Why has this not been done yet?

K-9

thomasm wrote: »

Its 20% on the first €32,800 if you are single with no dependent children and and €36,800 if you have dependent kids. After that its 41%.

Also intersting to comapre us to other countires in terms of when you hit the higher rate

Income level at which top tax rate is hit (single person)

Single Person
US (Boston) $373,650 40.3%
Germany €250,731 45%
Spain (Madrid) €175,000 44.9%
UK £150,000 50%
France €70,830 41%
Ireland €32,800 48%

PRSI type taxes are high in the likes of France and Germany though.

1.71% of cases earn 150k + and pay 29.43% of income tax with 13.95% of the income..

Over 75k account for 10.22% of cases, 35.68% of income and pay 61.78% of taxes.

http://www.revenue.ie/en/about/publications/statistical/2010/income-distribution-statistics.pdf

VAT tends to affect the lower paid more but the higher paid would pay plenty of VAT in discretionary spending, new car, that type of thing.

The self employed earning over 100k also pay 3% extra Social Levy.

I suppose the top 1% paying all the taxes would be very popular though!

thomasm

MrThrifty wrote: »

Given that you have deliberately misled folk with at least some of the above selective stats, the info should all be treated as questionable. E.g. Top tax rate in UK is 50%, BUT a fair comparison to us should have considered their 40% rate which applies to amounts over 35k, much like here eh, putting exchange rates aside?!

Edit: aghh, so you're saying we're 48% here and not 41% or whatever? Have you then taken all levies and secondary taxes into account for other countries as well as differences in tax free allowance systems and amounts?!

Not misleading, it is a list of when a tax payer hits the highest tax rate compared to other countries.

The___________

mconigol wrote: »

High earners don't pay VAT or the TV licence? News to me.

I'm sick of the begrudgery directed at people who do well for themselves. That's all it is.

Vat and other non income linked taxes are called regressive taxation for a reason, they penalise the poorest in society by a proportionally greater amount than they affect the richest.

An extremely simplified example would be:

A person earning 20k a year who pays a total of 4k a year in VAT and other indirect taxes- this takes 20% of their total income

Whereas a person earning 200k a year may well pay only 15k a year in such taxes meaning it accounts for only 7.5% of their income.

The proposed water charges or property taxes will further increase indirect taxation which always hurts the poor more than it affects the more affluent.

MrThrifty

thomasm wrote: »

Not misleading, it is a list of when a tax payer hits the highest tax rate compared to other countries.

Since when was our highest rate officially 48%?! :rolleyes:

Ellis Dee

The explanation probably has a lot to do with the golden rule:

The bastards with the gold make the rules

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

The___________

You'd also have to consider that the incomes of many of those charged with implementing such tax reforms would be comfortably within any new higher tax band.

Turkeys voting for Christmas and all that....

endabob1

The___________ wrote: »

Vat and other non income linked taxes are called regressive taxation for a reason, they penalise the poorest in society by a proportionally greater amount than they affect the richest.

An extremely simplified example would be:

A person earning 20k a year who pays a total of 4k a year in VAT and other indirect taxes- this takes 20% of their total income

Whereas a person earning 200k a year may well pay only 15k a year in such taxes meaning it accounts for only 7.5% of their income.

The proposed water charges or property taxes will further increase indirect taxation which always hurts the poor more than it affects the more affluent.

VAT is the greatest tax, it's cheap and easy for the government to collect and administer.
It taxes consumption, the more you spend the more you pay;
It encourages thrift
If VAT is designed properly it will not punish the poor, ie essentials (basic food stuff, educational materials etc..) are VAT free, luxury items are heavily taxed with a high VAT rate.

ldxo15wus6fpgm

I'd like to clarify something, for the third time now.

I AM NOT SAYING THIS TAX WOULD BE A GOOD/BAD IDEA.

I am simply asking why none of our politicians have put it forward to ease the grumblings of the masses.

As for the idea of this tax being morally wrong... well...
First of all, those affected would still be earning plenty more than the average worker. Just not so much that they can squander money without consequence - isn't that the way it should be?
Secondly it would possibly close the gap a little between social classes, at times (like these) a needless source of much hatred among our own people.

Finally, for those whining about the fact that people who earn more are harder workers, why should they be punished, etc. you are essentially saying that anyone who earns under 75k a year is simply not working hard enough. Give it a rest.

smash

Adelina Drab Ruby wrote: »

I am simply asking why none of our politicians have put it forward to ease the grumblings of the masses.

Do you ever watch TV? SF have been banging on about this for years.

starbelgrade

smash wrote: »

Do you ever watch TV? SF have been banging on about this for years.

Sinn Fein have been banging on about a lot of populist policies for years. It's one of the main reasons they've increased their seat numbers in the Dail each election term.

However, if they ever got into power, they would soon realise that half the stuff they would like to see done either makes no economic sense or is simply not feasible.

Having said that though - they at least for the most part have their hearts in the right place. If they stopped banging on about Republicanism they might even get some real power in the Oireachtas.

Adelina Drab Ruby

Adelina Drab Ruby wrote: »

Finally, for those whining about the fact that people who earn more are harder workers, why should they be punished, etc. you are essentially saying that anyone who earns under 75k a year is simply not working hard enough. Give it a rest.

People are not necessarily saying they are harder workers but they would almost certainly have more responsibility which leads to a more stressful job, and often have more important decisions which may have implications for a lot of other people etc. Pay has to reflect this or people wont do the work.

They would also be more of an expectation for working longer hours, especially working on in the evening etc with no overtime being paid so the higher salary often reflects an expectation that the person will be working longer hours than your average worker but wont be receiving any additional pay.

Temptamperu

billybudd wrote: »

Maybe because those who earn over 80,000 euro have the ambition, skill and education to earn that much and have the tools to create jobs other than their own and if you strangle that ambition then you cost lower paid jobs. 41% tax seems fair enough when you consider the other taxes on top of this.

Bullshít, why arent they creating jobs then? this is just as much a cop out as saying you cant pay politicions less because of coruption and bribes, they are all bullshít answers as a way to make the layman go "alright I suppose your right"
The Rich should pay more tax instead of leaving it up to the middle class to foot the bill for everyone.

smash

Temptamperu wrote: »

Bullshít, why arent they creating jobs then?

Maybe they work for themselves. Maybe they've had to downsize their companies. Maybe they are creating jobs. Maybe they're not actually rich any more.

Temptamperu wrote: »

The Rich should pay more tax instead of leaving it up to the middle class to foot the bill for everyone.

They earn more, so they already pay a lot more tax.

And put things into perspective here. You can guarantee that the "rich" as you call them are there because they worked for it and their outgoings are going to be a lot higher than the average person in a 3 bed semi.

billybudd

Temptamperu wrote: »

Bullshít, why arent they creating jobs then? this is just as much a cop out as saying you cant pay politicions less because of coruption and bribes, they are all bullshít answers as a way to make the layman go "alright I suppose your right"
The Rich should pay more tax instead of leaving it up to the middle class to foot the bill for everyone.

How is it bull****? Before levies, prsi and usc is taken into account it s 41 cents from the euro that is taxed? I am not talking about the super rich, a person on 100,000 or less a year is not what one would consider super rich, if the alternative is tax them 50% plus whatever taxes are on top of this then all you are doing is making people less ambitious as what they achieve would just be taxed the ****e out of, is communism along the lines of what you think is the way forward? Doctors and shelf stackers on equal rates of pay? So why become a doctor, years of study, years of training only to be maybe a bit better off than someone whom stacks shelves.

And further more people are creating jobs; small business caters for just under one million of our work forceAs for politicians,

I agree they are paid far too much, I remind them of this fact every time I meet them, do you?

Temptamperu

When they where touting for votes this year at my door yes I asked everyone why they havent taken a pay cut... I didnt get one straight answer.

billybudd

Temptamperu wrote: »

When they where touting for votes this year at my door yes I asked everyone why they havent taken a pay cut... I didnt get one straight answer.

So did i, they did take a pay cut, just not a big enough one.

The___________

Surely the laughably generous pension entitlements afforded to politicians would merit a further reduction in their basic pay during their time in office? A reduction to 70k per annum for an ordinary TD would hardly leave them facing economic hardship.

K-9

Temptamperu wrote: »

Bullshít, why arent they creating jobs then? this is just as much a cop out as saying you cant pay politicions less because of coruption and bribes, they are all bullshít answers as a way to make the layman go "alright I suppose your right"
The Rich should pay more tax instead of leaving it up to the middle class to foot the bill for everyone.

Depends on what's middle class, from the statistics I'd say from about 30-75k.

The top 10% are paying 60% of the taxes so it's the upper classes footing most of the bill. The idea seems to be, I think I pay enough taxes, if there is going to be new taxes let the rich pay.

Tbh I think the Government would be better giving incentives to people to invest money in industry and business start ups, creating employment.

fungun

Including all taxes a person on 100k probably contributes over 60k in tax. So say you chuck an extra 2k tax on them, great. All it takes in 1 in 30 of these people to leave (and they tend to me the ones capable of leaving) to make this negative for the country.

Its a balancing act, taxing them as much as possible without making it attractive for them to leave

Robdude

The world is becoming awfully global.....it's easy for people to relocate. Particularly people who would be in your highest tax bracket. Countries go out of their way to make it *easy* for these people to immigrate (including Ireland).

Countries want them.

A lot of people aren't going to stick around and pay taxes in Ireland when they can relocate somewhere else and have the same employement opportunities (or more) and pay less taxes while still recieving the same level of personal benefits.

Of course, I'm talking about skilled labour - I don't know that politicians are in demand in other countries. Why not tax them/pay them less?

ibarelycare

Temptamperu wrote: »

Bullshít, why arent they creating jobs then? this is just as much a cop out as saying you cant pay politicions less because of coruption and bribes, they are all bullshít answers as a way to make the layman go "alright I suppose your right"
The Rich should pay more tax instead of leaving it up to the middle class to foot the bill for everyone.

The rich DO pay more tax, that's how percentages work.

johnr1

fungun wrote: »

Including all taxes a person on 100k probably contributes over 60k in tax. So say you chuck an extra 2k tax on them, great. All it takes in 1 in 30 of these people to leave (and they tend to me the ones capable of leaving) to make this negative for the country.

Its a balancing act, taxing them as much as possible without making it attractive for them to leave

you are correct with most of this post, but can I ask : Why tax them "as much as possible" ?

Why not instead tax them as much as is fair and equitable, as we do already?

Because they're "rich bastards" and you "hate them ruiit" ?

So because they educated themselves more than some others we aren't allowed to abuse here, because they get up every morning and work 10 or 12 or 14 hours, because they were smarter, worked harder and did better for themselves than you, they must be punished by taking "as much as possible" from them and giving it to those people who we aren't allowed to abuse here, who don't, didn't, weren't capable and weren't willing to do what they did.

That sound fair to you? yeah, actually it probably does - to you.:rolleyes:

Zen65

Adelina Drab Ruby wrote: »

Honestly, why has this not been proposed yet? I'm only guessing but I'd say that any party that put this forward would receive a very positive reaction from the general public, (a quick look at the CSO indicates that the average salary is around 35/40k per year, and people are hardly going to reject a tax on the rich!) possibly enough of a reaction to get themselves a place in government in the next elections!

It was done before in the early 1980's and was not considered successful. You cannot run a country without adequate numbers of doctors, nurses, engineers, barristers etc. Today people are far more mobile than they were, so the evacuation of our medical doctors and engineers would happen (and is already happening) quickly. Today the young professionals are heading to Australia and Canada in their droves, so we may see a problem in 5-8 years anyway.

Z

Solnskaya

Here is the news: the rich do not pay tax, it is a function of government that applies to the masses. The rich have tax advisers and tax breaks, freely offered by ALL governments that ensure that any taxes they may dein to pay are at best miniscule, and are usually offset by a break at another level. The government puts money into the pockets of the rich, money which it raises from the masses who do not have the financial acumen to avoid the collection of the same.
When you discuss "taxation of the high paid", you are discussing taxation of high earning PAYE workers. They are not the rich. The rich are those who write those PAYE paycheques, and pay little or no tax on a personal level.

johnr1

Solnskaya wrote: »

Here is the news: the rich do not pay tax, it is a function of government that applies to the masses. The rich have tax advisers and tax breaks, freely offered by ALL governments that ensure that any taxes they may dein to pay are at best miniscule, and are usually offset by a break at another level. The government puts money into the pockets of the rich, money which it raises from the masses who do not have the financial acumen to avoid the collection of the same.
When you discuss "taxation of the high paid", you are discussing taxation of high earning PAYE workers. They are not the rich. The rich are those who write those PAYE paycheques, and pay little or no tax on a personal level.

Absolute and utter utter shyte of the finest vintage.

But, by all means go on believing that if it makes you feel better about your own life.

Zen65

Solnskaya wrote: »

When you discuss "taxation of the high paid", you are discussing taxation of high earning PAYE workers. They are not the rich. The rich are those who write those PAYE paycheques, and pay little or no tax on a personal level.

Indeed it is quite tragic that we so quickly have turned our focus against highly-paid public servants (mostly doctors, specialist accountants & economists, etc) who really are not the problem in our economy. The country was ruined by the private sector, yet we are still being told that this sector is the model we should be aspiring to. Enda Kenny, while cutting pay and raising taxes all round, increased the pay of his own advisor saying that private sector consultants needed to be paid more.

Having said that, I do agree that we cannot afford some of the pay rates being offered to certain civil & public servants. But neither should we be paying €400k to the head of the FAI, because private sector or not, we ultimately all pay for these mad salaries.

Z

DualFrontDiscs

I think all public sector employees should be removed from income tax. It's a mirage to pay someone 100K to take 50K back from them (simplified numbers). Just pay them 50K, no income tax. That simplifies tax collection and removes public servants from the argument that they pay income tax like private sector employees.

Secondly, I think all public sector employees should be allowed transfer their mortgage to a a Gov. backed bank and have their monthly mortgages reduced by c.25%. On that basis their monthly income (it's all net now), should be reduced in a similar fashion.

DFD.

johnr1

DualFrontDiscs wrote: »

I think all public sector employees should be removed from income tax. It's a mirage to pay someone 100K to take 50K back from them (simplified numbers). Just pay them 50K, no income tax. That simplifies tax collection and removes public servants from the argument that they pay income tax like private sector employees.

Secondly, I think all public sector employees should be allowed transfer their mortgage to a a Gov. backed bank and have their monthly mortgages reduced by c.25%. On that basis their monthly income (it's all net now), should be reduced in a similar fashion.

DFD.

Great idea, So a pub sec employee with a dependant family gets the same as one with none ? Assuming both do the same job.

Why should pub sec employees get cheaper mortgages in your esteemed opinion ?

Clearly this was well thought out :rolleyes:

K-9

Solnskaya wrote: »

Here is the news: the rich do not pay tax, it is a function of government that applies to the masses. The rich have tax advisers and tax breaks, freely offered by ALL governments that ensure that any taxes they may dein to pay are at best miniscule, and are usually offset by a break at another level. The government puts money into the pockets of the rich, money which it raises from the masses who do not have the financial acumen to avoid the collection of the same.
When you discuss "taxation of the high paid", you are discussing taxation of high earning PAYE workers. They are not the rich. The rich are those who write those PAYE paycheques, and pay little or no tax on a personal level.

Actually the up to date news is people on over 500k paid a 20% effective rate in 09 and incomes over 400k an effective rate of 30% from 2010.

I don't know if that was extended in the budget, talk was it would to about 100/150k but I haven't seen anything.

The Socialist Party and SF mightn't have got the press release but many of the tax break loopholes have been changed or are just useless.

Now your point might be, that isn't enough. I'd make the same point to people saying Welfare and Public Service pay should be slashed and now, there's big risk you do big damage to the economy doing that in one, short, sharp shock. Just slashing expenditure or hiking upper tax levels just like that, can do serious damage.

The Public service pension levy a good example. The Government thought it would bring in so much, the eejits never factored in the less tax and PRSI receipts because it was tax and PRSI deductible! And they are still at it, Kenny admitting they just assumed a 2% hike in VAT would do nothing to demand.

There's also a danger of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Tax breaks in themselves aren't a bad thing, urban renewal served its purpose in Dublin and other urban areas. It just lasted too long and got extended into rural area and drove an already bubble economy.

There should be tax breaks for wealthy people to divert funds to growth industries but tax breaks are now a bad word, the masses associate them with tax dodgers.

MrThrifty

fungun wrote: »

Including all taxes a person on 100k probably contributes over 60k in tax. So say you chuck an extra 2k tax on them, great. All it takes in 1 in 30 of these people to leave (and they tend to me the ones capable of leaving) to make this negative for the country.

Its a balancing act, taxing them as much as possible without making it attractive for them to leave

For the record, these figures are utter nonsense. Do the calculations -> A person earning gross of 100k pays 'only' 30 to 40k MAX depending on their marital status. Do people not understand that there are various tax break points which means that you don't just apply the highest rate of tax to the total gross. The total tax amount paid is made up by the tax contribution at each rate.

Granted this adds more fuel to your stats but your basic assumption about the impact of someone leaving this country to avoid having to pay an extra few k in taxes is nuts. If an employee leaves a country, they are REPLACED by a new tax payer. If the candidate pool is limited then this could have a knock-on effect down the line and ultimately result in someone coming off social welfare if someone is promoted near the top level.

I'm not saying that taxing the rich is the way to go but does anyone seriously know of someone on 100k who actually would leave the country if they had to pay an extra few k taxes. The only type of person I can think of is a single person with no ties here and who is very money focussed. Seriously, imagine a situation where a husband comes home to the wife after the budget saying 'Darling, we're gonna have to up sticks, the gov's wants to rob an extra few k from me.' There's more to life than money for those that have it. Perhaps though politicians can be excluded from this generalisation.