Why has this not been done yet?

MrThrifty

MrThrifty wrote: »

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.

Regardless of leaving the country or not why do you think its fair for someone earning 100k to have to pay a new even higher rate of tax to further subsidise those on lower incomes or drawing the dole.

Also back to paying a few more k in tax. You must be crazy if you think just because people earn more that they are happy to pay a few more k in tax. It mightent be enough to make them all leave the country but it will drive them crazy and its totally unfair. They got themselves into a position in which they earn a high salary surely they should be allowed to enjoy this money rather than being raped in tax on it.

You also have to remember people on higher wages will generally be living in a way which reflects this, i.e. have a more expensive lifestyle than those on a lower salary so they may feel the reduction in salary just as much as anyone else especially if its a crazy exaggerated tax rate they are expected to pay.

MrThrifty

Guillermo Quaint Airline wrote: »

Regardless of leaving the country or not why do you think its fair for someone earning 100k to have to pay a new even higher rate of tax to further subsidise those on lower incomes or drawing the dole.

Read my post - I do not necessarily think it's fair, but it is necessary at the moment to an extent.

Guillermo Quaint Airline wrote: »

Also back to paying a few more k in tax. You must be crazy if you think just because people earn more that they are happy to pay a few more k in tax. It mightent be enough to make them all leave the country but it will drive them crazy and its totally unfair. They got themselves into a position in which they earn a high salary surely they should be allowed to enjoy this money rather than being raped in tax on it.

Drive them crazy, really? What may irritate them alright are things like the current dole payment amount etc. but I would think that were this reduced or better distributed, they would be grand about it. Bottom line is that the books need to be balanced at the end of the day...

Guillermo Quaint Airline wrote: »

You also have to remember people on higher wages will generally be living in a way which reflects this, i.e. have a more expensive lifestyle than those on a lower salary so they may feel the reduction in salary just as much as anyone else especially if its a crazy exaggerated tax rate they are expected to pay.

Hmmm... Do you know anyone on the kind of money in question? I do and trust me, it would not affect them in the slightest apart from reducing the amount they have available to save or invest. One such person was suggesting before the budget that there was scope to increase the income tax rates. Regardless, let's just take the easier option of reducing something like disability allowance instead. Yes, that's much more acceptable.

Olivia O'Leary had a very good piece yesterday on RTE about the budget - it was spot on. People should listen to it. Her comments on the real effect of free college fees for the middle-class in society, while unwelcome, were also bang on from my experience...

TerrorFirmer

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.

complete and utter ****e of the highest order. i know the internet is full of all sorts but this takes the biscuit.

Plazaman

Hello. Today I'll be the Devils Advocat, nice to meet you.

Why should the higher paid workers be taxed more? Just because they can afford it is not really an acceptable answer and smacks of good old fashioned begrudgery.

Suppose I earn €137,000 per year. Using this little puppy, it shows me that I'll pay €41,632 in Tax and a further €8,909 on the Universal Social Charge. I went to school, university studied hard blah blah blah and from my first job, worked hard all my life to go up the ladder to where I am now.

My Tax Band is the first €45,400 @ 20% with the Balance @ 41% But for my €41,632 tax (where nearly two thirds of my income is taxed at 21% higher), I don't get any services (that tax is meant to pay for) 21% better than the average Joe. I don't get 21% of special road usage, the water doesn't flow out of my taps 21% quicker and the teachers at my kids school don't spend 21% more time with them. Why should I have to pay more?

/End Devils Advocate Speech

I do agree though that Bertie, Biffo and their ilk should get a Max Tax (see what I did there) on their cushy pensions because they didn't earn it IMO.

Ray Palmer

THe high earns already pay more tax than others why penalise them for their success? I don't think anybody should have to pay more than 50% on any part of their income it fundamentally seems unfair as they are earning it.

There is an old story where a campaigner comes out and say anybody has two cows we will take one of them and given to those who have no cows.

The crowd listening cheers

THe speech continues anybody who has two two pigs will have one taken off them and shared with those who have no pigs.

The crowd cheer once again.

THe speech goes on and states anybody who has two chikens will have a chiken taken off them and shared with those who have no chickens.

THe crowd are silent and then start booing.

You see most people in the crowd had two cickens. All well and good to say others should pay but the top earnes are paying their posrtion and more than you already. The logic some people seem to have is becasue they make more money they should pay more. The reality is they do already.

MrThrifty

MrThrifty wrote: »

Drive them crazy, really? What may irritate them alright are things like the current dole payment amount etc. but I would think that were this reduced or better distributed, they would be grand about it. Bottom line is that the books need to be balanced at the end of the day...


Hmmm... Do you know anyone on the kind of money in question? Hmmm... Do you know anyone on the kind of money in question? I do and trust me, it would not affect them in the slightest apart from reducing the amount they have available to save or invest.

I work with a number of people earning 100k+ they are constantly complaining about the amount they have to pay in taxes and levies already never mind if it was increased more.

But having money to save and invest is one of the reasons people got themselves into a position to be earning a high salary in the first place, if advantages like this are taken away why would people put in the effort to get into these positions in the first place.

Personally I am spending a lot more years studying than most in order to get certain qualifications I earn very little while others have been working years on decent money. I would be looking at starting on pretty good money after I finish and working towards salarys (no guarantee I will get there or anything) which would fall under this suggested extra high tax bracket and the thought of working hard and getting there only to hand loads of it back makes my blood boil.

Sykk

What bugs me most are the '99%' clowns..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdLa6c3hN1w

If you want the rich to be taxed even more here's some logic.

MrThrifty

Guillermo Quaint Airline wrote: »

I work with a number of people earning 100k+ they are constantly complaining about the amount they have to pay in taxes and levy's already never mind if it was increased more.

But having money to save and invest is one of the reasons people got themselves into a position to be earning a high salary in the first place, if advantages like this are taken away why would people put in the effort to get into these positions in the first place.

I presume they're just complaining personally in front of you and not co-workers on a fraction of their salary?!

Anyway, I'm not saying that taking more tax from those earning >100k is the best thing to do for the economy - I'm just making the point that it's my impression that they can well afford it and (in my experience) would not be too bothered by it. In terms of why people would put the effort to get into any high paying position in the first place, well it's still high-paying at the end of the day. It's not like all the extra salary one gets in accepting a promotion and related payrise is totally taken away as tax. Say if someone moves from 75k to 100k gross in accepting a promotion from a senior level to management, that person would still be better off by a 5 figure sum in terms of their net income!

And despite what people seem to be implying, it's not all about money -> I find many people on these sorts of salaries are motivated by other factors (status, accomplishment, challenge, personal satisfaction etc. etc.).

MrThrifty

MrThrifty wrote: »

I presume they're just complaining personally in front of you and not co-workers on a fraction of their salary?!

Well I am on a tiny fraction of their salary as currently I am working with them as part of my studies rather than being an actual co-worker.

By the way what I'm trying to say is that people on higher salaries complain no more or less than those at any other level, I'm not trying to say they feel more hard done by or anything in general although they do feel that they are expected to pay an unfair percentage of their earnings in tax compared to people on lower incomes. Especially considering a lot of them have created a lot of jobs in Ireland due to their expertise and reputation.

MrThrifty

I'm fed up arguing... Put us in a government budget decision-making role in a room together and I'm sure we'd easily agree on better ways to save money in the first place through unpleasant decisions that those in power at the moment choose not to take...

Where's my government punch bag when I need it!

Procasinator

You don't increase income tax.

It all comes down to disposable income. Disposable income is money available to spend. And When people spend money, it creates jobs.

So what you want to encourage spending. How do you that?

Some ways:

• Leave income tax alone. Check - Budget 2012.
• Low interest rates, so the money made on savings is less then inflation (hence it might make more sense to spend the money). Check.
• Increase DIRT so that sitting on savings is even less attractive. Check -Budget 2012.

Other changes such reduction of top stamp duty and capital gains tax incentive are also designed to encourage high-spending in properties.

I know spending got us into problems in the first (mainly due to spending other peoples money) but spending will also makes things better.

If you increased Income Tax, you think the Government can create more jobs than private interests. While the Government can have successful initiatives, many of you would go to criticise the public sector and it's wastages. That, and a lot of money collected will be spent on the deficit rather than being injected back into the economy (i.e. create jobs).

Glenster

Take into account USC and PRSI.....

Its about 55% for higher earners.

Maybe we should refocus our anger on scumbags who contribute nothing, and leave the people who are paying for your roads and child benefit alone.

Glenster

Plazaman wrote: »

Hello. Today I'll be the Devils Advocat, nice to meet you.

Hi Devil's Advocat I'm Lucifer's schnapps. The pleasure is all mine I'm sure.

Glenster

Glenster wrote: »

Advocat

totally OT but we were only talking about that drink last night and trying to remember the name of it!! mad I tell ya, mad!

K-9

Procasinator wrote: »

You don't increase income tax.

It all comes down to disposable income. Disposable income is money available to spend. And When people spend money, it creates jobs.

So what you want to encourage spending. How do you that?

Some ways:

• Leave income tax alone. Check - Budget 2012.
• Low interest rates, so the money made on savings is less then inflation (hence it might make more sense to spend the money). Check.
• Increase DIRT so that sitting on savings is even less attractive. Check -Budget 2012.

Other changes such reduction of top stamp duty and capital gains tax incentive are also designed to encourage high-spending in properties.

I know spending got us into problems in the first (mainly due to spending other peoples money) but spending will also makes things better.

If you increased Income Tax, you think the Government can create more jobs than private interests. While the Government can have successful initiatives, many of you would go to criticise the public sector and it's wastages. That, and a lot of money collected will be spent on the deficit rather than being injected back into the economy (i.e. create jobs).

People forget they have increased Income taxes anyway, by introducing the 7% USC and that is classified as an Income Tax, PRSI is different. They also reduced Income tax credits previously and then left them static. Another change was making the USC and PRSI on all wages income, there used to be no PRSI over about 75k, just a small levy.

Once you start having 52/55% taxes it is starting to get to German or Nordic levels with nowhere near the services that they get.

Tbh I don't think the attempt to stoke the property market is going to work that great. They seem to be following the McCreevy example of cutting CGT and hope it increases revenues. Difference is we've a recession and a credit crisis.

Budgets have also been more about tax increases in the last couple of years. The cuts to expenditure are going to really hurt SW and services from now on, there isn't much alternative.

Robdude

Guy A: Works his ass off and makes 100k. Pays the highest tax rate and contributes the most to taxes

Guy B: Works hard. Maybe he didn't have the same opportunities, maybe he doesn't care about money. He makes 60k and enjoys his free time. He pays a lot in taxes, but significantly less than A (in percentage and total amount).

Guy C: Might work hard. Or he might be a bit of a screw up. Maybe he doesn't care about money or whatever. His choice, and I respect that. He makes 35k. He doesn't pay very much in taxes, even though he'll tell you he does. He still gets all the same benefits as Guy A and B - and is arguably, more likely to use services funded by tax dollars. In terms of money in and money it - the country is probably breaking even on a Guy C. He might even be an immigrant.

Guy Works some crappy job. Maybe off and on. Maybe he never really had direction or motivation to get a better job. Maybe he made some bad choices or life dealt him a bad hand and he couldn't overcome it. Or maybe he's lazy. Whatever. Still, that's not a judgement on him, everyone is free to follow their own path. But, while he does pay some taxes, the amount he pays isn't enough. He's still an economic drain on the country. Even though he gets the same government services as the other guys (like police and roads and schools) - he's not paying enough to fund them.

Guy E: Makes a career out of collecting government services. Might have children he can't afford. Uses more tax programs than the others. Gets paid to stay home. Gets everything the other guys get *and* more. Is a net drain on the economy.

I think it's funny that given these five people - there are some out there who will say, 'SCREW GUY A! RAISE HIS TAXES! '

laugh

If you raise the taxes on higher income, the Facebook, Google, Amazon, Activision, EA etc etc employees might start encouraging their employers to locate them somewhere else . . .

Solnskaya

johnr1 wrote: »

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.

Yeah, rock on tommy. LOL. Good man.:D You go, Gal. I'd have no idea anyway:D

Irish Steve

So what's the answer?

Do away with cash, paper notes and coin, and move to a completely electronic currency. Instantly, we need no banks, and all the hassles they cause, we no longer have cash in transit raids, or tiger kidnapping, and things like the drug trade, and lot of other criminal activity stop very rapidly, as if the only way to spend cash is via a traceable and completely open system, there's no way to launder money, and many other things related to crime are no longer possible.

Imagine the possibility of no more brown envelopes. No more under the table deals for cash, Taxation would then be seen to be fair, in that if there's no cash to be able to hide in the matress, or where ever, there's no way to fiddle the system.

Yes, there would be downsides, but right now, in comparison to many of the problems we have at present, I'm not sure they are so serious, and they could be dealt with a lot more simply than some of the problems we see now. Lots of people would be very unhappy, as the black economy would be dead overnight, and double jobbing and the like would be no longer attractive in the same way,

We wouldn't need so many complex tax rules and systems, as financial openness would be much easier, and schemes to prevent fraud and the like would not have to be so complex.

Over simplistic? Maybe, maybe not, the old systems seem to be no longer viable, and perhaps this is the time to look a lot more closely at how society overall is going to progress?

If nothing else, it might mean that a lot of Civil servants could be employed in activities that earn revenue for the state, rather than costing the state revenue? I could live with that.

Steve

eth0

Irish Steve wrote: »

So what's the answer?

Do away with cash, paper notes and coin, and move to a completely electronic currency. Instantly, we need no banks, and all the hassles they cause, we no longer have cash in transit raids, or tiger kidnapping, and things like the drug trade, and lot of other criminal activity stop very rapidly, as if the only way to spend cash is via a traceable and completely open system, there's no way to launder money, and many other things related to crime are no longer possible.

Imagine the possibility of no more brown envelopes. No more under the table deals for cash, Taxation would then be seen to be fair, in that if there's no cash to be able to hide in the matress, or where ever, there's no way to fiddle the system.

Yes, there would be downsides, but right now, in comparison to many of the problems we have at present, I'm not sure they are so serious, and they could be dealt with a lot more simply than some of the problems we see now. Lots of people would be very unhappy, as the black economy would be dead overnight, and double jobbing and the like would be no longer attractive in the same way,

We wouldn't need so many complex tax rules and systems, as financial openness would be much easier, and schemes to prevent fraud and the like would not have to be so complex.

Over simplistic? Maybe, maybe not, the old systems seem to be no longer viable, and perhaps this is the time to look a lot more closely at how society overall is going to progress?

If nothing else, it might mean that a lot of Civil servants could be employed in activities that earn revenue for the state, rather than costing the state revenue? I could live with that.

Steve

The black market will thrive if this happens. People wanting to get away from the big brother of it all will trade physical goods with certain things becoming bargaining chips. Like I'd give someone a used chip pan for a roide off their ma for example. If their ma was good looking they'd get the new chip pan instead

johnr1

Solnskaya wrote: »

I'd have no idea anyway

Yes, that's exactly what I said.

If you post shyte, don't be surprised when someone calls it for what it is.