Tax system fair?

Ush1

summerskin wrote: »

No, not penalise them, make them pay their way. Tax should be the same level for all wage earners. Why should I pay a higher percentage of my earnings than those people I employ? Why should employers be punished when they create jobs that then of course create more taxable incomes for the government?

Should be a flat 35% tax rate on all earnings by everyone. Why should people in better paid jobs be punished for furthering their careers while lower paid workers often get away scot-free?

Basically because they can. In a working democracy tax is imperitive and the less better off in society get brought to a level by the better off.

The less propping up that happens the bigger the divide between the rich and poor.

get_even

Dravokivich wrote: »

The main problem is, those who provide for the state, don't get as much in return from the state.

As mentioned by some above who receive little to no benefits because they are single and supporting a family, yet cohabiting.

you will always find some area where an imbalance exists , no system is perfect , a flat tax is a pretty decent way of equalising things IMO

get_even

Ush1 wrote: »

Basically because they can. In a working democracy tax is imperitive and the less better off in society get brought to a level by the better off.

The less propping up that happens the bigger the divide between the rich and poor.

that sounds like it involves too much state control

Ray Palmer

Ush1 wrote: »

You're not just gonna give up on making any more money because at some stage you cross over a tax threshold?

I stop working at a certain point due to tax. There is a tipping point where I just say I'd prefer the day off than pay 45% on the days earnings.
You earn more here you both pay a higher % tax and amount.
The view of social welfare and tax has always been unfair. But you can get married to address that or register civil union. That is your own choice

summerskin

Ush1 wrote: »

Basically because they can. In a working democracy tax is imperitive and the less better off in society get brought to a level by the better off.

The less propping up that happens the bigger the divide between the rich and poor.

So what? If I work hard to pay my way I see no reason why i should pay higher taxes to fund the lives of those who do not contribute equally to society.



I was a socialist when I was younger. It's amazing how your views change once you have worked hard for twenty years only to see your money being píssed up against the wall by those who do not contribute.

If people do not contribute to society then they can remain poor. I'm sick of working my arse off to make sure the "divide" between rich/hard working and poor erodes over time.

If they want to close the gap, make them work harder, educate themselves and earn their way through equal taxation.

Dravokivich

get_even wrote: »

you will always find some area where an imbalance exists , no system is perfect , a flat tax is a pretty decent way of equalising things IMO

Well, "some area," would suggestive few and far between instances where that occurs, not the many in which it does.

Also, flat tax isn't as equal when it's done on a percentage basis such as 20%. Sure it means people are paying the same amount in proportion to their wage, but those on 20k, 20% means a lot more to them, than those on 30k/40k/100k.

R0ot

Ray Palmer wrote: »

The view of social welfare and tax has always been unfair. But you can get married to address that or register civil union. That is your own choice

Which you also need to fork out more money for and I don't mean the wedding costs, the registration costs.

Grayson

The idea is that each pays according to their means. So if you earn loads, you pay more. But your take home pay is still higher than someone who earns less.

Think of it as a very basic form of means testing. And surely means testing is the fairest method of all.

Grayson

summerskin wrote: »

So what? If I work hard to pay my way I see no reason why i should pay higher taxes to fund the lives of those who do not contribute equally to society.



I was a socialist when I was younger. It's amazing how your views change once you have worked hard for twenty years only to see your money being píssed up against the wall by those who do not contribute.

If people do not contribute to society then they can remain poor. I'm sick of working my arse off to make sure the "divide" between rich/hard working and poor erodes over time.

If they want to close the gap, make them work harder, educate themselves and earn their way through equal taxation.

So all people who earn less than you are lazy? that's just obnoxious

OldNotWIse

Grayson wrote: »

The idea is that each pays according to their means. So if you earn loads, you pay more. But your take home pay is still higher than someone who earns less.

Think of it as a very basic form of means testing. And surely means testing is the fairest method of all.

But a flat rate of tax for everyone would still ensure that those who earn less pay less

CruelCoin

Ush1 wrote: »

Basically because they can. In a working democracy tax is imperitive and the less better off in society get brought to a level by the better off.

The less propping up that happens the bigger the divide between the rich and poor.

"bridging the gap" is nothing less than an excuse for the lazy to be sponge off the efforts of others.

If i work 60 hours, i want the benefit of 60 hours.

Ush1

CruelCoin wrote: »

How is that unfair though? You work harder/smarter and you earn more.

Trying to level the income field by reducing the benefits of the extra work it takes to earn more is disastrous for any economy.
The lower earning working classes don't typically create wealth/jobs. Penalising those who do is a terrible idea, and one that is producing ugly black fruits (E.g: French brain/wealth drain) in countries that went down that road.

I'm open to see where you're getting the figures from?
As far as I know money paid to lower earning classes usually stays in the country, same goes for money paid in social welfare.

It's a delicate balance as you also want ot attract foreign investment through tax benefits for them.

get_even

Dravokivich wrote: »

Well, "some area," would suggestive few and far between instances where that occurs, not the many in which it does.

Also, flat tax isn't as equal when it's done on a percentage basis such as 20%. Sure it means people are paying the same amount in proportion to their wage, but those on 20k, 20% means a lot more to them, than those on 30k/40k/100k.

using that criteria , a loaf of bread should cost more for denis o brien than someone earning 35 k per year

proportinatley speaking , a flat tax is fair and much less open to loopholes

CruelCoin

Grayson wrote: »

So all people who earn less than you are lazy?

Bit broad and crude, but to a large extent true.

Just sayin'....

K.Flyer

Aside from the fairness or un-fairness of our or any taxation system, what angers me most, and those that I know, is how our taxes are squanderd and wasted by our succesive governments.
We are not getting value for all the money that gets taken from us, either directly or indirectly.

Dravokivich

Grayson wrote: »

So all people who earn less than you are lazy? that's just obnoxious

That isn't what he's saying.

He's agreed with a lot of what I've said and I've openly admitted to not looking to earn more than I am now.

get_even wrote: »

using that criteria , a loaf of bread should cost more for denis o brien than someone earning 35 k per year

proportinatley speaking , a flat tax is fair and much less open to loopholes

You are either misquoting me, or not getting what I'm saying. I understand your viewpoint on a flat rate. all I've said in response to it, there are points when a flat rate will affect lower earners more dramatically. For one to lose 1/5th of their earnings @ 20k to tax is a hell of a lot of money for them to pay out as the remainder being 16k is very little left over for them. That is all I was saying.

Ray Palmer

R0ot wrote: »

Which you also need to fork out more money for and I don't mean the wedding costs, the registration costs.

It is not a massive cost and can be recouped by tax saved

Ush1

summerskin wrote: »

So what? If I work hard to pay my way I see no reason why i should pay higher taxes to fund the lives of those who do not contribute equally to society.



I was a socialist when I was younger. It's amazing how your views change once you have worked hard for twenty years only to see your money being píssed up against the wall by those who do not contribute.

If people do not contribute to society then they can remain poor. I'm sick of working my arse off to make sure the "divide" between rich/hard working and poor erodes over time.

If they want to close the gap, make them work harder, educate themselves and earn their way through equal taxation.

I'm not sure how you mean "fund the life of"? Were talking about people that work but get less tax deducted, so they are paying their way.

I would say it was more a case of politicians who make plenty of money who pissed both yours and mine money up a wall, rather than anybody working in the lower tax bracket.

summerskin

Grayson wrote: »

So all people who earn less than you are lazy? that's just obnoxious

No, I'm saying that everyone should pay the same % in taxes, otherwise there is no incentive to work harder and earn more money.

I would have no problem paying the same rate of tax as someone earning 10x my salary, or with someone earning 10% of my salary.

professore

Big Steve wrote: »

I think we need to develop something like the German tax system. I was looking at it the oother day. their high and low end percentages are similar to ours (U.S.C. excluded) but it seems to operate on a sliding scale.
25k at 22%
25k - 30k at 25%
30k - 35k at 30%

etc etc. I'm using those figures to illustrate my example I am not saying they are right but I do think it would be fairer. You pay more tax on a certain bracket of your pay and not get lumped into a higher bracket as soon as you exceed a certain limit by even the smallest amount.

That IS the way our system works, except we only have 2 bands at the moment, your tax credits go up when you go on the higher rate to take this into account.

Our tax system otherwise is quite fair, and just as importantly, transparent and relatively easy to work out, having lived in Belgium for a few years, you had to hire an accountant to make any sense of your personal tax return which ran to 20 pages, and you would end up with a completely arbitrary tax liability (or refund !!!) every year, even if your income or personal circumstances didn't change - which you had to pay in a lump sum. Never could understand it, worked with a PhD in mathematics and he couldn't even work it out - get division by zero errors !!!! I shudder to think what was involved with a self-employed or company tax return.

I know a self employed German lady living here and she says the same - we have a very transparent and easy tax system compared to what she had in Germany.

The USC - now that's unfair - takes no account of your income. They should have put that on income tax, as it is an unfair tax, hitting poorer people harder.

summerskin

professore wrote: »

That IS the way our system works, except we only have 2 bands at the moment, your tax credits go up when you go on the higher rate to take this into account.

The USC - now that's unfair - takes no account of your income. They should have put that on income tax, as it is an unfair tax, hitting poorer people harder.

Nope, that makes it fairer. The same facilities are there for everyone, why should higher earners pay a higher % than low earners for using the same facilities?

If you work, you should pay tax.

Gannicus

The current tax system is completely flaud. I got a small promotion and a very minute pay rise recently. This put me just over the standard cut off point into the higher tax brand. As a result with the tax and the social levy I have lost 52% of my pay rise. more than half of my menial payrise is gone. I'm honestly tempted to step down from the position as I'm working longer hours and losing just over half of the extra income I earn. It's really really not worth it to me.

The taxation system needs to be completely revamped to make it fairer on people on every level. I don't mind paying my way but.

eg. If you have Private Health Insurance and are paying a private pension these should be more deductable from tax as you are reducing your burden on the state but the tax bands should be lowered at the bottom and slowly inclined at multiple levels of earning to best make sure everyone is paying a fair amount and an appropriate amount based on their income at that time. as I've said in a previous post maybe have 5 or 6 or even 7 tax bands.

Scanlas The 2nd

Grayson wrote: »

The idea is that each pays according to their means. So if you earn loads, you pay more. But your take home pay is still higher than someone who earns less.

Think of it as a very basic form of means testing. And surely means testing is the fairest method of all.

If the percentage were the same for everyone those earning more would still pay more. Having a flat percentage tax rate seems fair to me.

get_even

Dravokivich wrote: »

That isn't what he's saying.

He's agreed with a lot of what I've said and I've openly admitted to not looking to earn more than I am now.



You are either misquoting me, or not getting what I'm saying. I understand your viewpoint on a flat rate. all I've said in response to it, there are points when a flat rate will affect lower earners more dramatically. For one to lose 1/5th of their earnings @ 20k to tax is a hell of a lot of money for them to pay out as the remainder being 16k is very little left over for them. That is all I was saying.

you obviously agree with the state intervening more than i do

my attitude is that no system is perfect and that a flat tax removes a whole lot of vague and complicated loopholes and avoidance schemes , a flat tax would IMO hit high earners just as hard as low earners , we can only really go by the proportional effect , even someone like a middle earner like a guard on 50 k per year suffers when they pay tax or buy a house compared to someone like michael o leary but like i said , no system is perfect

Zab

We have a progressive tax system (the more you earn the higher a % of your income you pay) and I fully support this and believe a change to a flat or regressive system would be a disaster. I don't agree that there isn't an incentive to earn more in the higher brackets, although obviously I agree that there's less of an incentive than there would be if you weren't paying tax (keep in mind pay increases tend to be in proportion to the size of your salary to begin with).

To people who want a flat or regressive tax system: base capitalism virtually ensures disparity of wealth. Measures to counteract this fact are one of the reasons why our current versions have merit, and they still have a long way to go.

gobnaitolunacy

summerskin wrote: »

Nope, that makes it fairer. The same facilities are there for everyone, why should higher earners pay a higher % than low earners for using the same facilities?

If you work, you should pay tax.

Not really. A south Dublin suburb has more facilities than somewhere in the wilds of Donegal or Leitrim.

NullZer0

What happens when the low earners become the high earners?
Its crap - any sort of a payrise is a penalty.

The_Mask

The way i see it is the harder you work the more your taxed. Totally unfair system.

get_even

Zab wrote: »

We have a progressive tax system (the more you earn the higher a % of your income you pay) and I fully support this and believe a change to a flat or regressive system would be a disaster. I don't agree that there isn't an incentive to earn more in the higher brackets, although obviously I agree that there's less of an incentive than there would be if you weren't paying tax (keep in mind pay increases tend to be in proportion to the size of your salary to begin with).

To people who want a flat or regressive tax system: base capitalism virtually ensures disparity of wealth. Measures to counteract this fact are one of the reasons why our current versions have merit, and they still have a long way to go.

a disparity of wealth is unavoidable and where do you draw the line when it comes to deciding what a narrow enough margin between the top and bottom is

a flat tax levels the playing pitch , its in keeping with the idea of equal opportunity , not equal outcome

the main reason no one proposes it is that it would make a tonne of politican and civil servants obsolete , a complicated system provides jobs and slogans like " raise taxes on the wealthy " keep a sizeable number of politican in votes , a flat tax is logical but has no value to populist politics

Shenshen

Big Steve wrote: »

I think we need to develop something like the German tax system. I was looking at it the oother day. their high and low end percentages are similar to ours (U.S.C. excluded) but it seems to operate on a sliding scale.
25k at 22%
25k - 30k at 25%
30k - 35k at 30%

etc etc. I'm using those figures to illustrate my example I am not saying they are right but I do think it would be fairer. You pay more tax on a certain bracket of your pay and not get lumped into a higher bracket as soon as you exceed a certain limit by even the smallest amount.

22%?
Not really.

"Singles pay on income above EUR 250,731 (couples, on income above EUR 501,462) income tax of 45% before 5.5% solidarity tax and 8%-9% church tax."

When I was still living in Germany, I paid nearly 60% on an income under 30k.
That's why I'm not really even concerned yet with the tax rates here...