Targeting individuals in law

Carawaystick

There's been some comment about certain commercial semi-state companies taking investment monies from the state and putting that into the semi states pension fund to pay large pensions to people who may have contributed to the semi state needing state investment

In general, what might be the limits of targeting a very small pool of people via taxation, particularly where the tax is fairly clearly aimed at circumventing a poor contract a person has entered into?


I guess if a new high marginal rate of income tax with a very high cut off point that only affected say a dozen people was introduced, that might be ok, but if at the same threshold a flat tax rate took say 95% off a dozen people's incomes it might not be quite so OK


Basically I'm asking if a tax could be applied to a select few, under certain contrived circumstances, or does thee neeed to be some broader principle brought to bear?

I'm mindful of the exception that govt ministers don't have to pay the household charge, and there are strict limits on the number of them ( thank the maker)

ResearchWill

Carawaystick wrote: »

There's been some comment about certain commercial semi-state companies taking investment monies from the state and putting that into the semi states pension fund to pay large pensions to people who may have contributed to the semi state needing state investment

In general, what might be the limits of targeting a very small pool of people via taxation, particularly where the tax is fairly clearly aimed at circumventing a poor contract a person has entered into?


I guess if a new high marginal rate of income tax with a very high cut off point that only affected say a dozen people was introduced, that might be ok, but if at the same threshold a flat tax rate took say 95% off a dozen people's incomes it might not be quite so OK


Basically I'm asking if a tax could be applied to a select few, under certain contrived circumstances, or does thee neeed to be some broader principle brought to bear?

I'm mindful of the exception that govt ministers don't have to pay the household charge, and there are strict limits on the number of them ( thank the maker)

I'm lost in relation to what you are saying to be honest other than maybe 12 prople should or could pay 95% tax those 12 people earning in excess of I would guess 100 million a year.

The only issue I want to comment on is government ministers the exception they enjoy under the household charge only relates to property they hold in their official role. In other words the Minister for Justice pays the house hold charge on his own and any investment properties he holds as a private citizen, while he is not liable for any household charge in relation to let's say any home he owns as minister for justice an example bring houses all over the country occupied by members of AGS or the DF as its silly the state collecting money from itself.

Victor

What organisations are you talking about?

Carawaystick wrote: »

There's been some comment about certain commercial semi-state companies taking investment monies from the state and putting that into the semi states pension fund to pay large pensions to people who may have contributed to the semi state needing state investment

Do you mean the traditional semi-state sector or the banks where the state now has large shareholdings?

In general, what might be the limits of targeting a very small pool of people via taxation, particularly where the tax is fairly clearly aimed at circumventing a poor contract a person has entered into?

Potentially, the targets could claim victimisation and demand to be treated equally under the constitution.

I guess if a new high marginal rate of income tax with a very high cut off point that only affected say a dozen people was introduced, that might be ok, but if at the same threshold a flat tax rate took say 95% off a dozen people's incomes it might not be quite so OK

How many people in semi-state companies earn more than €500,000?, never mind the €50 million+ that you are suggesting?

I'm mindful of the exception that govt ministers don't have to pay the household charge, and there are strict limits on the number of them

I think you are genuinely confused.

ResearchWill wrote: »

The only issue I want to comment on is government ministers the exception they enjoy under the household charge only relates to property they hold in their official role. In other words the Minister for Justice pays the house hold charge on his own and any investment properties he holds as a private citizen,

Agreed.

while he is not liable for any household charge in relation to let's say any home he owns as minister for justice an example bring houses all over the country occupied by members of AGS or the DF as its silly the state collecting money from itself.

I disagree, the household charge goes to councils, not the government.

ResearchWill

Victor wrote: »

What organisations are you talking about?Do you mean the traditional semi-state sector or the banks where the state now has large shareholdings?

Potentially, the targets could claim victimisation and demand to be treated equally under the constitution.

How many people in semi-state companies earn more than €500,000?, never mind the €50 million+ that you are suggesting?

I think you are genuinely confused.

Agreed.

I disagree, the household charge goes to councils, not the government.

But I did not say the Government I said the State. So one arm of the State LA's collecting money from another arm say the Minister for Health so a third arm the minister for finance gives the first arm less money every year.

MagicSean

Carawaystick wrote: »

I'm mindful of the exception that govt ministers don't have to pay the household charge, and there are strict limits on the number of them ( thank the maker)

I would have thought this had been properly explained to everyone at this stage. I guess some people just believe what they want.

I get the impression the op is talking about the highly paid bank execs whose salaries can't be reduced due to existing contracts.

First of all, I don't believe their contracts could not have been renegotiated at the time of the bailout.

Second, you cannot aim a tax at a particular person. You can target specific types of income though.

Indricotherium

Carawaystick wrote: »

I guess if a new high marginal rate of income tax with a very high cut off point that only affected say a dozen people was introduced, that might be ok, but if at the same threshold a flat tax rate took say 95% off a dozen people's incomes it might not be quite so OK


Basically I'm asking if a tax could be applied to a select few, under certain contrived circumstances, or does thee neeed to be some broader principle brought to bear?

The practical applicatioon of laws like this are the bit that really lose me.

Anyone with an income in the 100's of millions certainly has the resources to move it around and avoid tax regimes like the one suggested.

You don't get that rich sitting around letting governments take 95% of your income.