The tax saver scheme transfers wealth from the poor to the rich

delad

High earners pay less for their public transport than lower paid workers. At the very least high earners should be paying the same as low earners.

I'm not saying high earners should get no tax relief if they pay for an annual ticket, they should get some tax relief as an incentive to buy an annual ticket, but this farce of a scheme needs to be revised immediately as its way too generous to high earners. Its a left over from the days of bent Bertie, and I can't for the life of me figure out why it is still in place.

Amending it would be such an easy and obvious way to raise a hundred million in tax per year.

Of course all the high earners will flood this thread saying how if this scheme was scrapped they would get a car, but this will be nothing but bluster, not too many can afford a car these days and not too many want to spend hours a day in traffic jams.

eth0

Very soon there will be absolutely no reason at all to try and become a high earner in the first place.

No need to fleece them any more than they already are. Nearly half your income on tax before you even see it, private health insurance, property tax and what have you and all the stress that usually goes along with these jobs? Feck it might as well be on minimum wage for the council where nobody gives a damn about your 'decisions'

dotsman

Everybody pays the same for the ticket, regardless of income. There is zero transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich. I can only assume you are a socialist, as the nonsense in your post wreaks of it.

There is already a transfer of wealth from the rich to the poor taking place via the fact that the higher tax payers are subsidising the public transport for those who cannot afford it.

If you want to get rid of tax-deductions, then I say, let's lower taxes and get rid of subsidies and that everybody, regardless of age or income pays the same (after all, they are using the same service).

UCDVet

delad wrote: »

High earners pay less for their public transport than lower paid workers. At the very least high earners should be paying the same as low earners.

I'm not saying high earners should get no tax relief if they pay for an annual ticket, they should get some tax relief as an incentive to buy an annual ticket, but this farce of a scheme needs to be revised immediately as its way too generous to high earners. Its a left over from the days of bent Bertie, and I can't for the life of me figure out why it is still in place.

Amending it would be such an easy and obvious way to raise a hundred million in tax per year.

Of course all the high earners will flood this thread saying how if this scheme was scrapped they would get a car, but this will be nothing but bluster, not too many can afford a car these days and not too many want to spend hours a day in traffic jams.

It only 'favors' high income earners because the tax system favors low income earners.

average_runner

delad wrote: »

High earners pay less for their public transport than lower paid workers. At the very least high earners should be paying the same as low earners.

I'm not saying high earners should get no tax relief if they pay for an annual ticket, they should get some tax relief as an incentive to buy an annual ticket, but this farce of a scheme needs to be revised immediately as its way too generous to high earners. Its a left over from the days of bent Bertie, and I can't for the life of me figure out why it is still in place.

Amending it would be such an easy and obvious way to raise a hundred million in tax per year.

Of course all the high earners will flood this thread saying how if this scheme was scrapped they would get a car, but this will be nothing but bluster, not too many can afford a car these days and not too many want to spend hours a day in traffic jams.

So 36000 is a high earner?

UCDVet

dotsman wrote: »

Everybody pays the same for the ticket, regardless of income. There is zero transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich. I can only assume you are a socialist, as the nonsense in your post wreaks of it.

There is already a transfer of wealth from the rich to the poor taking place via the fact that the higher tax payers are subsidising the public transport for those who cannot afford it.

If you want to get rid of tax-deductions, then I say, let's lower taxes and get rid of subsidies and that everybody, regardless of age or income pays the same (after all, they are using the same service).

Personally I hate the damn 'student discount' tickets. What a farce that is.

College kids have more disposable income than many, and they are going to college. That makes them many times more likely to be financially secure in the future. Some poor guy working his butt off near minimum wage has less to spend and less earning potential - but he's stuck paying full-price while well-to-do college kids sleep in til 9am, sit in class until 2pm, and manage to get pissed 3 nights a week get a hefty discount.

delad

dotsman wrote: »

Everybody pays the same for the ticket, regardless of income.

no they don't, you clearly don't know what you are talking about. Go to taxsaver.ie, put in the price of any ticket, put in a high salary and then put in a low salary, and you'll see that high earners get much more tax relief than lower earners. For a yearly train ticket etc, they will be paying about 400 euro a year less than someone who earns less than them. What a farce.

dotsman

delad wrote: »

no they don't, you clearly don't know what you are talking about. Go to taxsaver.ie, put in the price of any ticket, put in a high salary and then put in a low salary, and you'll see that high earners get much more tax relief than lower earners. For a yearly train ticket etc, they will be paying about 400 euro a year less than someone who earns less than them. What a farce.

They pay the exact same for the ticket. A tax deduction is just that - a deduction in the amount of tax that a person pays. The average higher-rate taxpayer is still paying far more in tax than the average lower-rate taxpayer.

smash

Bs thread to be honest

Anita Blow

UCDVet wrote: »

Personally I hate the damn 'student discount' tickets. What a farce that is.

College kids have more disposable income than many, and they are going to college. That makes them many times more likely to be financially secure in the future. Some poor guy working his butt off near minimum wage has less to spend and less earning potential - but he's stuck paying full-price while well-to-do college kids sleep in til 9am, sit in class until 2pm, and manage to get pissed 3 nights a week get a hefty discount.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-vi-GuWQpzmk/UCafZ_1HdeI/AAAAAAAAETM/dePecRnbDs4/s1600/Spiderman-that-post-gave-me-cancer.jpg
Keep your generalisations to your self. Neither I nor many of my friends in college have this huge disposable income you talk about. I'm between 2 campuses so use public transport sometimes 4 times daily without having a job. Those student discounts make all the difference.

delad

dotsman wrote: »

They pay the exact same for the ticket. A tax deduction is just that - a deduction in the amount of tax that a person pays. The average higher-rate taxpayer is still paying far more in tax than the average lower-rate taxpayer.

Yes they are paying more tax because they are earning more money, that makes sense. What doesn't make sense is why their tax reduction for buying a service is much more than someone who earns less than them?

Its like going to rent an apartment, and being told if you earn 60,000 a year the rent will be 1,000 a month but if you earn 35,000 a year the rent will be 2,000 a month. It makes absolutely no sense. It defies logic in every way, the only people to defend it will be high earners.

3ndahalfof6

The sooner the Mayan prediction comes true the better, I just hope they don't let us down.

eth0

If twas up to me I'd get everyone a free travel pass, put on a few more trains, re-open a few lines.

We'd all be better off in the long run, if it was done right it would put a serious dent in the amount of pollution. Less money going to the Arabs for fuel and what have you.

dotsman

delad wrote: »

Yes they are paying more tax because they are earning more money, that makes sense. What doesn't make sense is why their tax reduction for buying a service is much more than someone who earns less than them?

Its like going to rent an apartment, and being told if you earn 60,000 a year the rent will be 1,000 a month but if you earn 35,000 a year the rent will be 2,000 a month. It makes absolutely no sense. It defies logic in every way, the only people to defend it will be high earners.

You don't really understand the concept of tax (and tax deductions) etc do you?

You do realise that taxation was never meant to be a charity (although it unfortunately very much has become so).

delad

dotsman wrote: »

You don't really understand the concept of tax (and tax deductions) etc do you?

You do realise that taxation was never meant to be a charity (although it unfortunately very much has become so).

Yes i understand the concept well, and as a low income earner i loathe the fact that the cost of my yearly train ticket is 910 euro, yet if I earned double what I earn now, then my yearly ticket would only be 633 euro. What a messed up country we are.

househero

Are you getting a tax rebate on your annual ticket?

smash

delad wrote: »

dotsman wrote: »

You don't really understand the concept of tax (and tax deductions) etc do you?

You do realise that taxation was never meant to be a charity (although it unfortunately very much has become so).

Yes i understand the concept well, and as a low income earner i loathe the fact that the cost of my yearly train ticket is 1100 euro, yet if I earned double what I earn now, then my yearly ticket would only be 700 euro. What a messed up country we are.

You'd also contribute a hell of a lot more to the country. Therefor you'd deserve the discount.

Chuck Stone

JFC here we go again with the fallacies and propaganda.

dotsman wrote: »

You don't really understand the concept of tax (and tax deductions) etc do you?

Actually, he's closer to reality of taxation and contribution than you and here's why.

If you have high earnings then you have a greater stake in the smooth running of the state/society so you should pay more - Adam Smith (The widely lauded Father of economics and Capitalism) explains below.

The expense of government to the individuals of a great nation is like the expense of management to the joint tenants of a great estate, who are all obliged to contribute in proportion to their respective interests in the estate.

Adam Smith

Also, the notion that high earners pay the most income tax is a horribly reductive. High earners pay a greater proportion of their taxes in income tax but focussing on income tax (and wages) alone is very convenient because it is a 'letter box view' of taxation. Creating this image of the burden of tax being on the rich in the mind of the public is a testament to right-wing propaganda.

The public are hit with all sorts of taxes and flat charges. Petrol, consumer goods, alcohol, tobacco, TV licence, fines etc are all levied at a flat rate. How much people pay in taxes should be calculated as the sum total percentage of their wage* that gets taxed by income taxes and the cost of living.

*Now if we're to consider wealth instead of income as a measure of how someone should contribute then the wealthier you are the less proportionately you pay. Property tax is an attempt to tax wealth rather than income - you can't hide property offshore or with 'creative' accounting.

average_runner

average_runner wrote: »

So 36000 is a high earner?

I think they changed it down to 32k at the last/second last budget

32k rolling in it woo :rolleyes:

Cuddlesworth

Chuck Stone wrote: »

If you have high earnings then you have a greater stake in the smooth running of the state/society so you should pay more - Adam Smith (The widely lauded Father of economics and Capitalism) explains below.

The 1700's Adam Smith? I think you should look at his comments in the context of his time.

UCDVet

Anita Blow wrote: »

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-vi-GuWQpzmk/UCafZ_1HdeI/AAAAAAAAETM/dePecRnbDs4/s1600/Spiderman-that-post-gave-me-cancer.jpg
Keep your generalisations to your self. Neither I nor many of my friends in college have this huge disposable income you talk about. I'm between 2 campuses so use public transport sometimes 4 times daily without having a job. Those student discounts make all the difference.

Did you really just tell me to keep my generalizations to myself while immediately offering up your own? :rolleyes:

There are plenty of non-students who are poor too - but they don't get discounts and they won't have a college education in a few years with better job prospects and lower unemployment rates.

Also - why are you taking public transportation four times per day? Must be nice to have that much free time during the day. Not many workers have that luxury.

Chuck Stone

bluewolf wrote: »

I think they changed it down to 32k at the last/second last budget

Really? That's ridiculous.

I thought it would be more like 80K or something around that.

Chuck Stone

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Really? That's ridiculous.

I thought it would be more like 80K or something around that.

Lower tax band is up to 32.8k, then it's up to the higher band

dotsman

delad wrote: »

Yes i understand the concept well, and as a low income earner i loathe the fact that the cost of my yearly train ticket is 1100 euro, yet if I earned double what I earn now, then my yearly ticket would only be 700 euro. What a messed up country we are.

And if you earned double what you earn now, you would end up paying far more in tax, yet receive the exact same service.

The whole concept of tax is that "everybody chips in pay for the communal stuff". However, because some people can only afford to chip in a little (or nothing at all), rather than reduce the amount that we chip in to the lowest common denominator (resulting in little to no public services), we ask those with money to spare to cover those with less/nothing.

The whole concept of a tax deduction is that when deciding "how much money a person has to spare", we look at the amount of money they have left after covering the basics. Thus, countries typically allow things such as public transport costs, medical bills, rent, mortgage interest, charitable donations, education costs etc to be tax deductible.

Therefore, assuming 2 people, both single employees of the same age, renting and commuting by DART, but one earning €30K and another earning €60K, pay very different amounts of tax, despite living the exact same lives and using the "communal stuff" to the exact same extent.

|| Person A | Person B
Income||

30,000

|

60,000

Less Deductions|||
|Rent|

1,200

|

1,200

|Annual Dart Ticket|

1,240

|

1,240

Taxable income||

27,560

|

57,560

Tax|||
|

@20%

|

5,512

|

6,560

|

@41%

||

11,152

USC|

@07%

|

1,929

|

4,029

Subtotal||

7,441

|

21,741

Less Credits|||
Personal Tax Credit||

1,650

|

1,650

Personal Tax Credit||

1,650

|

1,650

TAX Liability||

4,141

|

18,441

So, despite earning only twice as much as Person A, and using the exact same services, with no special treatment or benefits, Person B pays 4.5 times as much tax.

And you call that a transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich...


I weep for the future of Ireland if she doesn't start loosening the grip that illogical socialism has on her.

delad

delad wrote: »

........... What a messed up country we are.

Indeed, people working there balls off and paying loads of tax than they splash out on rent etc whereas lots of people on the scratch in a subsidised house (paying tiny rent) with very little stress etc....

I do so love the argument "why should they pay more when they use no more services?". If that's actually being put forward as an argument then why not just cut to the chase and say you're against taxes altogether.

melekalikimaka

delad wrote: »

What a messed up country we are.

i think you need to get onto the back to education scheme

vintagevrs

It is clear why the higher earner "saves" more.

It is the same principle as the cycle to work scheme. You get tax relief on the product, in this case it is a travel ticket. If I pay 40% tax and someone else pays 20% tax how are they going to get more relief?

Both high earners and low earners pay the same out of their gross pay before the tax man touches it.

Anita Blow

UCDVet wrote: »

Did you really just tell me to keep my generalizations to myself while immediately offering up your own? :rolleyes:

Could you highlight the generalisations I made in my post?
I didn't speak about workers because I am not one. I spoke as a student and defended myself and others against the stupid steroetypes you threw out.

UCDVet wrote: »

There are plenty of non-students who are poor too - but they don't get discounts and they won't have a college education in a few years with better job prospects and lower unemployment rates.

They do get discounts. There's weekly/monthly/Travel90 tickets available for those who commute regularly.
Also I don't get what future prospects and unemployment rates have to do with this at all? Just sounds like your bitter against students. It's a small discount ffs.

UCDVet wrote: »

Also - why are you taking public transportation four times per day? Must be nice to have that much free time during the day. Not many workers have that luxury.

You're mad for the assumptions of people you don't know aren't you.
I have lectures in 2 different locations. I forgot I have loads of free time. Could you remind me how long my days are? You know, since you seem to already know so much about me? Hint-

I'm 9-5 tomorrow with a 1 hour break, without the benefit of having an income from it

Times must be tough if getting the bus 4 times a day is considered a luxury.

Carlos Orange

Little known fact, I made my first million by getting the bus to work.

househero

I shall point out that a FAIR system would not offer deductions at all.

The level of tax could be lower for all, you would be free to spend your increased income as you please. And the government would reduce their wage bill as no body would have to look after the now non existent rebates.

I do not travel on trains and I do not get a rebate on my travel. I assume you are getting a tax rebate on your 'low earner' income train ticket, you should not be getting a refund at all. My tax contribution is subsidizing your travel, both in your rebate AND the inefficient state subsidized method of travel you have chosen.

kodoherty93

What's the point of old people having free travel. They have been pretty much insulated from the recession. For example the Sunday business post 3 weeks ago reported that a oap couple pays 7.5% tax on €75,000 euro of income.

A student which nowadays most likely doesn't have a job due to the economy has to pay €17.20 for a 5 day bus ticket. That's not ****iing fair

Carlos Orange

househero wrote: »

I shall point out that a FAIR system would not offer deductions at all.

The level of tax could be lower for all, you would be free to spend your increased income as you please. And the government would reduce their wage bill as no body would have to look after the now non existent rebates.

I do not travel on trains and I do not get a rebate on my travel. I assume you are getting a tax rebate on your 'low earner' income train ticket, you should not be getting a refund at all. My tax contribution is subsidizing your travel, both in your rebate AND the inefficient state subsidized method of travel you have chosen.

Are taxes supposed to be fair? If they were they should probably stop taking my taxes and subsidizing the lifestyles of wasters.


I only 15% believe that but maybe a little tiny bit more after reading this thread.

househero

psinno wrote: »

Are taxes supposed to be fair? If they were they should probably stop taking my taxes and subsidizing the lifestyles of wasters

Yes and yes.


If tax was a flat % then high earners would pay more and the poor less. No deductions should be allowed. And yes it would be fair.

Tax's should be lower. And the government should be smaller.

Jimoslimos

UCDVet wrote: »

Personally I hate the damn 'student discount' tickets. What a farce that is.

Hate them so much you have to buy two, eh?

Chuck Stone

bluewolf wrote: »

Lower tax band is up to 32.8k, then it's up to the higher band

Well yeah but that's not the benchmark for what is a high earner

surely?

Chuck Stone

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Well yeah but that's not the benchmark for what is a high earner

surely?

The whole premise of the thread is the tax relief based on two tax bands and calling the members of the higher band "high earners", no?
And our agreement, mine and average_runner's, is that the OP is mistaken in thinking someone earning 32k is a "high earner"

Chuck Stone

bluewolf wrote: »

The whole premise of the thread is the tax relief based on two tax bands and calling the members of the higher band "high earners", no?

Right, just reread the thread.

And our agreement, mine and average_runner's, is that the OP is mistaken in thinking someone earning 32k is a "high earner"

I'd agree with that. Definitely not a high earner in any reasonable person's books.