Income tax increase for super rich - Can i hear a coherent argument against?

veryangryman

The idea of people over 100K having the balance taxed heavier (say 10% more) has been mooted and poo-poo'd in equal measure. However as an alternative to making people struggle on the low ends, id definitely be in favour of this idea.

What i cannot understand is those who are knocking it - i have yet to hear one good reason why we shouldn't put such a tax in. Can somebody (break it down for me cos im no expert in fairness) explain why its more progressive to stick it to the man, woman and child.

No im not saying that welfare system cant be changed etc but really when people are being screwed every six way from Sunday, surely this extra tax from the richer would go a long way to protecting them.

No, instead the PAYE higher rate has already been made kick in at 32K, so the average middle income worker has to foot the bill.

massiveattack

No, but you can hear my renditition of the late late show theme

Dah dah dah dah daaaa

Dahh dahh dah da dah daa


Dah de da de de

DE DE DE DA DAAAA

DAA DA DAAAA

veryangryman

massiveattack wrote: »

No, but you can hear my renditition of the late late show theme

Dah dah dah dah daaaa

Dahh dahh dah da dah daa


Dah de da de de

DE DE DE DA DAAAA

DAA DA DAAAA

I think youll find you missed 3 Daa's there.

Whose yer Daddy!

foxyboxer

I like this analogy....

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten 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 ball. “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 men would 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 a higher percentage the poorer he was, to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using, and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.
And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% saving).
The sixth now paid €2 instead of €3 (33% saving).
The seventh now paid €5 instead of €7 (28% saving).
The eighth now paid €9 instead of €12 (25% saving).
The ninth now paid €14 instead of €18 (22% saving).
The tenth now paid €49 instead of €59 (16% saving).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings.
“I only got a euro out of the €20 saving,” 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 benefit than me!”
“That’s true!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get €10 back, when I got only €2? The wealthy get all the breaks!”
“Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison, “we didn’t get anything at all. This new tax 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 their 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!

orourkeda

veryangryman wrote: »

The idea of people over 100K having the balance taxed heavier (say 10% more) has been mooted and poo-poo'd in equal measure. However as an alternative to making people struggle on the low ends, id definitely be in favour of this idea.

What i cannot understand is those who are knocking it - i have yet to hear one good reason why we shouldn't put such a tax in. Can somebody (break it down for me cos im no expert in fairness) explain why its more progressive to stick it to the man, woman and child.

No im not saying that welfare system cant be changed etc but really when people are being screwed every six way from Sunday, surely this extra tax from the richer would go a long way to protecting them.

No, instead the PAYE higher rate has already been made kick in at 32K, so the average middle income worker has to foot the bill.

What is argument for it? Taxing the well off isnt going to save this country

veryangryman

foxyboxer wrote: »

I like this analogy....

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten 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 ball. “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 men would 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 a higher percentage the poorer he was, to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using, and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.
And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% saving).
The sixth now paid €2 instead of €3 (33% saving).
The seventh now paid €5 instead of €7 (28% saving).
The eighth now paid €9 instead of €12 (25% saving).
The ninth now paid €14 instead of €18 (22% saving).
The tenth now paid €49 instead of €59 (16% saving).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings.
“I only got a euro out of the €20 saving,” 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 benefit than me!”
“That’s true!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get €10 back, when I got only €2? The wealthy get all the breaks!”
“Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison, “we didn’t get anything at all. This new tax 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 their 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!

Im fairly sure that despite any bickering like above, the 6 men would all survive with the arrangement when you substitute beer for food in the above.

Thoie

The main argument I've always heard is that if you over-tax the rich they have the resources available to them to just up sticks and move elsewhere, or just move their money elsewhere.

If you keep the taxes "fair" (ie, everyone pays 40%), you get a lot more money from the 100k earners than you do from the 40k earners. In the UK at the moment (I can't find the Irish figures, but the principle holds true), the top 1% of earners fund 27% of the country's tax take. If you scare away that top 1%, you lose out on an awful lot of income.

veryangryman

orourkeda wrote: »

What is argument for it? Taxing the well off isnt going to save this country

Argument for is simple: Save a hospital wing, help keep some families off the street, I could go on.

If you keep pushing people into poverty, eventually this will hit breaking point. 100K is more than well off. If you earned 110K for instance, and i took 10% of the 10K, im pretty sure youll still be able to afford that ivory backscratcher

orourkeda

veryangryman wrote: »

Im fairly sure that despite any bickering like above, the 6 men would all survive with the arrangement when you substitute beer for food in the above.

Through necessity

Tom

100k is Super Rich???

orourkeda

veryangryman wrote: »

Argument for is simple: Save a hospital wing, help keep some families off the street, I could go on.

If you keep pushing people into poverty, eventually this will hit breaking point. 100K is more than well off. If you earned 110K for instance, and i took 10% of the 10K, im pretty sure youll still be able to afford that ivory backscratcher

Saving hospital wings does has little or nothing to do with how much tax you charge high earners. Again keeping families off the street isnt going to save Ireland.

Prudent management of the health budget should see to that (which it isnt at the moment)

Homelessness happened during the boom

Wibbs

Thoie wrote: »

The main argument I've always heard is that if you over-tax the rich they have the resources available to them to just up sticks and move elsewhere, or just move their money elsewhere.

If you keep the taxes "fair" (ie, everyone pays 40%), you get a lot more money from the 100k earners than you do from the 40k earners. In the UK at the moment (I can't find the Irish figures, but the principle holds true), the top 1% of earners fund 27% of the country's tax take. If you scare away that top 1%, you lose out on an awful lot of income.

This. Plus you risk not encouraging the entrepreneur sector of society. The people who create jobs in the first place. If they see that the harder they work and the more successful their company becomes the more they'll have to pay, it becomes a stick not a carrot. It might also dissuade international companies while its at it.

irelandrover

Thoie wrote: »

The main argument I've always heard is that if you over-tax the rich they have the resources available to them to just up sticks and move elsewhere, or just move their money elsewhere.

If you keep the taxes "fair" (ie, everyone pays 40%), you get a lot more money from the 100k earners than you do from the 40k earners. In the UK at the moment (I can't find the Irish figures, but the principle holds true), the top 1% of earners fund 27% of the country's tax take. If you scare away that top 1%, you lose out on an awful lot of income.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=716qbOv3a4M

Sorry about poor quality.

sbsquarepants

Won't someone please think of the brain drain!
I'm sick of hearing this shít, like the "cream of the crop" we had before done such a great job. Brain drain my arse, if you don't want to be here, fúck off!!

seamus

veryangryman wrote: »

help keep some families off the street

Very few people on the street who don't choose to be there. The figure would be in the tens, nationally, not the hundreds. The rest are there because they have booze or drugs problems or because they don't want to abide by hostel rules or they're fighting with their families, etc.

If there's one good thing we can say about Ireland, it's that we're very strong on ensuring that no-one will go without a roof over their head if they can help it.

Anyway, on the original argument, there's this fallacy in Ireland that wealthy people pay no tax and get away with murder. Of course, it's the opposite that's true. Wealthy people pay most of the tax, those less well off pay nothing and consume more public services.

So there's no good argument why wealthier people should have to pay even more. This isn't a socialist country where the wealthy have some obligation to those less well off. If anything we should be arguing for low rates of taxation for those currently outside the tax loop. There are millions of them, take a few euro off them and you instantly bring in a tonne of tax revenue.

sbsquarepants

Tom wrote: »

100k is Super Rich???

It's 3 times the average wage. It's hardly poor now is it?

markpb

Tom wrote: »

100k is Super Rich???

I think people underestimate how much the Irish super-rich really earn 100k would be quite common.

foxyboxer

What is rich? What is wealth?

Enda Kenny would earn a bigger salary than a Bill Gates would draw. Yet Gate's is a billionaire due to having 'assets'.

Rich = accumulated assets not a big salary.

Tom

sbsquarepants wrote: »

It's 3 times the average wage. It's hardly poor now is it?

Far from poor - but hardly super rich.

sbsquarepants

Tom wrote: »

Far from poor - but hardly super rich.

Super rich? No
Rich? Yes

atila

Does a super tax rate not disproportionatly tax wealth obtained through income. Unless there are similar measures applied to all forms of wealth accumulation it would distort things even more then they are already within the tax code.

Blazer

Amazing that plenty of people on here bitch about social welfare and how it discourages people from getting off their holes and finding a job due to the tiny gap between minimum wage and someone on the dole.:rolleyes:
For instance 2 people I know are getting around €22k a year on social welfare between dole/rent allowance/children's allowance and every other thing they can claim for.
Both have estimated that they would need to earn approx 30k to make it worth their while to work and even then this would only match what they're getting after paying taxes etc to on the dole.
The fact that both are unskilled means they haven't a snowball's chance in hell of getting a job that pays this currently.
I've absolutely no objections to richer people paying a bit more but remember 14% of taxpayers here pay nearly 80% of the tax revenue on PAYE...
I'm paying over 30K a year on tax and it sickens me to see my P60 every year....basically I'm paying for one of my mates to sit on their holes at home in their council house which they pay a miniscule amount of rent for while I'm working hard.
Yes I wouldn't object to paying 1-2% more tax but only if the money went towards hospitals and front line services, not ensuring Johnny gets to go to the pub a few nights a week or that the public sector ensure they get cushy pensions or TD's lining their pockets.

And as someone say,,if you tax the super wealthy too much they will move to another country...look at U2 etc.

That's why I've a lot of respect for Michael O'Leary in spite of his many faults...he's staying put in this country and paying his considerable tax bill.

So rather than imposing a 10% on high earners the government needs to reform public sector wages + pensions/ TD salaries and pensions as well as the ridiculous amount of administration in the HSE and other PS bodies.

We're supposed to reward people for being successful, not penalize them because of mob mentality and government PR deflection campaigns.

Thoie

veryangryman wrote: »

If you keep pushing people into poverty, eventually this will hit breaking point. 100K is more than well off. If you earned 110K for instance, and i took 10% of the 10K, im pretty sure youll still be able to afford that ivory backscratcher

We already take proportionally more from the higher earners, due to the way our tax system works.
Take three earners:
Adam earns 100k
Bob earns 40k
Charles earns 20k

Assuming they're all single PAYE employees you can use http://taxcalc.eu/ to work out how much tax they're paying as a percentage of their income.
Including PAYE, PRSI, USC:
Adam pays 41% of his income in tax
Bob pays 24% of his income in tax
Charles pays 10% of his income in tax

www.revenue.ie has more information on tax bands and credits if you're interested.

professore

Considering that it's possible for a family with one child to claim 90K in benefits with no tax and free medical expenses:

http://www.examiner.ie/ireland/call-for-welfare-pay-cap-as-couple-claim-90k-a-year-168808.html

then someone on 100K in the same situation is below the poverty line since they will pay quite a bit of tax.

seamus

foxyboxer wrote: »

What is rich? What is wealth?

Enda Kenny would earn a bigger salary than a Bill Gates would draw. Yet Gate's is a billionaire due to having 'assets'.

Rich = accumulated assets not a big salary.

Wealthy == Someone who has enough money that they can afford to buy luxuries and never has to worry about having money for the essentials.

Any single person earning above €30/35k in this country would fall into that bracket.

Super Rich == Someone who never has to worry about having enough money to buy anything.

That's talking about people earning €500k+

Liam Byrne

Wibbs wrote: »

Thoie wrote: »

The main argument I've always heard is that if you over-tax the rich they have the resources available to them to just up sticks and move elsewhere, or just move their money elsewhere.

If you keep the taxes "fair" (ie, everyone pays 40%), you get a lot more money from the 100k earners than you do from the 40k earners. In the UK at the moment (I can't find the Irish figures, but the principle holds true), the top 1% of earners fund 27% of the country's tax take. If you scare away that top 1%, you lose out on an awful lot of income.

This. Plus you risk not encouraging the entrepreneur sector of society. The people who create jobs in the first place. If they see that the harder they work and the more successful their company becomes the more they'll have to pay, it becomes a stick not a carrot. It might also dissuade international companies while its at it.

Depends on what motivates the entrepreneur - I'm one who would (a) want to earn my own wages and (b) hopefully hire a few people some day.

Making silly money isn't a measure of success in my book.

Tom

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Super rich? No
Rich? Yes

Compared to the average wage then you could class it as rich - compared to the 225 highest earners in a report from last year it's a drop in the ocean

http://www.independent.ie/business/rich-list/irelands-rich-list-201225-2117809.html

I'd be more than happy to be earning 100k myself but if I had any ambitions to be rich - 100k would be a very low ambition.

StephenHendry

i would be in favour of the super rich having a wealth or an expenditure tax

psychward

How about we just stop subsidizing the pretend rich through abominations such as NAMA etc and hence enable the poor and the middle to exercise the true value of their money and spending power at cheaper hence realistic prices. It would also reduce upward demand pressures on wages etc, a reduction which is good for MNC investment. Tax breaks should only go to exporting and long term job creating industries, not to estate agents.

Liam Byrne

Thoie wrote: »

veryangryman wrote: »

If you keep pushing people into poverty, eventually this will hit breaking point. 100K is more than well off. If you earned 110K for instance, and i took 10% of the 10K, im pretty sure youll still be able to afford that ivory backscratcher

We already take proportionally more from the higher earners, due to the way our tax system works.
Take three earners:
Adam earns 100k
Bob earns 40k
Charles earns 20k

Assuming they're all single PAYE employees you can use http://taxcalc.eu/ to work out how much tax they're paying as a percentage of their income.
Including PAYE, PRSI, USC:
Adam pays 41% of his income in tax
Bob pays 24% of his income in tax
Charles pays 10% of his income in tax

www.revenue.ie has more information on tax bands and credits if you're interested.

Does that take into account all the stealth taxes and levies ? And VAT ?

Because I reckon you'll find that a lot more of Charles' cash goes in tax than the others, even before the lawyers and advisors and the like find all the loopholes.

Wile E. Coyote

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Super rich? No
Rich? Yes

€100k a year isn't even close to being rich or super rich. It works out at €61k a year take home. If the person earning that is the sole income earner in a household with a couple of kids they've less disposable income than a couple both on the average wage with no kids.

And another arguement against OP is that one day I'm going to be SUPER SUPER RICH and I don't want my money going to feed you peasants

Mr. Presentable

OP, the top earners pay the most tax as it is.

The ones who are not paying their way are the low income people.


The system is simple really. The most tax is paid by the higher earners. The high earners are in a position to take their skills and taxes to another juristiction. Push them out and your tax take for the state will drop.

This simplistic "Oh he has a Merc he must be penalised" shugar has to stop. Stop looking at the other man and take a look at yourself - see what you can do to improve your lot, not how you can disimprove someone else's.

Alun

Mr. Presentable wrote: »

OP, the top earners pay the most tax as it is.

The ones who are not paying their way are the low income people.

Exactly, as has been posted many times over on the politics forum ...

reprazant

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Originally Posted by Thoie wrote:

Originally Posted by veryangryman wrote:

If you keep pushing people into poverty, eventually this will hit breaking point. 100K is more than well off. If you earned 110K for instance, and i took 10% of the 10K, im pretty sure youll still be able to afford that ivory backscratcher

We already take proportionally more from the higher earners, due to the way our tax system works.
Take three earners:
Adam earns 100k
Bob earns 40k
Charles earns 20k

Assuming they're all single PAYE employees you can use http://taxcalc.eu/ to work out how much tax they're paying as a percentage of their income.
Including PAYE, PRSI, USC:
Adam pays 41% of his income in tax
Bob pays 24% of his income in tax
Charles pays 10% of his income in tax

www.revenue.ie has more information on tax bands and credits if you're interested.

Does that take into account all the stealth taxes and levies ? And VAT ?

Because I reckon you'll find that a lot more of Charles' cash goes in tax than the others, even before the lawyers and advisors and the like find all the loopholes.

Really?

You think that somebody earning €40,000 does not pay any stealth taxes or levies?

That they hire accountants and lawyers to ensure that they pay less through loopholes? Seriously?

I would imagine that hiring lawyers and advisors and the like find all the loopholes would negate any savings them might make in said loopholes.

seamus

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Does that take into account all the stealth taxes and levies ? And VAT ?

Because I reckon you'll find that a lot more of Charles' cash goes in tax than the others, even before the lawyers and advisors and the like find all the loopholes.

Another fallacy. Do you think that high earners only spend €20k and put the rest in a savings account?

If someone is earning more money, then they are spending more money, therefore they pay more in stealth taxes and VAT than a lower earner.

The "lower earners pay proportionally more VAT" argument also doesn't stand up to scrutiny. A higher % of a lower earners spending will go on essentials - VAT-exempt goods and services. Whereas a higher proportion of a high-earners spending will go on luxury goods subject to full VAT. Lower earners also tend to be more able (and willing) to apply for various tax reliefs than higher earners. Therefore as a proportion of total income, lower earners most likely pay less VAT and other stealth taxes than higher earners.

I also see no logical reason why a higher earner should have to pay more tax just because they have more disposable income. They earned it.

stevenmu

We have a funny mentality in this country that the best way to solve poverty is by making rich people poor, when the obvious thing to do is to make poor people rich.

Osgoodisgood

veryangryman wrote: »

The idea of people over 100K having the balance taxed heavier (say 10% more) has been mooted and poo-poo'd in equal measure. However as an alternative to making people struggle on the low ends, id definitely be in favour of this idea.

What i cannot understand is those who are knocking it - i have yet to hear one good reason why we shouldn't put such a tax in. Can somebody (break it down for me cos im no expert in fairness) explain why its more progressive to stick it to the man, woman and child.

No im not saying that welfare system cant be changed etc but really when people are being screwed every six way from Sunday, surely this extra tax from the richer would go a long way to protecting them.

No, instead the PAYE higher rate has already been made kick in at 32K, so the average middle income worker has to foot the bill.

Why stop at 10% more? Why not 20%? Or 50%?
How dare they try to keep this money at all?
Criminals they are!

Redistribution.........equality.......rabble......Occupy........rabble.......rabble.......begrudgery.........

veryangryman

stevenmu wrote: »

We have a funny mentality in this country that the best way to solve poverty is by making rich people poor, when the obvious thing to do is to make poor people rich.

I dont see any rich people being taxed into poverty. Any working man or woman that i know who earned over 100K in the boom is still pretty wealthy all these years on.

Plenty of middle income people being sent the poverty direction mind you.

Doinker

professore wrote: »

Considering that it's possible for a family with one child to claim 90K in benefits with no tax and free medical expenses:

http://www.examiner.ie/ireland/call-for-welfare-pay-cap-as-couple-claim-90k-a-year-168808.html

then someone on 100K in the same situation is below the poverty line since they will pay quite a bit of tax.

I'm not trying to justify the amount in the above example, but I think the family in that example have four children, one with a serious medical condition - which is a bit different than a one child family.

veryangryman

Osgoodisgood wrote: »

Why stop at 10% more? Why not 20%? Or 50%?
How dare they try to keep this money at all?
Criminals they are!

Redistribution.........equality.......rabble......Occupy........rabble.......rabble.......begrudgery.........

Who the f**k is calling them criminals? Were talking about the option of putting food on peoples plates or letting better off people have more money than they can spend. Good for them that their that wealthy - fair deuce. But they can afford to help out

joseph brand

Big earners worry about money as much as low earners. One reason is this:

Man on 25K/ yr goes to bank to get mortgage. Banks says he can get mortgage of say, 200K. So he looks at houses for under 200K, but there's a spanky house on sale for 230K. He talks to the bank and they agree to 230K. (Now, he could have picked a house for around 180 to be on safe side)



Man on 100K/ yr goes to bank to get mortgage. Banks offers 900K mortgage. A lot of nice houses at this price but there's one with a heated driveway at a cool 1 million. He talks to the bank and they agree to the 1 million.

Both are beyond their means. They have been greedy and reached for as much as they can get. But if anything bad happens, they could easily find themselves in a world of excrement.

Liam Byrne

reprazant wrote: »

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Originally Posted by Thoie wrote:

Originally Posted by veryangryman wrote:

If you keep pushing people into poverty, eventually this will hit breaking point. 100K is more than well off. If you earned 110K for instance, and i took 10% of the 10K, im pretty sure youll still be able to afford that ivory backscratcher

We already take proportionally more from the higher earners, due to the way our tax system works.
Take three earners:
Adam earns 100k
Bob earns 40k
Charles earns 20k

Assuming they're all single PAYE employees you can use http://taxcalc.eu/ to work out how much tax they're paying as a percentage of their income.
Including PAYE, PRSI, USC:
Adam pays 41% of his income in tax
Bob pays 24% of his income in tax
Charles pays 10% of his income in tax

www.revenue.ie has more information on tax bands and credits if you're interested.

Does that take into account all the stealth taxes and levies ? And VAT ?

Because I reckon you'll find that a lot more of Charles' cash goes in tax than the others, even before the lawyers and advisors and the like find all the loopholes.

Really?

You think that somebody earning €40,000 does not pay any stealth taxes or levies?

That they hire accountants and lawyers to ensure that they pay less through loopholes? Seriously?

I would imagine that hiring lawyers and advisors and the like find all the loopholes would negate any savings them might make in said loopholes.

What are you on about ? Where did I say that ?

YES they pay them.

But do the basic maths : many stealth taxes are fixed amounts.

So they are a higher percentage of a lower wage than the higher one.

If you're on 20K the tv licence is nearly 1% of your ENTIRE GROSS INCOME

If you're on 200K it's only 0.1%

If you're on 20K you can guarantee that EVERY CENT gets spent, giving VAT of, let's say a 16% average.

If you're on 200K you can save or invest or get tax breaks - you certainly don't have to spend it all and incur 16% average sales tax.

Add in your bin charges (2% of 20K vs 0.2% of 200K) and we've just accounted for a 20% tax on less well paid.

And that doesn't even factor in fuel duties and other taxes which - if both are driving the same amount - are the same amount for both but a far higher PERCENTAGE for the lower-paid guy.

Anyone in between is a relative sliding scale.

Wake up, people! Ireland is NOT a low tax country.

Donal Og O Baelach

Paging "Dave the plumber" from last weeks liveline..

"..I earn 4000 euro a week and all I can afford is Weetabix for me dinner"

Thoie

veryangryman wrote: »

Who the f**k is calling them criminals? Were talking about the option of putting food on peoples plates or letting better off people have more money than they can spend. Good for them that their that wealthy - fair deuce. But they can afford to help out

Are you refusing to accept that they are already helping out, or do you genuinely think that increasing tax on high incomes will put food on the plates of lower income families?

seamus

Liam Byrne wrote: »

But do the basic maths : many stealth taxes are fixed amounts.

So they are a higher percentage of a lower wage than the higher one.

If you're on 20K the tv licence is nearly 1% of your ENTIRE GROSS INCOME

TV licence is a luxury spend, not a stealth tax.

Try again.

It's a completely stupid begrudging idea. How about that one.

Frank Black

The Shinners seem to be the party most in favour of an additional tax on earnings above €100K.
If you don't want to go to the trouble of considering the implications of such a move, you can reasonably assume that if Sinn Fein think it's a good idea, the reality is that it's not.

It's a rule of thumb that's saved me loads of time having to read articles and discussion pieces.

Liam Byrne

joseph brand wrote: »

Big earners worry about money as much as low earners. One reason is this:

Man on 25K/ yr goes to bank to get mortgage. Banks says he can get mortgage of say, 200K. So he looks at houses for under 200K, but there's a spanky house on sale for 230K. He talks to the bank and they agree to 230K. (Now, he could have picked a house for around 180 to be on safe side)



Man on 100K/ yr goes to bank to get mortgage. Banks offers 900K mortgage. A lot of nice houses at this price but there's one with a heated driveway at a cool 1 million. He talks to the bank and they agree to the 1 million.

Both are beyond their means. They have been greedy and reached for as much as they can get. But if anything bad happens, they could easily find themselves in a world of excrement.

You've assumed that both were stupid. What about examples of both who weren't, but where both have been hit with a 10% pay cut and higher taxes ?

Liam Byrne

seamus wrote: »

Liam Byrne wrote: »

But do the basic maths : many stealth taxes are fixed amounts.

So they are a higher percentage of a lower wage than the higher one.

If you're on 20K the tv licence is nearly 1% of your ENTIRE GROSS INCOME

TV licence is a luxury spend, not a stealth tax.

Try again.

A "luxury" ? Ah FFS have we regressed that much into libertarian capitalist cloud cuckoo land that a friggin portable tv is a luxury ?

Maybe if we remove tvs from all those nasty low-paid people they won't be able to see the news and what's going on in the world? Maybe they won't realise that the rich who gambled and lost are creaming every cent without any care about fairness or ethics ?

And before you muddy the water - we're talking WORKING people here, not social welfare.

jester77

Liam Byrne wrote: »

You've assumed that both were stupid. What about examples of both who weren't, but where both have been hit with a 10% pay cut and higher taxes ?

If you were not stupid then you would take that into account. Only an idiot would take out the biggest loan of their life without taking all permutations into account. As the loan would be over 30 years, then you can be guaranteed that at least 1 person in the couple will be out of work for an extended period of time during this 30 years (unemployment, pregnancy, ill health, raising children, etc) and the chances that both would be out of work would also be reasonable to assume. Plus you would calculate repayments with high interest rates, it doesn't take a genius to look at the history regarding interest rates and to see that the chances of them hitting the mid teens at some stage over 30 years is a given.

So a 10% cut and higher taxes is well within these limits.

sbsquarepants

Mr. Presentable wrote: »

OP, the top earners pay the most tax as it is.

The ones who are not paying their way are the low income people.


The system is simple really. The most tax is paid by the higher earners. The high earners are in a position to take their skills and taxes to another juristiction. Push them out and your tax take for the state will drop.

This simplistic "Oh he has a Merc he must be penalised" shugar has to stop. Stop looking at the other man and take a look at yourself - see what you can do to improve your lot, not how you can disimprove someone else's.

This is nonsense. People with good jobs who want to stay in Ireland will stay here, even if it means paying more tax. People with good jobs who want to leave will leave again regardless of tax. People who are forced to leave through unemployment, don't pay tax anyway.
The actual super rich, as in countless millions types, they don't pay tax anyway,- they can afford to pay people to manage their money for them to minimise or negate their taxes altogether.
Although i do admit there is a lot of begrudgery around too!