New Household Tax - Boycott

later12

djpbarry wrote: »

5% of €30 billion is €1.5 billion, times six is €9 billion.

But that's wrong. That's not how you calculate it. It's just as easy and far more accurate to work out the cumulative expenditure reduction, which comes to just under €7.8 billion, not €9 billion.

Now that €7.8 billion represents almost the totality of the Irish consolidation (i.e. what we need to do to get our deficit down to 3%), but I would suggest that one could 'spread the pain' without risking such a rapid and a concentrated cut on transfers. I mean public sector pay, for a start.

I think I pulled it from here, but I’ll be honest, I didn’t check the accuracy of the figure:

Again, it is inaccurate or misleading to describe this as welfare. This total transfer payment includes things like current transfers to schools, colleges, universities and hospitals as well as local Government, and grants to these bodies on the capital side. It also includes emergency and other global aid transfers.

While one might still wish to cut it, it does not represent welfare expenditure. Unemployment assistance, for example,would represent less than €1 out of every €10 spent under that headline.

I'm not a fan of these blanket cuts. The state might not get the same return from cutting payments to schools, for example, as it might get for a more drastic cut to pensions and unemployment assistance.

oscarBravo

oscarBravo wrote: »

While not necessarily disagreeing with your overall point, by my calculations a minimum wage earner pays a total of 4% in all income taxes. It's not exactly a crushing burden.

No, I'd agree completely. I don't think it is either. As i think you acknowledged, my main point was the lack of a gap between it and the available SW benefits. I think the recent changes to the tax base at the bottom end are quite equitable, i would ague that they have brought a lot of people into the tax net fairly, at a very low rate of tax. Given that these people are essentially the "working poor" in many cases, but that i feel that everybody should pay something towards taxation, i would argue that that side of things is about right, but nonetheless to someone on minimum wage, that level of taxation, while fair, means a loss of cash that they will really feel every penny of.

The thrust of my point though, is that relative to that small take home pay, and all the cost and hassle associated with going to work in a low paid job, and given that social welfare is being cut by less (in cash terms) annually than the widening of tax bands/tax increases are taking out of wage packets in comparable bottom end jobs, there definitely IS an incentive to at least consider being on the dole, and in relative terms, as taxes rise, that incentive is actually being made greater year on year by the continued political unwillingness to cut social welfare benefits to anything near the same degree or beyond it.

EDIT: Incidentally, i do have some fairly radical ideas for reforming tax and social welfare to create an incentive to work, instead of an incentive not to, but they are quite off topic for the thread. Maybe it's worth starting another thread on?

DOUBLE EDIT: Here you go, new thread: http://goo.gl/8LSGl

djpbarry

later12 wrote: »

But that's wrong. That's not how you calculate it.

?

It's a completely arbitrary figure?

squonk

Deleted User wrote: »

I heard someone from the department responsible for the logistics of collecting the charge on the radio recently, before the deadline day had arrived. He was involved with the operations side of making it happen, and seemed to know what he was talking about. You could tell by the way he was giving direct, succinct answers to the questions being put to him by the presenter, instead of going around in circles, talking sh*te, and waffling down the clock like most of the politicians who were wheeled out during the campaign.

On the subject of why people weren't able to pay the charge in the post office, he mentioned that that had been the initial plan early on, but in order to process a payment over the counter, an post require an invoice, and in order to issue invoices, you need a database of adresses. Since the primary reason for creating the €100 charge in the first place was to create that same database (for future use by the property tax) because it didn't exist, the only option was to require people to self-declare and pay, and inform them via media, and latterly, leaflet drops, and just "see what info they got".

to be honest that's what I wanted to hear. I wanted information and not patronising soundbites and waffle. Really, if they wanted a database in place, then they should have addressed that at this stage.

I'm sure ads on radio/TV/Papers saying something like 'If you own a property you now have a legal requirement to register it either via an Pos, or the internet or wherever. Failure to do so by date X will result in prosecution if subsequently discovered'. OK, it's not perfect but the difference is that submissions would not have to be accompanied by a €100 donation. I think a lot of people would gladly do their civic duty, most likely much higher than the 50% who registered in this case. It mightn't be explicitely stated but even if people found out that the information was to facilitate a property tax in the future, it's a tax down the line and there was ample time to argue that it was a fair method of generating local council revenue. All they succeeded in doing this time though was effectively saying 'We don't know who owns your house. We want that information for a tax later on. We don't have any idea of the details of the tax later. For the benefit to us of you registering, it's going to cost you €100'. Doesn't that sound incompetent? They dragged in the whole aspect of gripes people have with either local authorities and/or public service and if that wasn't bad enough, they left it in the hands of a blowhard who seems to have never heard the motto that 'you catch more flies with honey'. It's like pouring petrol on a small gorse fire. Thanks to his arrogance, opposition spread and in the last days, with comments alleging that those not paying were unpatriotic, it was pretty much like napalming a whole mountainside. Infact, it sounds like even now some of those who paid are now sorry they did so. That's some record, and the guy is still in his job

djpbarry

Deleted User wrote: »

I think the recent changes to the tax base at the bottom end are quite equitable, i would ague that they have brought a lot of people into the tax net fairly, at a very low rate of tax. Given that these people are essentially the "working poor" in many cases...

Can I ask what you’re basing that label on? Would it not be reasonable to assume that a large number of those on minimum wage are young, inexperienced workers in their first job? Or even just in a part-time job to obtain some pocket money?

Deleted User wrote: »

On the subject of why people weren't able to pay the charge in the post office, he mentioned that that had been the initial plan early on, but in order to process a payment over the counter, an post require an invoice, and in order to issue invoices, you need a database of adresses. Since the primary reason for creating the €100 charge in the first place was to create that same database...

What’s wrong with the census data? Granted, it’s not going to be completely up-to-date (although people aren’t trading properties much at the moment), but it’s a reasonable starting point.

djpbarry

djpbarry wrote: »

Can I ask what you’re basing that label on? Would it not be reasonable to assume that a large number of those on minimum wage are young, inexperienced workers in their first job?.

Yes, in some cases that's undoubtedly true. Some are working poor, with no other prospects and an imperative to feed a family, some are economic migrants, and i take your point, some, certainly are young inexperienced workers who are much less likely to be "poor" despite their low-paid jobs, because they have significantly lower outgoings.

The crux of my point though, was while any one of these are not financially well off by any stretch, and certainly deserve a break in tax versus what higher earners pay, the fact that they are likely to consume more state services notwithstanding, everybody should pay something in tax.

djpbarry wrote: »

What’s wrong with the census data? Granted, it’s not going to be completely up-to-date (although people aren’t trading properties much at the moment), but it’s a reasonable starting point.

I would have thought so. That list, or the TV license database, or both lists combined and cross referenced would have done the trick perfectly for 95% of the residences in the country.

JustinDee

There is a photo in the Irish Times of left alliance protestors against the household charge holding a banner that says "Make the rich pay for their crisis" or some other naive line like that.
Ironically Mick Wallace is one of the folks holding the banner. Well, maybe not ironically. More hypocritically.

john reilly

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

exactly but there has been little to no progress on this since 08 in real terms, and I don't see that changing in this gov lifetime. They simply do not have the will



that anothing apart from lowering the tax base due to all high earners simply leaving. chieves Overly taxing the rich is the name of socialism does not work, period.

really what country are they going to go to where they wont have to pay tax. and wont their comute to work in ireland take the good out of it

john reilly

JustinDee wrote: »

There is a photo in the Irish Times of left alliance protestors against the household charge holding a banner that says "Make the rich pay for their crisis" or some other naive line like that.
Ironically Mick Wallace is one of the folks holding the banner. Well, maybe not ironically. More hypocritically.

or you saying it was poor people who created the crisis and if so how

Godge

john reilly wrote: »

really what country are they going to go to where they wont have to pay tax. and wont their comute to work in ireland take the good out of it

International research has shown that talented and higher-paid people move. Have a read of this:

http://www.insead.edu/v1/gitr/wef/main/fullreport/files/Chap1/1.7.pdf

It is not only highly paid professionals essential to our economy like engineers, scientists and IT gurus who will leave if income tax rates are pushed too high. Take the non-productive guy who has 15 properties rented out and is living on the rental income. If he becomes tax resident, say on a Greek island where the collection of income tax is pitiful or the south of Spain, he may be financially better off. Of course, one tax he cannot avoid by becoming tax resident abroad is the household charge or the property tax, another good reason for such a tax.

Godge

john reilly wrote: »

or you saying it was poor people who created the crisis and if so how

Mick Wallace is one of the rich who should pay for the crisis. The fact that he is holding a banner saying that rich should pay for the crisis sums up the state of this country. Everyone is saying that someone else should pay.

JustinDee

john reilly wrote: »

or you saying it was poor people who created the crisis and if so how

"poor people", "rich people" . . . as usual, the Irish do love a good pigeon-hole to stick subjects through.
The irony or hypocrisy is that Mick Wallace is a developer who is in financial poop for borrowing beyond his means and running business on sand rather than solid. He is, in effect, protesting against himself.

As for the "poor", you'll have to be more specific. Who is rich. Who is poor?
Nobody held a gun to anyone's head and told them to take a regular loan, buy the boat, summer house, hire the nanny, buy the up to date car, never mind a 100% mortgage for amounts beyond their management.

john reilly

JustinDee wrote: »

"poor people", "rich people" . . . as usual, the Irish do love a good pigeon-hole to stick subjects through.
The irony or hypocrisy is that Mick Wallace is a developer who is in financial poop for borrowing beyond his means and running business on sand rather than solid. He is, in effect, protesting against himself.

As for the "poor", you'll have to be more specific. Who is rich. Who is poor?
Nobody held a gun to anyone's head and told them to take a regular loan, buy the boat, summer house, hire the nanny, buy the up to date car, never mind a 100% mortgage for amounts beyond their management.

you clearly have no idea what it means to be poor. what has mick wallace got to do with anything.

john reilly

Godge wrote: »

International research has shown that talented and higher-paid people move. Have a read of this:

http://www.insead.edu/v1/gitr/wef/main/fullreport/files/Chap1/1.7.pdf

It is not only highly paid professionals essential to our economy like engineers, scientists and IT gurus who will leave if income tax rates are pushed too high. Take the non-productive guy who has 15 properties rented out and is living on the rental income. If he becomes tax resident, say on a Greek island where the collection of income tax is pitiful or the south of Spain, he may be financially better off. Of course, one tax he cannot avoid by becoming tax resident abroad is the household charge or the property tax, another good reason for such a tax.

well if they go they will be creating employment for others. so the basic point is to tax the sh1te out of anybody who cant afford to leave. while letting the rich off the hook in case they might leave. if they arent paying a fair share of taxes good riddance.

djpbarry

Deleted User wrote: »

Yes, in some cases that's undoubtedly true. Some are working poor, with no other prospects and an imperative to feed a family...

I’m not disagreeing with your general argument about the levels of welfare, but I really don’t think there are a significant number of people working minimum wage jobs in Ireland while trying to support a family. But, I’m open to correction.

djpbarry

john reilly wrote: »

you clearly have no idea what it means to be poor.

Neither do the overwhelming majority of people in Ireland, despite what the likes of Joe Higgins would like us to believe.

john reilly wrote: »

well if they go they will be creating employment for others.

Will they? A friend of mine works at Google in Dublin and they’re having quite a bit of trouble filling some positions there at the moment – the unemployed in Ireland just don’t have necessary skills and experience. There are similar situations elsewhere. I have heard that Intel are even having problems attracting candidates to fill entry-level, graduate positions.

john reilly wrote: »

if they arent paying a fair share of taxes good riddance.

They’re already paying more than their fair share.

JustinDee

john reilly wrote: »

you clearly have no idea what it means to be poor. what has mick wallace got to do with anything.

Stupid thing to say. You know nothing of my family or background whatsoever.
Then you go even further away from salience with "What has Mick Wallace to do with this"???

As I mentioned earlier, you should really describe who you perceive to be "poor" and who you perceive to be "rich" if you want to be taken seriously. What about the others in the middle who are footing the bill by the largest numbers?

stevedublin

djpbarry wrote: »

A friend of mine works at Google in Dublin and they’re having quite a bit of trouble filling some positions there at the moment – the unemployed in Ireland just don’t have necessary skills and experience. There

Employers may have to train up inexperienced people then, something that hasn't happened in a long, long time.

djpbarry

djpbarry wrote: »

A friend of mine works at Google in Dublin and they’re having quite a bit of trouble filling some positions there at the moment – the unemployed in Ireland just don’t have necessary skills and experience. There are similar situations elsewhere. I have heard that Intel are even having problems attracting candidates to fill entry-level, graduate positions

This is true all over the major multinational IT sector in ireland, although only part of it is to do with the quality (or increasing lack thereof) of Irish graduates. Much of it is to do with the lack of attractiveness of Ireland itself as a place to live at present. Anyone who has the requisite skills and/or experience can simply get a better overall deal elsewhere.

These are people with lots of options, and Ireland just doesn't have enough to offer them at the moment to compete on the world recruitment stage.

During the boom, we could offer them a good deal. High salaries, economic growth and rapid expansion (and all the resulting promotional opportunities that come with that), and of course, our credit-fueled "party-time"social scene and nightlife. The quality of life on offer here now is markedly different, and is lagging behind by comparison. When you consider our continued lack of proper infrastructure in transport and communications, and in particular our ever increasing tax base and our "unique" weather, Ireland just can't compare to what cities like Toronto, Malaga, Sydney, London, San Francisco, NYC, or many others can offer in terms of overall quality of life to people with these skills.

Gloomtastic!

Gloomtastic! wrote: »

I believe Mr Hogan is one of the big players in FG and therefore will not have to move anywhere.

His arrogance is pretty breathtaking though and I'm sure he's pissing off all his colleagues who he's throwing into the firing line whilst he himself hides. It's only a matter of time before a well placed dagger hits the spot!:eek:

Et tu Brute! :rolleyes:

djpbarry

stevedublin wrote: »

Employers may have to train up inexperienced people then...

So if a company is looking for a software engineer with 20 years of experience to manage a development team, they should be obliged to “train somebody up”? Does that really sound feasible?

stevedublin wrote: »

...something that hasn't happened in a long, long time.

That’s a pretty broad, meaningless statement. For example, Google are famous for looking after their staff and Intel are also pretty good for developing their employees’ skills. A friend of mine works for Grontmij in Glasgow and they paid for her to do her degree part-time.

djpbarry

Deleted User wrote: »

This is true all over the major multinational IT sector in Ireland, although only part of it is to do with the quality (or increasing lack thereof) of Irish graduates. Much of it is to do with the lack of attractiveness of Ireland itself as a place to live at present. Anyone who has the requisite skills and/or experience can simply get a better overall deal elsewhere.

That’s really not true – there’s a lot of money to be made in Ireland if you’re a good software developer, for example, mainly because there are a lot of jobs in the area that are not being filled.

Deleted User wrote: »

During the boom, we could offer them a good deal. High salaries, economic growth and rapid expansion (and all the resulting promotional opportunities that come with that), and of course, our credit-fueled "party-time"social scene and nightlife. The quality of life on offer here now is markedly different, and is lagging behind by comparison.

Again, I disagree. I don’t know about the rest of the country, but Dublin is still a pretty good place to live and if you’ve got a job paying €50 – 60k+ (which you may well be if you’re experienced in IT/software), you can enjoy a pretty high standard of living.

Deleted User wrote: »

When you consider our continued lack of proper infrastructure in transport and communications, and in particular our ever increasing tax base and our "unique" weather, Ireland just can't compare to what cities like Toronto, Malaga, Sydney, London, San Francisco, NYC, or many others can offer in terms of overall quality of life to people with these skills.

Dublins till ranks as one of the top cities in the world to live in:
http://www.mercer.com/press-releases/quality-of-living-report-2011

While I’m inclined to take such rankings with a pinch of salt, I think it’s reasonable to assume that, if things were really all that bad in Dublin, it wouldn’t even feature on that list.

djpbarry

djpbarry wrote: »

...For example, Google are famous for looking after their staff and Intel are also pretty good for developing their employees’ skills. A friend of mine works for Grontmij in Glasgow and they paid for her to do her degree part-time.

While this is may be true, google and intel are not shy about making demands of their staff over and above what many would consider the norm. I know of at least two people who would tell you that google's work environment is a pressure cooker, and while they may give you free lunch and snacks, massages, etc, and you can wear whatever you like to work, the ethos is very much an American multinational one of "no excuses", and staff who do not conform to this simply get "managed out" over time in a way that some would consider to be verging on constructive dismissal.

Those companies did not get to the world leader positions which they are in by giving their employees a free ride.

Also, in general in my experience with that sector (which is considerable) any educational payments made towards degrees, postgrads, etc, are all conditional upon continued employment within the company. For example, one of the very large, household name IT multinationals i know will demand that you agree in writing to stay with them for a minimum 5 years after you complete a degree course which they have paid for, othewise they will redeem the full amount paid from your leaving salary, and take you to court, if necessary, for any outstanding balance.

djpbarry wrote: »

I don’t know about the rest of the country, but Dublin is still a pretty good place to live and if you’ve got a job paying €50 – 60k+.........I think it’s reasonable to assume that, if things were really all that bad in Dublin, it wouldn’t even feature on that list.

Dublin is certainly not a bad place to live if you have means, but it has slipped considerably since boom time in terms of what it can offer higher end graduates and professionals in the IT sector as an overall package versus the cities i mentioned. It's no longer top tier in terms of the remuneration and professional experience opportunities it once offered, which to me made up for the incomparable standard of living and general state of the public infrastructure as compared to other IT hubs like Toronto or SanFrancisco. Furthermore, salaries have dropped and taxes have increased in the last few years, further souring the pot.

For people who have a choice, an employment move to Ireland now doesn't represent the same good deal it did 5-8 years ago.

djpbarry

Deleted User wrote: »

Those companies did not get to the world leader positions which they are in by giving their employees a free ride.

I don’t really see a problem with that.

Deleted User wrote: »

Also, in general in my experience with that sector (which is considerable) any educational payments made towards degrees, postgrads, etc, are all conditional upon continued employment within the company.

Again, I don’t consider that unreasonable.

Deleted User wrote: »

Dublin is certainly not a bad place to live if you have means, but it has slipped considerably since boom time in terms of what it can offer higher end graduates and professionals in the IT sector as an overall package versus the cities i mentioned. It's no longer top tier in terms of the remuneration and professional experience opportunities it once offered...

To be honest, this looks like little more than your own opinion – there is little evidence to support what you’re saying. For example, gross salaries have not dropped in Ireland to any significant extent, despite popular belief. In fact, under the broad heading of “Information and Communication”, salaries have actually increased slightly since 2008:
http://www.cso.ie/en/media/csoie/releasespublications/documents/earnings/2011/earnlabcosts_q42011.pdf

We’re getting off-topic at this stage so I’m going to leave this here.

john reilly

JustinDee wrote: »

Stupid thing to say. You know nothing of my family or background whatsoever.
Then you go even further away from salience with "What has Mick Wallace to do with this"???

As I mentioned earlier, you should really describe who you perceive to be "poor" and who you perceive to be "rich" if you want to be taken seriously. What about the others in the middle who are footing the bill by the largest numbers?

was it. when i mentioned poor people you started talking about summer houses, boats and new cars, now that was a stupid thing to say.
if you had a poor or hard upbringing then i seriously doubt i would have to describe what being poor is about.
I agree fully that its lower to middle working people who have always and under the current goverment will always pay.

john reilly

djpbarry wrote: »

Neither do the overwhelming majority of people in Ireland, despite what the likes of Joe Higgins would like us to believe.
Will they? A friend of mine works at Google in Dublin and they’re having quite a bit of trouble filling some positions there at the moment – the unemployed in Ireland just don’t have necessary skills and experience. There are similar situations elsewhere. I have heard that Intel are even having problems attracting candidates to fill entry-level, graduate positions.
They’re already paying more than their fair share.

true most people are not starving are living on the breadline, in comparision to other poor nations (not yet anyway). but when you consider the money the high earners are making at the poorer peoples expense. then we at the very least are a morally and euitably poor country. I really believe that people are blowing this whole recruitment problem out of proportion to suit their own agendas. Ireland is in the mess it is in because we were overpaid and undertaxed and for those at the top very little has changed. none of these multinationals who come to Ireland, do so on the basis that they claim of irelands great, intelligent and hardworking workforce. they do so for the tax breaks.

djpbarry

djpbarry wrote: »

To be honest, this looks like little more than your opinion...

Yes, it was. I have nothing other than personal and industry experience to back it up with, no figures to hand to support it.

djpbarry wrote: »

We’re getting off-topic at this stage so I’m going to leave this here.

Agreed.

djpbarry

john reilly wrote: »

I agree fully that its lower to middle working people who have always and under the current goverment will always pay.

How'd you figure that exactly? Someone working full-time in a minimum wage job in Ireland will pay just 3.4% of their income in tax.

Icepick

john reilly wrote: »

but when you consider the money the high earners are making at the poorer peoples expense.

evidence, please

JustinDee

john reilly wrote: »

[/B]
was it. when i mentioned poor people you started talking about summer houses, boats and new cars, now that was a stupid thing to say.
if you had a poor or hard upbringing then i seriously doubt i would have to describe what being poor is about.
I agree fully that its lower to middle working people who have always and under the current goverment will always pay.

Yes, it was utterly presumptuous tosh from you. You know zip about my family and myself. That's why.
Who is poor? Who is rich?