Why does the IMF want us to have a property tax?

Daegerty

It just seems to me like whatever conditions the EU and IMF are attaching to the bailout package are to erode our advantage over other EU countries over time, so we come out of this mess a lot worse than when we went in.

The things they are pushing for are things very popular in the rest of Europe (property tax, high corporation tax, water rates) but they're not so bothered about our very high dole. These are all the kind of tax you would take into consideration before moving to or setting up your business in Ireland so it seems like a tactic to make Ireland less competitive rather than getting the government to cut expenses before giving us more loans.

markpb

They could be trying to wean the government off a budget that has a very narrow focus on income tax and stamp duty (which fluctuate wildly depending on the health of the economy) and moving them towards a budget which relies on income tax and stamp duty but also has more predictable taxes (like property tax, water charges, etc).

It's worth bearing in mind that companies already pay property tax (in the form of rates to the local authority) and water charges so there's no change there. It won't dissuade companies from basing themselves here.

Cookie_Monster

Property tax is a wider more stable base than income tax or stamp duty. The number of properties in the country is ease enough to keep track of and won't rise and fall dramatically over a short space of time.

Scofflaw

It's worth remembering that most of the measures in the EU/IMF plan had already been put forward by the government in their Four Year 'National Recovery Plan': http://www.budget.gov.ie/The%20National%20Recovery%20Plan%202011-2014.pdf

That includes the property tax (site value tax). These were all on the cards before the EU/IMF intervention, so they appear in the EU/IMF plan because the late government put them there. As elements of the plan they're probably negotiable as long as whatever replaces them reaches the same targets.

cordially,
Scofflaw

HellFireClub

In fairness to everyone, the key income stream for the local authorities has been commerical rates on business premises. You'd have to ask why this burden should have been placed on businesses only, as opposed to homes in the local authority area as well. If you have a public park, public library, etc, near your house that has to be maintained on a weekly basis, does it not follow that you as a householder should be contributing in some way towards its upkeep???

I was originally against a property tax but we can see where a lack of a property tax has brought us to.

EggsAckley

The EU/IMF have left the cutting of SW up to us for now it would seem. If we start missing targets they will have something to say about it no doubt

HellFireClub

markpb wrote: »

They could be trying to wean the government off a budget that has a very narrow focus on income tax and stamp duty (which fluctuate wildly depending on the health of the economy) and moving them towards a budget which relies on income tax and stamp duty but also has more predictable taxes (like property tax, water charges, etc).

It's worth bearing in mind that companies already pay property tax (in the form of rates to the local authority) and water charges so there's no change there. It won't dissuade companies from basing themselves here.

There certainly should be a substantial reduction in Commercial Rates however, if a property tax is introduced. The insane set up at the moment where as a commercial tenant, you can negotiate your rent down with a landlord if he/she is agreeable, but yet the commercial rates on the building are still so high as to be a complete deal breaker, it's just an other huge obstacle to business creation and job creation in this country.

neutron

property taxes akin to the rest of the odious stealth taxes are designed to hurt the poorest and the least well off the hardest, to think that Fine Gaels version of the discredited Green party i.e. Labour will support them is a disgrace if there is to be increased taxation it should of course target the wealthiest by an increase on income tax,the wealthiest would of course pay more than a person on the minimal wage but of course they will cynically target the weakest and blame the eu,imf deal

HellFireClub

neutron wrote: »

property taxes akin to the rest of the odious stealth taxes are designed to hurt the poorest and the least well off the hardest, to think that Fine Gaels version of the discredited Green party i.e. Labour will support them is a disgrace if there is to be increased taxation it should of course target the wealthiest by an increase on income tax,the wealthiest would of course pay more than a person on the minimal wage but of course they will cynically target the weakest and blame the eu,imf deal

I completely disagree. You can go into your local public library and sit there all day and use a free PC and a free broadband connection. Similarly, you can enjoy loads of local parks and amenities in your local area. If you had to pay a property tax to contribute towards the upkeep and ongoing cost of providing these services, I bet you'd have a different attitude the next time you saw trees in your local park being vandalised or anti social behaviour that would ultimately be hitting you in the pocket!

I've an old theory that something given for free is NEVER properly appreciated by the recipient. Small businesses have been unfairly carrying this financial burden for way too long, while the costs associated with maintaining local communitiy areas have been driven up and up and up over the years due to community based social behavioural problems that start off in the family home.

HellFireClub

neutron wrote: »

property taxes akin to the rest of the odious stealth taxes are designed to hurt the poorest and the least well off the hardest, to think that Fine Gaels version of the discredited Green party i.e. Labour will support them is a disgrace if there is to be increased taxation it should of course target the wealthiest by an increase on income tax,the wealthiest would of course pay more than a person on the minimal wage but of course they will cynically target the weakest and blame the eu,imf deal

Yeah, why don't you start with Jack O' Connor, on a salary of 120K a year plus expenses, and no mortgage on his home. This is the one guy who has lectured people about taxing "trophy houses" and the likes... Only in Ireland.

PhatPiggins

HellFireClub wrote: »

In fairness to everyone, the key income stream for the local authorities has been commerical rates on business premises. You'd have to ask why this burden should have been placed on businesses only, as opposed to homes in the local authority area as well. If you have a public park, public library, etc, near your house that has to be maintained on a weekly basis, does it not follow that you as a householder should be contributing in some way towards its upkeep???

I was originally against a property tax but we can see where a lack of a property tax has brought us to.

Except that we're now going to get property taxes and commercial rates.

Property taxes might help us avoid futher bubbles though or at least make owning multiple properties less attractive.

thebman

The idea that a property tax is a tax on the poor is laughable, poor people don't own houses.

Nijmegen

To weigh in here, I think that Ireland's tax base needs systemic improvement. Our GDP has fallen somewhere in the range of 15% since its height before the collapse. One off property related taxes like stamp duty represented 17% of tax receipts at the height. They have fallen 78% since then. Stamp duty as a component of that has fallen 90%

Having a tax base that relies on high, once off taxes that are cyclical is stupid. To sustain the Irish state, we need a tax system that is based off of smaller individual recurring revenues levied on a wide body of people.

It's not popular. But you either pay for the state or you drastically reduce it in size.

People moan when taxes go up, they moan when special needs assistants get cut. It's one or the other.

The entire scope of the argument:

Crazy Horse 6

thebman wrote: »

The idea that a property tax is a tax on the poor is laughable, poor people don't own houses.

What an incredible comment. You know there are plenty of people out there that are poor and own houses. My neighbours are both on a low wage and own their house.

thebman

Crazy Horse 6 wrote: »

What an incredible comment. You know there are plenty of people out there that are poor and own houses. My neighbours are both on a low wage and own their house.

They aren't on a low wage if they own a house. What are their wages?

gman2k

thebman wrote: »

They aren't on a low wage if they own a house. What are their wages?

don't suppose you've ever heard of having a mortgage? Wages cuts, increased taxation and redundancy drive people into poverty.
What's your solution?

Squall19

thebman wrote: »

They aren't on a low wage if they own a house. What are their wages?

Where have you been the last few years?:D

Almost 20% of the country are on the dole;)

Of course loads and loads of folk have **** wages, my friend has a wife out of work ( laid off last year ) 2 kids and he takes home 440 euro after tax for a 40 hour week and has a 180k mortgage over 35 years.

3 years ago he was on about 500 euro after tax and she had about the same.

Things change, don't so be ignorant:P

Godge

Squall19 wrote: »

Where have you been the last few years?:D

Almost 20% of the country are on the dole;)

Of course loads and loads of folk have **** wages, my friend has a wife out of work ( laid off last year ) 2 kids and he takes home 440 euro after tax for a 40 hour week and has a 180k mortgage over 35 years.

3 years ago he was on about 500 euro after tax and she had about the same.

Things change, don't so be ignorant:P

He is still paying towards a house he will own.

A homeless man who cannot qualify for the dole, now that is poor.

Godge

Daegerty wrote: »

It just seems to me like whatever conditions the EU and IMF are attaching to the bailout package are to erode our advantage over other EU countries over time, so we come out of this mess a lot worse than when we went in.

The things they are pushing for are things very popular in the rest of Europe (property tax, high corporation tax, water rates) but they're not so bothered about our very high dole. These are all the kind of tax you would take into consideration before moving to or setting up your business in Ireland so it seems like a tactic to make Ireland less competitive rather than getting the government to cut expenses before giving us more loans.

The only people person pushing for a higher corporation tax is Sarkozy.

The IMF have argued for a property tax and water charges. Both useful measures as they do not tax economic activity.

Dannyboy83

Nijmegen wrote: »

Either you pay for the state or you drastically reduce it in size.
People moan when taxes go up, they moan when special needs assistants get cut. It's one or the other.

Nail. Hammer. Head.

The state is not going to reduce in size.
Vested interests are too powerful.

We are just going to have to accept being taxed into incontinence (look, now I'm doing the frog in boiling water.)

Good loser

Any country that takes itself seriously, as we have to now, must have a property tax on houses. It broadens the tax base i.e. captures those sometimes not caught by other taxes and makes for a more efficient use of capital.

Basing it on site value rather than property value is stupid - unless (stupidly) all sites are deemed to be equal to, say, 25% of property value.

Hard or exceptional cases should not deflect us from this.

If tax has to be paid on a car why not on a house?

It will have to come to about €1 bn within 4/5 years.

Exemptions should be very strict.

Flex

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

Nail. Hammer. Head.

The state is not going to reduce in size.
Vested interests are too powerful.

We are just going to have to accept being taxed into incontinence (look, now I'm doing the frog in boiling water.)

Sadly thats exactly what I see happening, an attempt to tax our way out of this. Its not like we're facing into this blindly, tried this in the 70's and 80's which resulted in an upper tax rate of 65% (which Labour thought wasnt high enough) and the Tallaght strategy. Things only started to turn when we cut government spending, but vested interests cant be upset....

Nijmegen

Flex wrote: »

Sadly thats exactly what I see happening, an attempt to tax our way out of this. Its not like we're facing into this blindly, tried this in the 70's and 80's which resulted in an upper tax rate of 65% (which Labour thought wasnt high enough) and the Tallaght strategy. Things only started to turn when we cut government spending, but vested interests cant be upset....

The government will reduce its spending from €54.7bn in 2010 to €48bn in 2014 by plan. Revenue will increase, by their optimistic growth charts, to €43bn in the same period.

Of course growth is nowhere near that. I don't see them reducing the spending targets.

thebman

Squall19 wrote: »

Where have you been the last few years?:D

Almost 20% of the country are on the dole;)

Of course loads and loads of folk have **** wages, my friend has a wife out of work ( laid off last year ) 2 kids and he takes home 440 euro after tax for a 40 hour week and has a 180k mortgage over 35 years.

3 years ago he was on about 500 euro after tax and she had about the same.

Things change, don't so be ignorant:P

440 Euro per month would be a low wage, 440 Euro per week is not a low wage.

That person should seek financial help if the are struggling on that amount of money.

Squall19

thebman wrote: »

440 Euro per month would be a low wage, 440 Euro per week is not a low wage.

That person should seek financial help if the are struggling on that amount of money.

What's your budget advice then?

mortgage 700e month

car 400e month, inc fuel, insurance, tax, maintenance etc etc

food for family 500e month

electric 60 month

bins 25 month

other sundries

Come on smart arse.

RichardAnd

Squall19 wrote: »

What's your budget advice then?

mortgage 700e month

car 400e month, inc fuel, insurance, tax, maintenance etc etc

food for family 500e month

electric 60 month

bins 25 month

other sundries

Come on smart arse.

440 a week for a single person with no kids is a fine wage. 440 a week to support a family is not. That would seem to sum things up here.

thebman

Squall19 wrote: »

What's your budget advice then?

mortgage 700e month

car 400e month, inc fuel, insurance, tax, maintenance etc etc

food for family 500e month

electric 60 month

bins 25 month

other sundries

Come on smart arse.

Change car/sell car. Do the car servicing yourself if your not already.

It depends in the other cases as I don't know what has been done already but you can shop at Lidl/Aldi or other budget shopping market (there are cheaper ones in some areas) and recycle as much as possible to reduce bin usage, change electricity provider. Sign up for sites that do daily coupon offers (I don't know if its okay to provide links to them since boards.ie runs boardsdeals now though the one I have in mind is not associated with them).

Do online survey's, google Irish surveys and there is a popular site for that who give vouchers for completing surveys. Do as much shopping online as possible as it is usually cheaper.

Sell excess stuff lying around the house on adverts or other online site. Even the mostly useless crap can usually end up being useful for other people.

If you did all the above, it should help cut costs temporarily until the personal situation improves.

And there is always changing job yourself to look for something that pays better. Employers aren't really giving wage increases at the moment and if you have gained extra experience, you could earn more elsewhere if not self-employed.

And check the social welfare site to ensure your claiming everything your entitled to. I think there are even sites that will do this for you. You can also check your tax to see if your owed anything back, many people are and again there are sites that will do it for you but for a cut of it if you are owed anything.

Thats off the top of my head. Probably other ways to save more. Sell the house if you really can't afford it at the moment.

Daegerty

thebman wrote: »

Change car/sell car. Do the car servicing yourself if your not already.

It depends in the other cases as I don't know what has been done already but you can shop at Lidl/Aldi or other budget shopping market (there are cheaper ones in some areas) and recycle as much as possible to reduce bin usage, change electricity provider. Sign up for sites that do daily coupon offers (I don't know if its okay to provide links to them since boards.ie runs boardsdeals now though the one I have in mind is not associated with them).

Do online survey's, google Irish surveys and there is a popular site for that who give vouchers for completing surveys. Do as much shopping online as possible as it is usually cheaper.

Sell excess stuff lying around the house on adverts or other online site. Even the mostly useless crap can usually end up being useful for other people.

If you did all the above, it should help cut costs temporarily until the personal situation improves.

And there is always changing job yourself to look for something that pays better. Employers aren't really giving wage increases at the moment and if you have gained extra experience, you could earn more elsewhere if not self-employed.

And check the social welfare site to ensure your claiming everything your entitled to. I think there are even sites that will do this for you. You can also check your tax to see if your owed anything back, many people are and again there are sites that will do it for you but for a cut of it if you are owed anything.

Thats off the top of my head. Probably other ways to save more. Sell the house if you really can't afford it at the moment.

Those online surveys are for people who have time to waste. You be lucky to get a few euros a week out of it.

People need the car to get to work

Change job? there is unlikely to be a job to change to.

Shopping at lidl or aldi will only get you so far and isn't always cheaper.

Sell the house? are you completely mad. Prices have hit rock bottom and there is a huge cost associated with selling, if you can even find a buyer. If you have one of those sub-prime mortgages it might be worth doing but otherwise not.

Useless crap is fairly useless in my experience and I'm after selling most of it already. With everyone trying to get rid of their useless crap at the same time it is worth very little.

Sponging more off the state isn't a good idea, they'll want to bring in property tax to get the money back out of you

Scofflaw

Is this on-topic?

moderately,
Scofflaw

thebman

Daegerty wrote: »

Those online surveys are for people who have time to waste. You be lucky to get a few euros a week out of it.

People need the car to get to work

Change job? there is unlikely to be a job to change to.

Shopping at lidl or aldi will only get you so far and isn't always cheaper.

Sell the house? are you completely mad. Prices have hit rock bottom and there is a huge cost associated with selling, if you can even find a buyer. If you have one of those sub-prime mortgages it might be worth doing but otherwise not.

Useless crap is fairly useless in my experience and I'm after selling most of it already. With everyone trying to get rid of their useless crap at the same time it is worth very little.

Sponging more off the state isn't a good idea, they'll want to bring in property tax to get the money back out of you

About the response I expected though a little less subtle :rolleyes:

I'll go with my original thought. Go ask here:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=346

sarumite

thebman wrote: »

The idea that a property tax is a tax on the poor is laughable, poor people don't own houses.

Unfortanetly in Ireland that is not true. Its why we have so many people behind on their mortgages.

Icepick

neutron wrote: »

property taxes akin to the rest of the odious stealth taxes are designed to hurt the poorest and the least well off the hardest

If "the poorest and the least well off" have properties then we really have nothing to worry about.

Daegerty

Icepick wrote: »

If "the poorest and the least well off" have properties then we really have nothing to worry about.

they don't. the bank owns them they merely live in it and pay too much for it every month

jmayo

Daegerty wrote: »

It just seems to me like whatever conditions the EU and IMF are attaching to the bailout package are to erode our advantage over other EU countries over time, so we come out of this mess a lot worse than when we went in.

Ehh how the fook is a property tax going to erode our advantage ?

In fact private residential property taxes might be used to lower the burden of rates on commerical enterprises which could actually help our competitive advantage.

BTW you do know house prices/house taxes have eff all to do with how well an economy can be doing ?

Daegerty wrote: »

The things they are pushing for are things very popular in the rest of Europe (property tax, high corporation tax, water rates) but they're not so bothered about our very high dole. These are all the kind of tax you would take into consideration before moving to or setting up your business in Ireland so it seems like a tactic to make Ireland less competitive rather than getting the government to cut expenses before giving us more loans.

Businesses would already probably be paying water charges, commerical rates so your argument is totally bogus.
Actually they would be paying very high commerical rates.

About the only bit of sense in your post is about getting the government to cut expenses.

HellFireClub wrote: »

In fairness to everyone, the key income stream for the local authorities has been commerical rates on business premises. You'd have to ask why this burden should have been placed on businesses only, as opposed to homes in the local authority area as well.

Well thank another ff government, the one led by jack lynch, for that brainwave. :mad:
He abolished residential rates (and even car tax) and subsequent governments have found it impossible to put them back on.
It is the old story of providing something and then finding it impossible to reverse the decision.
Medical cards for over 65s or 70s come to mind here as well.

Daegerty wrote: »

they don't. the bank owns them they merely live in it and pay too much for it every month

Ehh it is an asset that they have the use of, have bought and are affectively paying off over a number of years.
BTW it is not anyones fault but themselves for signing up to something they couldn't really afford.

This debate once again reminds me how a hell of a lot of people appear to think they should be taxed according to their outgoings (i.e. their lifestyles).
We always hear people complaining on some tv/radio show that they should not pay more tax because they have to pay for huge mortgage, satelite TV, car loans, etc.

Nijmegen

jmayo wrote: »

Businesses would already probably be paying water charges, commerical rates so your argument is totally bogus BS.
Actually they would be paying very high commerical rates.

Commercial rates last year were a third the size of the total corporate tax take of the state.

Zzippy

HellFireClub wrote: »

In fairness to everyone, the key income stream for the local authorities has been commerical rates on business premises. You'd have to ask why this burden should have been placed on businesses only, as opposed to homes in the local authority area as well. If you have a public park, public library, etc, near your house that has to be maintained on a weekly basis, does it not follow that you as a householder should be contributing in some way towards its upkeep???

I was originally against a property tax but we can see where a lack of a property tax has brought us to.

You already do contribute towards its upkeep. You pay income tax, which goes to the government, which then distributes it among government departments, one of which is Environment, which in turn distributes it among the various local authorities, which in turn uses the money to maintain libraries, parks, etc.
A property tax won't change anything, the money will still be collected centrally, and be distributed in the same way, but the local authorities won't see an extra penny. You, on the other hand, will be paying a lot more for the same services you were getting before.

gman2k

Zzippy wrote: »

You, on the other hand, will be paying a lot more for even less services than you were getting before.

FYP.

jmayo

Zzippy wrote: »

You already do contribute towards its upkeep. You pay income tax, which goes to the government, which then distributes it among government departments, one of which is Environment, which in turn distributes it among the various local authorities, which in turn uses the money to maintain libraries, parks, etc.
A property tax won't change anything, the money will still be collected centrally, and be distributed in the same way, but the local authorities won't see an extra penny. You, on the other hand, will be paying a lot more for the same services you were getting before.

I love the way some Irish people always think that income tax should pay for roads, refuse collection, public parks, water, health, education, etc, etc.
I htink some people need to live in other countries to find out how things really work.

You are right though that local authorities do not really have tax raising measures and have to depend on central government.

And you are right we will probably not be seeing any improvement in services.
But I reckon that is mainly due to fact that those public employees who are providing the services are probably overpaid and eating up most of the budgets anyway.

fliball123

jmayo wrote: »

I love the way some Irish people always think that income tax should pay for roads, refuse collection, public parks, water, health, education, etc, etc.
I htink some people need to live in other countries to find out how things really work.

You are right though that local authorities do not really have tax raising measures and have to depend on central government.

And you are right we will probably not be seeing any improvement in services.
But I reckon that is mainly due to fact that those public employees who are providing the services are probably overpaid and eating up most of the budgets anyway.

I think that there is something fundamentally wrong when we are bringing in about 36billion+ in tax revenue a year we only have slightly over 4 million people if you break that down thats a hell of a lot of tax per head that we are paying 9k per person a year. That includes 1.1 million under 18 y.o aswell as 500k on the dole. So let me ask what does my 9k per year (average as I pay way more than that a year on income tax alone) get me???

Where is my money gone?? I think we need to start asking the question of value for money..

We are spening 50 odd billion for what

Banks we will never see a penny again and judging by recent reports of selling a bulgarian bank for 100k which over 200mil was invested by AIB. I ask the question why couldnt the gov just create a new bank back in 2006/7 when the sh1t was hitting the fan and allow the banks to fall.

PS pensions - Dont get a penny of this..Its great for the person getting thus said pension but why should I be paying for this when I cannot afford my own.

PS pay - Once again i dont see any of this and is overly generous IMO.

Welfare - Once again overly generous and to open to fraud..but having said that there is a high likelyhood that I may need this in the future but it does need to be cut..

Public services -
Sh1t prehab schools with some of the most outdated ciriculum
Sh1t hospitals with too long a wating time to see specialists and A&E services are a disgrace
Public Transport - You must live in the leafy nicest areas in Dublin to have anything decent and to think most people living here will be going to work in the Mercs anyway
Roads - Any decent roads are tolled.

But I do aggree we need to go to a different country to see how your taxes work for you.. as you get more value for money in most other suppossed 1st world countries

View

Zzippy wrote: »

You already do contribute towards its upkeep. You pay income tax, which goes to the government, which then distributes it among government departments, one of which is Environment, which in turn distributes it among the various local authorities, which in turn uses the money to maintain libraries, parks, etc.
A property tax won't change anything, the money will still be collected centrally, and be distributed in the same way, but the local authorities won't see an extra penny. You, on the other hand, will be paying a lot more for the same services you were getting before.

For 2011, Income tax should bring in circa 11.5 Billion for the Government (out of a total state tax revenue of circa 33 Billion).

Government Current Account (i.e. Day-to-Day) Expenditure though is circa 42.2 Billion.

Income tax doesn't come close to paying for what we spend.

ART6

jmayo wrote: »

I love the way some Irish people always think that income tax should pay for roads, refuse collection, public parks, water, health, education, etc, etc.
I htink some people need to live in other countries to find out how things really work.

The difference between income tax and all of the stealth taxes being introduced (and to me property and water tax is at the moment the latter as we don't know what we will have to pay) is that everyone gets a payslip that tells them what they are paying in tax. It's transparent. Stealth taxes are dishonest. As Scofflaw pointed out earlier, these new taxes were proposed by government before the IMF became involved, so it's facile for the politicians now to blame the whole thing on the IMF. Doing so is also dishonest.

When I bought my house years ago I chose it because it had a good bit of land and I could afford it. If I am now to pay a property tax based upon ground area I will be penalised for a decision I made all that time ago when there were no such taxes. This is made worse by my conviction that once the tax is imposed, reasons will be found to increase it year-on-year.

In any case, why should income tax not fund public services? At least then we all know what we're paying for government. It's irrelevant whether that is central or local. It's all the public services.

What is going on here is the application of the economic theory that it's possible to tax your way out of a recession!

EggsAckley

ART6 wrote: »

why should income tax not fund public services?

Because then only people who pay income tax will end up paying for public services

Zzippy

jmayo wrote: »

I love the way some Irish people always think that income tax should pay for roads, refuse collection, public parks, water, health, education, etc, etc.
I htink some people need to live in other countries to find out how things really work..

I didn't say that income tax should pay for those things, I pointed that that that is the system we have, where income tax and the other stealth taxes, are raised centrally, and then distributed, so that income tax does pay for those things. I actually agree that we should pay for water, parks, etc., but that money should be raised locally and be spent on local services. What the government is proposing, however, is the opposite, where you do not see any return for the new taxes, but it disappears into the black hole that is government finances. So we are told that we are now paying for those things (which we have paid for all along) but really what we are paying for is the IMF/EU debt.

jmayo wrote: »

You are right though that local authorities do not really have tax raising measures and have to depend on central government..

Thank you, that is the point I was making.

jmayo wrote: »

And you are right we will probably not be seeing any improvement in services.
But I reckon that is mainly due to fact that those public employees who are providing the services are probably overpaid and eating up most of the budgets anyway.

In any organisation, wages are usually the biggest expenditure. Whether people are still overpaid or not following wage cuts and levies, etc. is for another discussion. But you're right, we will not be seeing any improvement in services for the extra taxes we will be paying.

Scofflaw

I think that there is something fundamentally wrong when we are bringing in about 36billion+ in tax revenue a year we only have slightly over 4 million people if you break that down thats a hell of a lot of tax per head that we are paying 9k per person a year. That includes 1.1 million under 18 y.o aswell as 500k on the dole. So let me ask what does my 9k per year (average as I pay way more than that a year on income tax alone) get me???

Something worth pointing out here is that dividing the total tax take by the number of 'taxpayers'/citizens/people yields an answer that has nothing to do with who pays what tax.

These are the tax headings:



Of those headings, companies make large contributions to VAT, Excise, Stamp Duties, CGT and Customs, as well as providing all of the Corporation Tax. US Companies alone provided 7.5% of the VAT paid in 2009 (as well as more than a third of CT in most years). Through employer's PRSI, they also contribute a good chunk of the social contribution under "Collection on behalf...". I'm not sure whether rates are factored in there - they don't see to be, since the figures for social contributions break down as follows:

Year|2007|2007|2008|2008|2009|2009
Social_insurance|7.72|81.9%|7.98|81.85%|7.5|76.7%
Health_levy_contributions|1.30|13.8%|1.33|13.64%|1.89|19.3%
National_training_fund_levy|0.41|4.3%|0.44|4.51%|0.39|4.0%
Totals|9.43|100%|9.75|100%|9.78|100%

Rates apparently contributed €1.344bn in 2008. They can make up a significant proportion of local government income - 45% in the case of Fingal in 2006, for example - and since local government is generally responsible for local amenities, the majority of your local amenities are being paid for by businesses, not local households.

So, simply dividing the total tax take by the numbers of people makes no sense, because a good chunk of all taxes in Ireland are paid by companies.

You may also find this relevant to the discussion - the property tax section of the report of the Commission on Taxation: http://www.commissionontaxation.ie/downloads/Part%206.pdf

cordially,
Scofflaw

fliball123

Scofflaw wrote: »

Something worth pointing out here is that dividing the total tax take by the number of 'taxpayers'/citizens/people yields an answer that has nothing to do with who pays what tax.

These are the tax headings:



Of those headings, companies make large contributions to VAT, Excise, Stamp Duties, CGT and Customs, as well as providing all of the Corporation Tax. US Companies alone provided 7.5% of the VAT paid in 2009 (as well as more than a third of CT in most years). Through employer's PRSI, they also contribute a good chunk of the social contribution under "Collection on behalf...". I'm not sure whether rates are factored in there - they don't see to be, since the figures for social contributions break down as follows:

Year|2007|2007|2008|2008|2009|2009
Social_insurance|7.72|81.9%|7.98|81.85%|7.5|76.7%
Health_levy_contributions|1.30|13.8%|1.33|13.64%|1.89|19.3%
National_training_fund_levy|0.41|4.3%|0.44|4.51%|0.39|4.0%
Totals|9.43|100%|9.75|100%|9.78|100%
Rates apparently contributed €1.344bn in 2008. They can make up a significant proportion of local government income - 45% in the case of Fingal in 2006, for example - and since local government is generally responsible for local amenities, the majority of your local amenities are being paid for by businesses, not local households.

So, simply dividing the total tax take by the numbers of people makes no sense, because a good chunk of all taxes in Ireland are paid by companies.

You may also find this relevant to the discussion - the property tax section of the report of the Commission on Taxation: http://www.commissionontaxation.ie/downloads/Part%206.pdf

cordially,
Scofflaw

I was merely pointing out that for what we pay in tax we dont get much in return

Scofflaw

fliball123 wrote: »

I was merely pointing out that for what we pay in tax we dont get much in return

I appreciate that, but there's a sense in which using a 'personal tax burden' suggests that we're being hard done by, because what we get in return for our tax spend seems disproportionate to the amount of 'tax per head' calculated that way.

Citizens in other countries may be more inclined to seek value for money because they personally pay more tax as a proportion of their income:

Family_type|S|S|S|S|M|M|M|M
Children|0|0|0|2|2|2|2|0
Wage (as % of average wage for 1st & 2nd earner)|67|100|167|67|100-0|100-33|100-67|100-33
Ireland|15|22.3|33.1|-35.8|-1.1|7.4|12.8|15.6
Germany|47.4|52.2|53.1|34.5|36.4|41.5|45.3|47.3
Switzerland|26.8|29.6|33.9|12.8|18.3|20.8|23.8|27.4
UK|30.8|34.1|37.9|15.5|28.3|26.4|29.9|30.8
USA|27.8|30|35.3|7.6|18.1|22.2|24.5|27.8
OECD|33.8|37.7|42.1|18.2|27.3|29.5|32.4|34.5
EU-15|38|42.5|47.7|21.7|31.9|33.4|36.6|38.5

S = Single
M=Married

Source: http://www.commissionontaxation.ie/downloads/Part%207.pdf

The minus signs aren't a typo.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Dannyboy83

I think people are never going to come to terms with this issue.

Taxes gives the impression that you will get something back.

Perhaps, tithes would be more appropriate?

ART6

Scofflaw wrote: »

Of those headings, companies make large contributions to VAT, Excise, Stamp Duties, CGT and Customs, as well as providing all of the Corporation Tax. US Companies alone provided 7.5% of the VAT paid in 2009 (as well as more than a third of CT in most years). Through employer's PRSI, they also contribute a good chunk of the social contribution under "Collection on behalf...". I'm not sure whether rates are factored in there - they don't see to be, since the figures for social contributions break down as follows:

cordially,
Scofflaw

This paragraph is, of course, correct, but.....Companies don't pay VAT, or at least they pay it having added it to their products. On trade between registered businesses they pay VAT on purchases and then claim it back. On inter-EU trade they don't pay it in the first place. The only people who actually pay VAT are the end customers who are not VAT registered. Excise duties are initially paid by importers and manufacturers but are then simply added to the cost of the product, as in fuels, alcohol, tobacco etc. So the consumer pays, not the companies. Stamp duties and CGT are, surely, paid mainly by ordinary citizens who buy and sell property or investments?

Sure companies pay corporation tax, but that and employers RSI are business overheads that are a fundamental part of the cost build up of their products or services. So again, it is the final Joe customer who pays. The cost of a pack of Cornflakes to the customer is a combination of overheads, taxes, wages etc. and profit margin.

At the end of the day surely it is the consumer who finally meets the bulk of the tax bill, and so while simply dividing the tax take by the number of people may not be completely valid, as some pay more than others. In fact the poster should have taken out of the calculation those who don't pay tax at all. Then the calculation might just be a good approximation to suggest what we laughingly call government actually costs each citizen?

fliball123

Scofflaw wrote: »

I appreciate that, but there's a sense in which using a 'personal tax burden' suggests that we're being hard done by, because what we get in return for our tax spend seems disproportionate to the amount of 'tax per head' calculated that way.

Citizens in other countries may be more inclined to seek value for money because they personally pay more tax as a proportion of their income:

Family_type|S|S|S|S|M|M|M|M
Children|0|0|0|2|2|2|2|0
Wage (as % of average wage for 1st & 2nd earner)|67|100|167|67|100-0|100-33|100-67|100-33
Ireland|15|22.3|33.1|-35.8|-1.1|7.4|12.8|15.6
Germany|47.4|52.2|53.1|34.5|36.4|41.5|45.3|47.3
Switzerland|26.8|29.6|33.9|12.8|18.3|20.8|23.8|27.4
UK|30.8|34.1|37.9|15.5|28.3|26.4|29.9|30.8
USA|27.8|30|35.3|7.6|18.1|22.2|24.5|27.8
OECD|33.8|37.7|42.1|18.2|27.3|29.5|32.4|34.5
EU-15|38|42.5|47.7|21.7|31.9|33.4|36.6|38.5
S = Single
M=Married

Source: http://www.commissionontaxation.ie/downloads/Part%207.pdf

The minus signs aren't a typo.

cordially,
Scofflaw

But as Pointed out I pay at least twice that of the average of 9k and thats just in income tax..My point is that the services and return for what we pay our tax for is very very poor...

fliball123

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

I think people are never going to come to terms with this issue.

Taxes gives the impression that you will get something back.

Perhaps, tithes would be more appropriate?

You should be getting something back for your taxes

Dannyboy83

fliball123 wrote: »

You should be getting something back for your taxes

Completely agree.
I'm just saying that we don't/won't.
Eventually everyone will just accept it.

This is the way the state is set up.
If you cohabit with your partner who is unemployed, she can't get JSA, but you cannot claim her tax credits.
So why have ye paid out all that money?

You pay huge motor tax and fuel duty, all of this money goes into the exchequer, a tiny amount goes back to local government, they spend it paying their employees - nothing goes back into the roads.

You will pay out big money in water taxes, property taxes. None of that will be reinvested in maintaining or improving the infrastructure. It will all go into the exchequer and will be used to pay the public sector pay and pensions and the social welfare bill.

That applies across the board.
It's the way the system is set up.

The European concept is that, everybody contributes and everybody gets something back.

I think that comparing our system with their system is like trying to bash a square peg through a triangular hole. Simply doesn't compute.