Top 450 richest people paid average taxes of €750,000

whiteonion

http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/top-450-richest-people-paid-average-taxes-of-euro750000-2538341.html

So it looks like in Ireland that the middle class has to take the blow with increased taxation while the super rich pay nearly nothing. For those super rich paying €750 000 a year is less than they would probably spend on a holiday.

The rich pay very little taxes in this country and their taxes have to go up significantly. I propose increasing the corporation tax AND increase all capital gains taxes and scrap tax breaks towards real estate. Get rid of all farm subsidies, etc.

bleg

Just no.

whiteonion

bleg wrote: »

Just no.

So do you prefer that the rich pay very little taaxes while the vast bulk of the taxes are paid by the middle class?

If we are to get this house in order the rich need to pay more taxes. Obviously we'll have to slash social services with a chainsaw as well, but this is not relevant for this thread.

ei.sdraob

lets say these people pay double of what they pay now

that be 0.75 * 2 * 400 = 600 million euro thats what 1% of the state spend this year?

were saved hurray :P

whiteonion

ei.sdraob wrote: »

lets say these people pay double of what they pay now

that be 0.75 * 2 * 400 = 600 million euro thats what 1% of the state spend this year?

were saved hurray :P

They should pay way more than that. And the next top 10 000 under them. The richest 100 000 in Ireland should pay way more taxes and the unemployed should get less.

I advocate some serious austerity measures, if we don't do these the IMF will force Ireland into serious asset stripping which they have done in many other countries before.

ei.sdraob

whiteonion wrote: »

They should pay way more than that. And the next top 10 000 under them. The richest 100 000 in Ireland should pay way more taxes and the unemployed should get less.

I advocate some serious austerity measures, if we don't do these the IMF will force Ireland into serious asset stripping which they have done in many other countries before.

ok so since you are advocating, then you should have these figures handy:

*a) what was the average total salary of the top 400 richest
*b) what is the average total salary of the next 100,000

what tax % will a) pay what % will b) in your plan

more figures please be handy to do some maths

whiteonion

I figure we should be able to get €5-10 billion per year from them through various tax increases. They can afford it.

p1akuw47h5r3it

whiteonion wrote: »

I figure we should be able to get €5-10 billion per year from them through various tax increases. They can afford it.

How?

alandublin15

think i read the second home tax is like e500, i could be wrong.
anyway if it is indeed 500 then that needs to be sent into orbit, more like 10,000. also massive gaff tax please.
whats 500 to a second home owner anyway - a weeks takings from lodgers?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

whiteonion

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

There are plenty of super rich people in Sweden, Norway, Finland, Denmark, Germany etc that pay their fair share of taxes without leaving the country. The super rich(especially the bankers) are responsible for this bad state we are in today.

I'd have no problems with having their assets seized if they'd try to leave the country.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Treehouse72

This story is as much about the shifting definition of "rich" as anything.

southsiderosie

whiteonion wrote: »

There are plenty of super rich people in Sweden, Norway, Finland, Denmark, Germany etc that pay their fair share of taxes without leaving the country. The super rich(especially the bankers) are responsible for this bad state we are in today.

I'd have no problems with having their assets seized if they'd try to leave the country.

How do you know where these people actually pay their taxes and have their money? There are a lot of ways to fiddle around with this stuff, especially if people are being paid in stock rather than wages.

Also, you cannot compare Ireland, which has no large heavy industry to speak of nowadays, to a country like Germany, where the likes of BMW, Mercedes-Benz, Volkswagen, Siemens, and Bayer have their headquarters. A lot of industrialists don't really have a choice in that regard.

You also can't compare Ireland to those countries - especially the Scandinavian countries - considering that their high tax rates are commiserate with high-quality public services. A lot of people in Ireland would like better health, education, and public transport services, but are not willing to hand over MORE tax dollars to the government, given their track record.

RichardAnd

Ahh good old socialism, so simple that even a socialist can understand it

Ok first things first, why do you feel the state is entitled to the wealth of private citizens at all? If a man makes himself a few million, why should he have to pay any of it back? The super rich, as you call them, pay some tax that would likely cover them using roads and other services and that is enough. They don't cost the state anything so they should be left alone.

And as to your point about raising CT and income tax on the wealthy, what do you think that would do? Try it any within weeks you would see companies leaving and accounts being moved over-seas. You can put all the tax you like on wealth, it doesn't mean you will get more money.

RichardAnd

whiteonion wrote: »

There are plenty of super rich people in Sweden, Norway, Finland, Denmark, Germany etc that pay their fair share of taxes without leaving the country. The super rich(especially the bankers) are responsible for this bad state we are in today.

I'd have no problems with having their assets seized if they'd try to leave the country.

This is absolute nonsense. You can't blame wealthy people for the recession any more than you can blame Joe Public. I'm sorry to tell you this but this isn't France during the revolution where people are serfs to lords and ladies, the public are free to do as they please and when the s**t hits the fan, you can't just turn around and levy blame on those who have more than you.

In short, you are either looking to kick off a fight or you are utterly misguided. In the case of the latter, find yourself a hammer and a sickle and head east.

djpbarry

whiteonion wrote: »

So it looks like in Ireland that the middle class has to take the blow with increased taxation while the super rich pay nearly nothing.

€750,000 is nearly nothing?

Cookie_Monster

750k a year is an awful lot of money for very very little return.
I doubt most of us would pay that in 50 years.

The rich are taxed enough, tax them more and most will just leave. I know I would. Why should the rich pay such a high % more than anyone else? They already contribute the most to society and drain little resources like the poor do.

by all means close so of the ridiculous tax breaks but as for upping the income tax rates just for the hell of it, I don't agree with that at all. The tax regime here already excessive punishes those of us who manage to be successful in life while the freeloaders get everything handed to them, no need to make it even more unequal

RichardAnd

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

750k a year is an awful lot of money for very very little return.
I doubt most of us would pay that in 50 years.

The rich are taxed enough, tax them more and most will just leave. I know I would. Why should the rich pay such a high % more than anyone else? They already contribute the most to society and drain little resources like the poor do.

by all means close so of the ridiculous tax breaks but as for upping the income tax rates just for the hell of it, I don't agree with that at all. The tax regime here already excessive punishes those of us who manage to be successful in life while the freeloaders get everything handed to them, no need to make it even more unequal

In the minds of many, if one guys earns a million a year and another guy earns 20k and both pay 10% income tax, then they pay the same amount of tax :rolleyes:.

As I said earlier, socialism is so simple, even a socialist could understand it.


EDIT: There was a really good analogy posted a few months ago about just this topic of tax on the wealthy. I can't find it but it was about 5 guys in a bar and each paying a % of the tab. Maybe someone else remembers?

Cookie_Monster

RichardAnd wrote: »

As I said earlier, socialism is so simple, even a socialist could understand it.

:D:D

Anonymous1987

The €750k figure doesn't tell us a whole lot without knowing the effective tax rate.

RichardAnd

Anonymous1987 wrote: »

The €750k figure doesn't tell us a whole lot without knowing the effective tax rate.

No but 750k for one person is a serious amount of money no matter how you slice it. that much money would be enough to keep ~75 people on the scratcher for a year which for one contributor is a hell of alot.

Anita Blow

RichardAnd wrote: »

EDIT: There was a really good analogy posted a few months ago about just this topic of tax on the wealthy. I can't find it but it was about 5 guys in a bar and each paying a % of the tab. Maybe someone else remembers?

Ten men go out for beer every day and the bill for all 10 comes to €100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.

The fifth would pay €1.

The sixth would pay €3.

The seventh would pay €7.

The eighth would pay €12.

The ninth would pay €18.

The tenth man (the richest) would pay €59.

So, that’s what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. “Since you are all such good customers,” he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by €20.”Drinks for the ten now cost just €80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the €20 windfall so that everyone would get his ‘fair share? They realized that €20 divided by six is €3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).

The sixth now paid €2 instead of €3 (33%savings).

The seventh now pay €5 instead of €7 (28%savings).

The eighth now paid €9 instead of €12 (25% savings).

The ninth now paid €14 instead of €18 ( 22% savings).

The tenth now paid €49 instead of €59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

“I only got a Euro out of the €20,”declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,” but he got €10!”

“Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a Euro, too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more than I!”

“That’s true!!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get €10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!”

“Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison. “We didn’t get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!”

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

Anonymous1987

RichardAnd wrote: »

No but 750k for one person is a serious amount of money no matter how you slice it. that much money would be enough to keep ~75 people on the scratcher for a year which for one contributor is a hell of alot.

The amount itself is very large but do you not think the effective rate of taxation is what is important? In terms of fairness, is it appropriate for an individual on a middle to high income paying a tax rate of 20-41% if some individuals with far higher incomes pay less than this in proportion of their income. I'm making the case from a hypothetical point of view, in practice Ireland has a highly progressive tax system.

DrumSteve

whiteonion wrote: »

I figure we should be able to get €5-10 billion per year from them through various tax increases. They can afford it.

I wouldn't normally but just... Lol.

That's a pretty deluded view you've got there.

ei.sdraob

DrumSteve wrote: »

I wouldn't normally but just... Lol.

That's a pretty deluded view you've got there.

You could see a SFer a mile away

DrumSteve

true...

P. Breathnach

Anonymous1987 wrote: »

The €750k figure doesn't tell us a whole lot without knowing the effective tax rate.

Indeed.

That simple observation means that just about everything said in this thread is a bit pointless.

Anonymous1987

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Indeed.

That simple observation means that just about everything said in this thread is a bit pointless.

Should you tell them or will I?

P. Breathnach

Anonymous1987 wrote: »

Should you tell them or will I?

Well, I'm accustomed to not being heeded around these parts, so perhaps you should.

mickoneill30

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Indeed.

That simple observation means that just about everything said in this thread is a bit pointless.

whiteonion wrote: »

I'd have no problems with having their assets seized if they'd try to leave the country.

The bit above was what made it pointless for me. I started to write a reply then just thought why bother

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

whatstherush

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Just out of curiosity do you know what the rate would be if we were to collect the same amount of income tax that we presently collect using the progressive system?

kmick

The wonder to me is that there are people still left in the country that are willing to pay 450k in taxes to this financially ruined entity formerly known as Ireland inc. Any talk of taxing these people more to increase the fairness in our system is fukcing nonsense.

Heres an idea lets get some civil servants to work out how much it costs Ireland to get a person from birth to death as regards average social and publc services. Lets for argument say its a mean of €7,000 per man, woman and child in the state. Then we insist that every citizen over the course of his/her life of 65 years (65*7000) owes that to the state. Then every time somebody says well Im entitled to x,y, an z we check the record and see if that really is the case.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

amacca

RichardAnd wrote: »

Ahh good old socialism, so simple that even a socialist can understand it

Ok first things first, why do you feel the state is entitled to the wealth of private citizens at all? If a man makes himself a few million, why should he have to pay any of it back? The super rich, as you call them, pay some tax that would likely cover them using roads and other services and that is enough. They don't cost the state anything so they should be left alone.

doesn't your statement assume that the rich man/woman made all his/her money entirely due to his own skills/initiative and not in part on the backs of others or due to unfair advantages

Are there not plenty of rich people that provide relatively little in terms of jobs in comparison to those way down the food chain? Does this not put them on a par with leeches like welfare cheats and nixer normans etc etc

also ... would you have a problem with these so called "rich" people paying the same percentage in taxes as the not so rich?...if not then why should they not contribute the same as everyone else?

I'm not a socialist but if you'll pardon the pun I think its a bit rich that the really well off always seem to be able to evade/avoid paying the same as everyone else as a percentage of their earnings........or perhaps I'm wrong on that....I certainly wasn't up until 2008.

Anonymous1987

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I was making the point that it would be unfair for an individual on a low/middle income to pay higher effective tax rate than someone on a higher income.

Nevertheless, if inheritance and wealth dictate that some individuals are at an advantage with regards to generating income regardless of ability or effort, then some degree of progressivism could be argued to be acceptable and fair.

The Irish tax system is highly progressive with regard to income, probably excessively so but keep in mind that some of this is countered by VAT, a flat tax which effects all consumers in Ireland.

BOHtox

Remember people these are the ones who create the jobs. If we increased their taxes they would move elsewhere, bringing their jobs with them.

pigeonbutler

OP: a few questions for you

1. Do you know what the current marginal tax rates are for high earners?
2. Do you know how these compare to high tax European social democratic countries?
3. Do you know what the restriction of specified reliefs for high earners is?
4. Do you know how much tax a single person earning 35,000 pays and how this compares to other European countries?

When you can answer the above come back to the thread and we can have an informed debate.

ei.sdraob

whatstherush wrote: »

Just out of curiosity do you know what the rate would be if we were to collect the same amount of income tax that we presently collect using the progressive system?

17-20%

edit: another article at irisheconomy.ie

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

southsiderosie

amacca wrote: »

doesn't your statement assume that the rich man/woman made all his/her money entirely due to his own skills/initiative and not in part on the backs of others or due to unfair advantages

Are there not plenty of rich people that provide relatively little in terms of jobs in comparison to those way down the food chain? Does this not put them on a par with leeches like welfare cheats and nixer normans etc etc

also ... would you have a problem with these so called "rich" people paying the same percentage in taxes as the not so rich?...if not then why should they not contribute the same as everyone else?

I'm not a socialist but if you'll pardon the pun I think its a bit rich that the really well off always seem to be able to evade/avoid paying the same as everyone else as a percentage of their earnings........or perhaps I'm wrong on that....I certainly wasn't up until 2008.

In some ways, tax cheats are worse than welfare cheats because the scale of lost tax revenue is much more severe in terms of its effect on the government's fiscal position.

I used to be opposed to flat taxes because I generally favored a more progressive system, but when you look at the percentage of people's incomes that they actually pay when all revenue streams are taken into account, a clear and simple flat tax actually starts to seem like a fairer option, and would not have all of the distorting effects of multiple loopholes at the high end and weird tax breaks (such as mortgage write-offs) that heavily impact consumer behavior. However, I do think that such a system should build in some kind of straightforward earned income tax credit for very low-wage people.

Ideally, you would be able to file and pay taxes using nothing more than a post card and/or a one-page online form.

Anonymous1987

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

No, but consider the circumstances whereby someone lost the genetic lottery but won the inheritance lottery and are now enjoying quite a lavish lifestyle on the proceeds of their inheritance which is of no consequence to their own effort or ability.

Not only that but economic inequality tends to generate more of the same. Consider the advantages to people of high income and wealth with regard to investment, generally lower professional fees and a wider range of investment products are available to these individuals.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Anonymous1987

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Investing is not in itself immoral after all investors bear risk, however the advantages offered to high wealth individuals is something I view a role for taxation to rectify.

If you have the knowledge and financial acumen to avoid professional fund management fees then you should be rewarded however there are other advantages to high wealth individuals with regard to investment such as lower transaction costs and the fact that a good deal of financial investments can only be made by large investors.

In short it is easier to make money if you have money and while investors should be rewarded for bearing risk, in my view there should also be a realignment of economic opportunity through some progressive taxation.

whiteonion

"Capitalism" is so much better than "Socialism", that is why Ireland with it's low taxes and "light touch regulation" is fairing so much better than the horrible socialist countries such as Norway and Finland

eoinbn

I read that article yesterday and was just left completely confused! I wasn't sure if they were suggesting that the rich don't pay enough taxes, or if the rich are just getting... well less rich! Stinks of lazy journalism.

whiteonion wrote: »

"Capitalism" is so much better than "Socialism", that is why Ireland with it's low taxes and "light touch regulation" is fairing so much better than the horrible socialist countries such as Norway and Finland

Norway has been swimming in oil for 50 years- been producing as much as Saudi Arabia has per head of population. Sweden had/has a lot of iron ore which has enabled it to produce heavy machinery and cars- Saab, Volvo, Scania. Finland has huge timber resources(and the largest paper companies in the world) and Nokia- a company that was worth €150bn at it's peak.
A lot of those jobs are exactly what Ireland doesn't have- labour intensive manual labour.

Dale Parish

I think €337.7 million in tax is a "fair" (whatever that means) share from 450 people.

amacca

Dale Parish wrote: »

I think €337.7 million in tax is a "fair" (whatever that means) share from 450 people.

And I think that's not the right way to look at it at all

if that 337.7 million only represents a small percentage of their total earnings vs a much larger percentage paid by someone earning much less...would you still think it was a "fair" share?

Anita Blow

amacca wrote: »

And I think that's not the right way to look at it at all

if that 337.7 million only represents a small percentage of their total earnings vs a much larger percentage paid by someone earning much less...would you still think it was a "fair" share?

But it doesn't?
Everybody except those on low incomes pays proportionally the same from their income in Income tax. So what they pay in tax, represents just as much of a percentage of their total income as a it would with a middle-income person.

Is taxing people who already pay the lion's share of our income tax, any more, fair? Tax those who don't drain the state's resources highly, just to subsidise those who represent a significant drain on society?

The wealthy are under no obligation to stay here and pay tax. You push them any more and they'll emigrate and take their wealth elsewhere. You can't punish people for making a success for themselves otherwise you stifle investment and overall it's a loss for the country. When people think wealthy, they think politicians, developers and bankers. There are far more wealthy people out there who made their wealth fairly and are now being punished through no fault of their own.

Everyone must pay their share

Anonymous1987

Anita Blow wrote: »

But it doesn't?
Everybody except those on low incomes pays proportionally the same from their income in Income tax. So what they pay in tax, represents just as much of a percentage of their total income as a it would with a middle-income person.

Not necessarily, while a small group of high income earners do indeed pay the bulk of taxation in Ireland there are quit a few anomalies due to the various tax credit and relief available. Take for example the following review of the top 400 earners for 2002/2003. It's a bit dated but indicative nonetheless. For example 3 of the 400 earners paid no tax in 2003 and 80 paid a tax rate less than 15%. That said, 250 or nearly two thirds of the top 400 earners paid a tax rate over 30%. It remains though that some high earners are not necessarily paying the same rates as others on far lower incomes.

BTW tax credits and a different high and low rate of income tax means that most income earners pay different proportions of their income in tax.