireland will need to have less service then other European countries to pay of the ineptitude and spending done by the politicans previously.

If this spending (be it PS wage bill, building roads or what ever you wish to blame it on) had not happened then the service could remain the same; since it is not the service has to go down to pay of the debt with interest.

cson

Nody wrote: »

Wrong; that would hold true if, and only if, the debt mountain was also relative in size which is not the case. Due to this the answer is yes, Ireland will need to have less service then other European countries to pay of the ineptitude and spending done by the politicans previously.

If this spending (be it PS wage bill, building roads or what ever you wish to blame it on) had not happened then the service could remain the same; since it is not the service has to go down to pay of the debt with interest.

This is a harsh truth.

But one that needs facing up to. Standards of living and services are going to have to go down in this country. Most likely to a level that's worse than most EU states. Current levels cannot be sustained and no matter how loud the masses bleat about entitlement it won't change a damn thing.

Edit: One thing to note about taxes is that you can't even begin to think about bringing < €17,000 earners into the tax net unless you take a hatchet to our benefit and welfare structure.