Tax system fair?

tolosenc

Grayson wrote: »

I think you don't understand numbers. If I get a pay rise of 5k (which I did last year), even if I'm taxed at 42%, i still take home an extra 2,900 a year.

Right, but the extra hours you are obliged to work as a result of the promotion may actually reduce your net daily rate. Which is bollox.

A flat tax across all income earned is the most equitable solution that could exist. Why should the higher earners (actually, the higher tax band begins below the average industrial wage - another sick joke) be expected to pay proportionately more tax? If we strive for an egalitarian society (which is noble), why do we implement non egalitarian policies to achieve it?

Someone who earns 100k gets ~60k after income tax. When they spend that income, they actually have a purchasing power of 50k, as VAT accounts for ~16% of the price you pay on goods.

The tax man is removing half of your spending power. Is there any wonder why everyone is broke? Add to that the fact the money is being wasted at every turn by the establishment, it's a bit much to take.

Neewbie_noob

tolosenc wrote: »

Right, but the extra hours you are obliged to work as a result of the promotion may actually reduce your net daily rate. Which is bollox.

A flat tax across all income earned is the most equitable solution that could exist. Why should the higher earners (actually, the higher tax band begins below the average industrial wage - another sick joke) be expected to pay proportionately more tax? If we strive for an egalitarian society (which is noble), why do we implement non egalitarian policies to achieve it?

Someone who earns 100k gets ~60k after income tax. When they spend that income, they actually have a purchasing power of 50k, as VAT accounts for ~16% of the price you pay on goods.

The tax man is removing half of your spending power. Is there any wonder why everyone is broke? Add to that the fact the money is being wasted at every turn by the establishment, it's a bit much to take.

What this guy said

hooradiation

The concept of a Flat tax is such a naked display of the mantra of "fuck you, I got mine" that I can never tell if it's advocates are serious or being satirical.

Poe's law is a hell of a thing.

Neewbie_noob

hooradiation wrote: »

Poe's law QUOTE]

Excuse the ignorance

hooradiation

Neewbie_noob wrote: »

hooradiation wrote: »

Poe's law

Excuse the ignorance

Here you go

Scanlas The 2nd

hooradiation wrote: »

The concept of a Flat tax is such a naked display of the mantra of "f[SIZE="2"]u[/SIZE]ck you, I got mine" that I can never tell if it's advocates are serious or being satirical.

Poe's law is a hell of a thing.

Are you actually arguing that everyone paying an equal proportion of their income in taxes is unfair. Can you explain that one?

awec

hooradiation wrote: »

The concept of a Flat tax is such a naked display of the mantra of "fuck you, I got mine" that I can never tell if it's advocates are serious or being satirical.

Poe's law is a hell of a thing.

The concept of the current system is such a naked display of the mantra of "fcuk you, I have it pretty good right now, keep it as it is and let them prop us up" that I can never tell if it's advocates are serious or being satirical.

hooradiation

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Are you actually arguing that everyone paying an equal proportion of their income in taxes is unfair. Can you explain that one?

Yes.
Once you figure out what exactly constitutes taxable income (the bulk of what makes any tax system "complex") a 'flat tax' it effects those who earn less disproportionately, those in the middle aren't much better off and it majorly benefits those at the 'top'
Anyone who says otherwise can't do simple maths.

In fact, anyone who proposes such a 'simple' system as a panacea is being amazingly dishonest or demonstrating a stunning lack of basic knowledge.


Also, full disclosure, I earn enough to have a portion of my income taxed at the higher income bracket, before people decide otherwise and make themselves look stupid.
And you wouldn't want to do that.

Shenshen

summerskin wrote: »

NO, ACCORDING TO MY FLAT RATE YOU WOULD BE TAXED AT 35% ON THE PAY RISE, MEANING YOU'D TAKE HOME €3250, making more incentive, duh.


And yes, I want low earners to pay more tax, i think they should pay the same percentage in tax(say 35%) as high earners pay.

What is confusing you so much????? I run a company with 195 employees, and it sickens me to see those on the lower incomes paying virtually no tax while those on higher pay have to pay 42% plus USC etc.

Virtually no tax?
What kind of a pittance are you paying your 195 employees?

smash

Shenshen wrote: »

Virtually no tax?
What kind of a pittance are you paying your 195 employees?

about three fiddy

awec

hooradiation wrote: »

Yes.
Once you figure out what exactly constitutes taxable income (the bulk of what makes any tax system "complex") a 'flat tax' it effects those who earn less disproportionately, those in the middle aren't much better off and it majorly benefits those at the 'top'
Anyone who says otherwise can't do simple maths.

In fact, anyone who proposes such a 'simple' system as a panacea is being amazingly dishonest or demonstrating a stunning lack of basic knowledge.


Also, full disclosure, I earn enough to have a portion of my income taxed at the higher income bracket, before people decide otherwise and make themselves look stupid.
And you wouldn't want to do that.

Shock, people who earn less money will have less money after being taxed.

Flat rate, everyone pays the same %. Same tax allowance for everyone. People who earn more still pay a larger sum. People who earn less still pay a lower sum. Everyone is at least contributing an equal portion of their wages.

Anyone against this system clearly lacks the intelligence to understand the fairness of it, or has a vested interest in the current system.

summerskin

Shenshen wrote: »

Virtually no tax?
What kind of a pittance are you paying your 195 employees?

Starting salary is €18000 for the lowest paid jobs, which is €17,121.20 after tax.

Next to nothing in tax, ridiculous.

Compare that to a manager earning €59000 who comes out with €39,453.36 and you can see what a joke it is.

Zab

tolosenc wrote: »

Right, but the extra hours you are obliged to work as a result of the promotion may actually reduce your net daily rate. Which is bollox.

Take this up with your employer.

A flat tax across all income earned is the most equitable solution that could exist. Why should the higher earners (actually, the higher tax band begins below the average industrial wage - another sick joke) be expected to pay proportionately more tax? If we strive for an egalitarian society (which is noble), why do we implement non egalitarian policies to achieve it?

Taking 35% of the income of somebody on minimum wage has a much higher impact than taking 35% of somebody on 100k, even though the latter is higher in absolute terms. By calling a flat tax egalitarian you are ignoring the bigger picture, and defining egalitarianism in terms of wage to net wage ratio, which isn't what the term means at all. A flat tax would crush low wage earners, and I really do mean crush.

Ray Palmer

bluecode wrote: »

Fair? No, Just sent in my annual tax return. I pay tax, the universal social charge and PRSI. Even though my last year's income was less than the lower limit for the minimum wage. This year's income is even less yet I have to pay tax based on the previous year. I'll get some of it back but I need it now not next year.

But I'm not entitled to the benefit or the dole.

All because I'm self employed.

I'd be better off in the black economy.

Just to be clear you are paying last years tax this year. You estimate this years taxes and don't have to pay the tax based on last years income.

Anyway

The flat tax levels suggested here would mean everybody paying more tax which I am not in favour of. On 80k you pay about 41% of your entire income

awec

Zab wrote: »

Take this up with your employer.




Taking 35% of the income of somebody on minimum wage has a much higher impact than taking 35% of somebody on 100k, even though the latter is higher in absolute terms. By calling a flat tax egalitarian you are ignoring the bigger picture, and defining egalitarianism in terms of wage to net wage ratio, which isn't what the term means at all. A flat tax would crush low wage earners, and I really do mean crush.

Of course it does. They earn less money. There is a reason they earn less money.

Should the high earner be punished for the fact that someone else earns less money?

summerskin

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Just to be clear you are paying last years tax this year. You estimate this years taxes and don't have to pay the tax based on last years income.

Anyway

The flat tax levels suggested here would mean everybody paying more tax which I am not in favour of. On 80k you pay about 41% of your entire income

And on a flat rate of say 35% you'd still be better off. Great.

relax carry on

Interesting thread. Haven't time to read it all yet but a similar one came up a while ago. The below are some figures illustrating the levels of taxation currently operating. These are annual totals.

Just as an exercise, I did some calculations on three sets of income based on 2012 rates etc. It's PAYE workers only, (sorry self employed)

Results are below on a yearly income of €100000, €50000 and €25000 based on single paye worker with no additional reliefs etc. Now the PAYE is the only one I'd say is "tax" but at the end of the day they are all a deduction in your take home pay so PRSI and USC are included.

€100000
PAYE 30812
USC 6319
PRSI class A 3736
Total €40867 or roughly 41% of total.

€50000
PAYE 10312
USC 2818
PRSI Class A 1736
Total €14866 or roughly 30% of total

€25000
PAYE 1700
USC 1068
PRSI Class A 735
Total €3503 or roughly 14%

kowloon

Akrasia wrote: »

Nobody should be expected to work 70 hours a week

That is 14 hours a day for a 5 day week or 10 hours a day 7 days a week

That is not a reasonable work life balance.

If anyone is working 10 hours a day, every day, even if they're earning a hundred thousand euros a year, they're still wasting their life.

And they're hoarding all the work. If I can get my workers to work longer hours I might not save anything on the hourly rate and I might have to pay overtime. But I'll save on the cost of extra training, doubling up for meetings and all the other costs of having an additional person.

Zab

awec wrote: »

Of course it does. They earn less money. There is a reason they earn less money.

Because they're a sloth? Because they didn't receive a decent education? Because they talk with the wrong accent? Because their skills aren't valued in today's world? Because they were born on the wrong side of the tracks? Because they're thick? Because they don't deserve it?

Should the high earner be punished for the fact that someone else earns less money?

They aren't being punished. If they were being punished they'd lose the wage difference plus extra. The higher earner will have a better quality of life (in the economic sense) than the low wage earner.

hooradiation

awec wrote: »

Shock, people who earn less money will have less money after being taxed.

Flat rate, everyone pays the same %. Same tax allowance for everyone. People who earn more still pay a larger sum. People who earn less still pay a lower sum. Everyone is at least contributing an equal portion of their wages.

Anyone against this system clearly lacks the intelligence to understand the fairness of it, or has a vested interest in the current system.

Except, and here's the kicker, a flat tax actually makes life tougher for those on less money, where are our current progressive system, by comparison, doesn't.
And neither does the progressive system make life tough for those of us subjected to the higher rates.

Your "fairness" argument is straight from the playground, mistaking simplicity for fairness and pretending the world is a place where there are simple solutions for everything.

awec

hooradiation wrote: »

Except, and here's the kicker, a flat tax actually makes life tougher for those on less money, where are our current progressive system, by comparison, doesn't.
And neither does the progressive system make life tough for those of us subjected to the higher rates.

Your "fairness" argument is straight from the playground, mistaking simplicity for fairness and pretending the world is a place where there are simple solutions for everything.

I pay the high rate. Why should I pay a higher rate of tax than someone else just because they earn less than me? Why should I prop up their lifestyle by subsidising their tax. What's "fair" about that?

People who earn less money are always going to have less money. People need to get over this ridiculous notion that people who earn less money are entitled to the same lifestyle as people who earn more than them. Of course tax changes are going to hit those who pay the least right now, that's because their lifestyle is heavily subsidised by everyone else right now.

I deserve to be paying the same tax rate as anyone else.

SafeSurfer

The tax system is unfair.

One of the few policy positions that almost every Irish political party agrees on is that our low corporation tax can not be changed.

What this means is that multi national corporations that enjoy tens of billions of annual profits are not asked to shoulder any burden in dealing with our economic crisis while low paid workers are taxed more to compensate multinational corporations for their business mistakes.

Our government even refused to introduce a financial transaction tax designed to curb the worst excesses of the financial sector's greed because they said it may cost jobs.

All this in a week when it was revealed that Apple paid less than 2% tax on overseas profits of €28,600,000,000.

Our political parties have been convinced by their corporate sponsors that it is more equitable, more moral to limit the number of weekly incontinent pads allocated to sick and elderly patients than to reduce the massive profits enjoyed by theses corporations and their already wealthy investors.

You can argue that they provide jobs etc, etc. But I believe that it is immoral that so much sacrifice is asked of imposed on the poor in our society while even parties of the left deem asking more of the rich to be beyond the pale.

SCOOP 64

Well we got the budget coming up soon. so it will be all sorted out then.

tolosenc

Zab wrote: »

Because they're a sloth? Because they didn't receive a decent education? Because they talk with the wrong accent? Because their skills aren't valued in today's world? Because they were born on the wrong side of the tracks? Because they're thick? Because they don't deserve it?

So stupid, uneducated people with no relevant skills should be as entitled to a high wage as an intelligent, highly educated person with relevant skills? Are you for real?

get_even

summerskin wrote: »

And on a flat rate of say 35% you'd still be better off. Great.

35% is far too high ,20% is enough once everyone including corporations are paying the same

summerskin

get_even wrote: »

35% is far too high ,20% is enough once everyone including corporations are paying the same

I was just using that as an arbitrary figure.

Blisterman

The idea that success is entirely based on hard work is a bit of a fallacy. Does a banker on €400k work 20 times harder than a carer on €20k?

Would Bill Gates become the world's richest man if he were born to a starving peasant family in Ethiopia?

The current system works because the burden of tax is placed on those who can best afford it, while still providing an incentive to work hard and better yourself.

Another thing that people are forgetting is that increasing taxes for lower earners would result in them demanding more money for the same work to make up the difference, so ultimately it would be employers taking the brunt of the taxation.

hooradiation

awec wrote: »

I pay the high rate. Why should I pay a higher rate of tax than someone else just because they earn less than me? Why should I prop up their lifestyle by subsidising their tax. What's "fair" about that?

This fairness whine is still a complete farce.

Consider income tax as the user fee for society, the better off you are, the more benefit you get from the society we have built, and therefore you pay more back in - and at a rate that doesn't adversely affect you.
Meanwhile the people not as lucky as you or I pay less than we do, but also use less than we do.

And if that isn't enough for you, then I offer this:
Life isn't fair, kid. Deal with it.

awec wrote: »

People who earn less money are always going to have less money. People need to get over this ridiculous notion that people who earn less money are entitled to the same lifestyle as people who earn more than them.

Well how about you start on that, seeing as you're the one advocating that notion.
Or would you like to continue arguing against caricatures that live in your head?

awec wrote: »

Of course tax changes are going to hit those who pay the least right now, that's because their lifestyle is heavily subsidised by everyone else right now.

Of course, you do realise that in many of these cases the "hit" as you call it, would have a drastic affect on their quality of life - where as the current system has a negligible one on people who earn enough to be taxed at the higher rate.

For someone getting so upset about this idea of "fairness" you have no problem throwing people under a bus so you don't have to suffer the indignity of... whatever it is that you think your being subjected to here.

awec wrote: »

I deserve to be paying the same tax rate as anyone else.

If you envy their tax rate so much, feel free to take a suitable pay cut.
I'm more than happy to help towards "subsidising your lifestyle".

get_even

if those on low incomes should not pay the same rate of tax as those on high incomes , should those on low incomes pay less for groceries in the supermarket or when they buy a car ?

Tazz T

get_even wrote: »

if those on low incomes should not pay the same rate of tax as those on high incomes , should those on low incomes pay less for groceries in the supermarket or when they buy a car ?

Those on low incomes already pay less for groceries because they can't afford to buy more expensive foodstuffs or brands.