Fine Gael-Protecting Croke Park pay and High earners.

Uncle Ben

Considering that the self-employed pay an extra 3% levy on any income over €100k, I would have assumed that implementing a 10% on those earners in the C.S., the semi-states, the bankers, those in the Union leadership earning over €100k and consultants, advisors, solicitors, doctors etc would surely follow suit.

It would appear also to dismiss the myth about Noonan's inability also to tackle the pensions of ex-Taoisigh, Ministers and TDs and other high paid public servants. The USC as it is charged would be levied on all of the aboves pension contributions.

This charge if implemented would bring in approx. €200million. Their arguement for the wealth/mansion tax will bring in approx. €7.5 million.

A self-employed person whose income is €112k for example this year will pay approx. €7500 in USC charges. None of the above will pay this amount now thanks to Fine Gael.

hmmm

Uncle Ben wrote: »

A self-employed person whose income is €112k for example this year will pay approx. €7500 in USC charges. None of the above will pay this amount now thanks to Fine Gael.

The self employed get treated miserably by our political class, most of whom have never created a job or taken a risk in their life. That's not a justification however for extending ever more taxes on the small group of people who are already bearing an unfair burden of taxation.

Uncle Ben

My point exactly. That is why I feel that if in effect a 10% USC is deemed appropropriate for the self-employed, then surely it is appropriate that those in public office or in large organisations should pay the same.

iPringle

Uncle Ben wrote: »

My point exactly. That is why I feel that if in effect a 10% USC is deemed appropropriate for the self-employed, then surely it is appropriate that those in public office or in large organisations should pay the same.

Just because we have horrendously high marginal tax rates for the self-employed doesn't mean we should have the same for employees. It means marginal tax rates in general are too high.

Two wrongs don't make a right and all of that.

Uncle Ben

So let me get this right-We cannot cut PS wages/pensions because of Croke Park. We cannot cut bankers pay/pensions because of contractual arrangements. We cannot impose taxes on 'employed' high earners because of high marginal taxes. However we can impose extra levies on self employed business.

I don't mean to be smart here but 'two wrongs don't make it right' is not really a good enough reason when a self-employed person pays more USC than the highest paid leader in Europe.

iPringle

Uncle Ben wrote: »

So let me get this right-We cannot cut PS wages/pensions because of Croke Park. We cannot cut bankers pay/pensions because of contractual arrangements. We cannot impose taxes on 'employed' high earners because of high marginal taxes. However we can impose extra levies on self employed business.

I don't mean to be smart here but 'two wrongs don't make it right' is not really a good enough reason when a self-employed person pays more USC than the highest paid leader in Europe.

I agree with you. The self-employed should get a tax cut.

We should cut pay for some staff in the public sector, particularly those who have fewer qualifications but not across the board. Some younger doctors and physiotherapists for example are underpaid and will leave, while many administrative staff are grossly overpaid and will never leave because no one in their right mind would give them the type of salaries they get in the private sector. It is those that are less likely to quit that should be given pay cuts imo.

Godge

Uncle Ben wrote: »

My point exactly. That is why I feel that if in effect a 10% USC is deemed appropropriate for the self-employed, then surely it is appropriate that those in public office or in large organisations should pay the same.

They pay a pension-related pay deduction of 10% on top of USC of 7%.

You are looking at the wrong thing. We should actually be reducing income tax on higher earners as it is too high compared to other countries. Our tax rates for lower incomes is well below other countries.

Stheno

Godge wrote: »

They pay a pension-related pay deduction of 10% on top of USC of 7%.

You are looking at the wrong thing. We should actually be reducing income tax on higher earners as it is too high compared to other countries. Our tax rates for lower incomes is well below other countries.

I agree with this.

I'm not in the 100k+ a year bracket, but were I to choose to become self employed, I probably would be.

Were I to do that, I'd set myself up outside of Ireland, and I'd only accept contracts that meant I was not tax resident in Ireland as it would be far more beneficial to me.

And I work in a very specialised area, which means that apart from women unfriendly countries, I could literally pick and choose where I'd work.

I work at the moment as a permanent employee, but get a significant bonus based on performance. When I do get that bonus and see the amount of tax I pay I feel resentful. It can be up to 40% of my gross pay.

Then I calm down, enjoy the fact that I've a secure job, enjoy it, and get over the tax I pay.

I'm a typical middle earner, I've the option to leave, and if tax were to go up much more in my band of earnings I would.

Farmer Pudsey

History has shown that when tax rates (wheather tax ,USC or PRSI) go above 50% that taxpayers that are above the threshold get aggrieved and that avoidance and evasion becomes an issue. The November tax returns may have shown just that as there was a Tax/PRSI shortfall.

When you hit this limit even PAYE tax payers become restless and high earners divert as much as possible into pension funds etc. With self employed taxpayers it become much more tax efficient to reinvest in your buisness either to reduce your tax bill or else to go down the company route and pay 12.5% company tax and leave the money in the company accounts.

The reality is that at present the Labour party for optics purposes refuses to see this. Social equality theorists believe that wealth taxes would equalise the situtation however very wealty taxpayers would only be caught once and then next year they would be tax residant in asunier climate, after them the next to go would be the mobile workforce and the like of Google and Intel would find it an issue to recruit and retain specialist's.

The reality is that the ringfencing of about 60% of the budget spend is going to cause severe pain in certain sections of society and continue the situtation where we have larger class sizes and longer hospital queue's down the line

HellFireClub

I will go to the grave before I understand the absolute obsession in this country with 100K as being the starting point for how we tax the well off and where we place "the burden".

Why why why do people use the 100K figure as some sort of a minimum wage when talking about where we should concentrate tax increases or try to extract more value? Someone on half that figure, to my mind, is a well paid individual. Someone on 75K is an extremely well paid individual. I don't personally know any people in the private sector at the moment on a 70K a year salary, I know people in self employment who are struggling to pay themselves a 30K a year salary as sales in their business have collapsed.

I think we need to seriously get real in this country when it comes to looking at people who are paid in excess of 50K a year from tax payer funds.

Markcheese

Godge wrote: »

They pay a pension-related pay deduction of 10% on top of USC of 7%.

You are looking at the wrong thing. We should actually be reducing income tax on higher earners as it is too high compared to other countries. Our tax rates for lower incomes is well below other countries.

Treat every one the same , if you give a tax break to self employed at top rate then same for PRSI.. Mind you income should include entire package, so if yr a TD on 100k but yr pension contributions from the state are yearly another 100k ... Then yr income should be classed as 200k

frankosw

HellFireClub wrote: »

I know people in self employment who are struggling to pay themselves a 30K a year salary as sales in their business have collapsed.

I think we need to seriously get real in this country when it comes to looking at people who are paid in excess of 50K a year from tax payer funds.

So your self employed people will benefit if wages are cut to less than 50k a year?

I cant beleive what i'm hearing sometimes..

HellFireClub

frankosw wrote: »

So your self employed people will benefit if wages are cut to less than 50k a year?

I cant beleive what i'm hearing sometimes..

This is more of it, you clearly don't have any appreciation for the value of tax payers money. That money that we are using to overpay the man/woman in the public sector, it's not our money, we have to borrow it, then pay interest on it, and we are repaying it by taxing the private sector into obliteration.

Pharaoh1

If the PRSI allowance is abolished this will affect everyone that pays PRSI.
Guess who would be least affected - those who are not required to pay full PRSI.

The Pre 95 public sector (who due to their longevity would tend to be better paid) and the well looked after semi state employees who pay only a small fraction of what everyone else pays.
Understandable how the well paid mandarins steer the govt away from USC.

It will be interesting to see if this goes through.

frankosw

HellFireClub wrote: »

This is more of it, you clearly don't have any appreciation for the value of tax payers money. That money that we are using to overpay the man/woman in the public sector,.

In what way are they overpaid?

HellFireClub wrote: »

it's not our money, we have to borrow it, then pay interest on it, and we are repaying it by taxing the private sector into obliteration.

The PS pay more in tax than the private sector..we pay PRSI the USC and also the Pension Levy and all PS workers are fully tax compliant because the Govt knows exactly how much they get paid.

Is everybody in the Private Sector completely tax compliant?


http://www.revenue.ie/en/press/defaulters/index.html

Perhaps a look at the proffesions of people on this list will reveal a few PS staff?

No?

I couldnt find any either.

Stheno

Pharaoh1 wrote: »

If the PRSI allowance is abolished this will affect everyone that pays PRSI.
Guess who would be least affected - those who are not required to pay full PRSI.

The Pre 95 public sector (who due to their longevity would tend to be better paid) and the well looked after semi state employees who pay only a small fraction of what everyone else pays.
Understandable how the well paid mandarins steer the govt away from USC.

It will be interesting to see if this goes through.

It has gone through.

Just as an fyi semi-state employees are not classed as public sector so pay normal PRSI and no levies that the public sector do. That's valid for the commercial semi states don't know about the non commercial

AlexisM

Uncle Ben wrote: »

...if in effect a 10% USC is deemed appropropriate for the self-employed, then surely it is appropriate that those in public office or in large organisations should pay the same.

I don't agree. The government's overall take from a self-employed person is still lower than from an equivalently-salaried employee because the employee's employer has to pay 10.75% employers PRSI. So at higher salary levels, a self-employed person contributes 55% of salary whereas the total contribution from an employee's salary is 63.75% (52% from the employee and 10.75% from the employer).

woodoo

Howlin was gushing about the CPA today in his speech. He seems to believe it is working. Overall I think the budget wasn't as bad as people thought. Apart from the property tax there was no big beasts in it.

murphaph

woodoo wrote: »

Howlin was gushing about the CPA today in his speech. He seems to believe it is working. Overall I think the budget wasn't as bad as people thought. Apart from the property tax there was no big beasts in it.

Which makes me question the government's ability to tackle the core problems.

SW spending is still way too high.

Public sector spending in general is more than we can afford.

I'd have taken €500 a year in property taxes if they'd made those cuts, but they haven't got the stomach for it IMO.

frankosw

woodoo wrote: »

Howlin was gushing about the CPA today in his speech. He seems to believe it is working.

It actually is working..it was put in place to gradually reduce spending in the PS without causing huge hardship for the members or industrial unrest for the country.

It has delivered on all its targets yet people still seem to think it should be abandoned.

There is no pleasing some people and still the bond holders are being payed billions out of *everybody's* pockets.

Lumbo

frankosw wrote: »

It actually is working..it was put in place to gradually reduce spending in the PS without causing huge hardship for the members or industrial unrest for the country.

It has delivered on all its targets yet people still seem to think it should be abandoned.

There is no pleasing some people and still the bond holders are being payed billions out of *everybody's* pockets.

It's partially working. Considerable saving have been made without reducing core pay further but from my experience the Unions are still trying their best to make it difficult for cost saving changes to be implemented.

Vizzy

murphaph wrote: »

I'd have taken €500 a year in property taxes if they'd made those cuts, but they haven't got the stomach for it IMO.

Would you ?
Well thats generous of you,seeing as you are in Berlin so a property tax in Ireland won't affect you one way or the other.

RandolphEsq

The amount of massive pensions being paid to retired TDs, civil servants etc. is scandalous. If those pensions are not subject to any any succession rights then I have a great solution to getting cuts there.

Stheno

Vizzy wrote: »

Would you ?
Well thats generous of you,seeing as you are in Berlin so a property tax in Ireland won't affect you one way or the other.

murphaph has a house here. He's posted about it regularly in the past.

Idbatterim

SW spending is still way too high.

Public sector spending in general is more than we can afford.

I'd have taken €500 a year in property taxes if they'd made those cuts, but they haven't got the stomach for it IMO.

I agree murphaph, I dont own a property, but would have happily paid it in higher taxes. But it is far more politically acceptable to let inflation devalue these and increasing indirect taxes, than it is to cut the headline rates. The way I see it, if they dont get cuts on the way down, on the way up leave them all untouched, swings and roundabouts that way...

ParkRunner

There is only so much savings to be made from pay before cuts start to cost the economy more.
A public servant on €35k takes home €1,700 less than a person in the private sector on the same pay to pay the same bills and living expenses.
Many public servants now get FIS and cutting more will only increase that figure.

Cookie_Monster

EF wrote: »

There is only so much savings to be made from pay before cuts start to cost the economy more.
A public servant on €35k takes home €1,700 less than a person in the private sector on the same pay to pay the same bills and living expenses.
Many public servants now get FIS and cutting more will only increase that figure.

but what's the equivalent PS premium paid here, I remember the UK being 7% and the IRL was higher than this but can't rem the exact figure. So despite earning €1,700 less, the equiv private worker would be on only €32,710* in comparison anyway gross


* to use the UK %

and of course that's just salary, not taking the value of differing pension scheme type into account

Markcheese

EF wrote: »

There is only so much savings to be made from pay before cuts start to cost the economy more.
A public servant on €35k takes home €1,700 less than a person in the private sector on the same pay to pay the same bills and living expenses.
Many public servants now get FIS and cutting more will only increase that figure.

How the f... Do you figure that out ... We're all in the same system ... The only difference is pensions.... And if you want to opt out of yours and fund it privately ..... you'd save the state a fortune .....

ParkRunner

Markcheese wrote: »

How the f... Do you figure that out ... We're all in the same system ... The only difference is pensions.... And if you want to opt out of yours and fund it privately ..... you'd save the state a fortune .....

Opt out? I would if I could.

sean200

Markcheese wrote: »

How the f... Do you figure that out ... We're all in the same system ... The only difference is pensions.... And if you want to opt out of yours and fund it privately ..... you'd save the state a fortune .....

But you can’t opt out that is the problem
If you work in the PS and could not put food on the table you still have to pay in to the pension
The pension that you might get in 30 years’ time will not keep the light on now
PS employees pay about 1.5 billion in pension deductions every year so why don’t they allow them to opt out????

sean200

EF wrote: »

Opt out? I would if I could.

I would to
I have 3 kids
A massive mortgage and I need money now not when I am 70
It should be part of Croke Park 2 that you can give up you so called GOLD PLATED pension and they will pay you back every euro that you have paid in to it just like private sector can do with 30% of their AVC

sarumite

EF wrote: »

Opt out? I would if I could.

You would be mad to do it. I used to work in place where the old guard had a DB pensions scheme. They used to refer to them as the golden-handcuffs. (Personally I think the whole 'would opt out if I could' is a lot of boards.ie talk and not much else.)

ParkRunner

It's not the worst pension scheme, I won't deny that, but the main problem is I have no control over how much I pay into it and for how long, unless I need to pay more.

The many pension contributions are listed on my payslip right under paye,prsi and usc and I have as much control over paye etc as I do over pension contributions.

Getting back to the point I was making anyway, I fail to see how further pay cuts will result in a significant net benefit to the economy

Jaysoose

sarumite wrote: »

You would be mad to do it. I used to work in place where the old guard had a DB pensions scheme. They used to refer to them as the golden-handcuffs. (Personally I think the whole 'would opt out if I could' is a lot of boards.ie talk and not much else.)

Yeah its a whole load of grandstanding, the pension provisions are very good and anybody looking to opt out needs to go back to school and do basic maths.

creedp

Jaysoose wrote: »

Yeah its a whole load of grandstanding, the pension provisions are very good and anybody looking to opt out needs to go back to school and do basic maths.

Gas isn't it .. people criticise PS for having a gold plated pension and say they should take a pay cut to compentate others for not having the damn thing .. then when PS say they would like to opt out of this wonderful pension they get criticised by the same people ..even though it would save the state/private taxpayer a fortune .. I'm not sure what side the grandstanding is on to be honest.

Riskymove

Jaysoose wrote: »

Yeah its a whole load of grandstanding, the pension provisions are very good and anybody looking to opt out needs to go back to school and do basic maths.

if you are in for 40 years or thereabouts its a fantastic pension scheme (especially if you joined pre-95), no one could really argue

the problem is the generalised view that this applies to all PS, it doesn't

there are people who enter PS after time in other areas and will have a lot less years...worse there are contract staff who wont get any penision yet are paying the pension levy

srsly78

sean200 wrote: »

I would to
I have 3 kids
A massive mortgage and I need money now not when I am 70
It should be part of Croke Park 2 that you can give up you so called GOLD PLATED pension and they will pay you back every euro that you have paid in to it just like private sector can do with 30% of their AVC

You can get the same relief on extra contributions you make too, just not on the basic levy.

Pharaoh1

Stheno wrote: »

It has gone through.

Just as an fyi semi-state employees are not classed as public sector so pay normal PRSI and no levies that the public sector do. That's valid for the commercial semi states don't know about the non commercial

That is not completely true. I have several relatives in the ESB for example. They are all probably pre-95 but I'm not sure that makes a difference.
They definitely do not pay full PRSI. You are correct in saying that they were not affected by the PS pension levy but they have recently had to make small extra contributions to their pensions although I think even they would admit that the term "gold plated" would apply here as the company effectively pays far more than the employee.

In fact one of them was telling me just the other day about a ESB scheme which he is a member of that was set up to cover dental/optician costs for employees.
This was setup precisely beacuse they had no entitlement to the PRSI based benefits (most of which are gone now anyway).
Some grades in Bord na Mona for example I think do and have always paid full PRSI.

Jaysoose

creedp wrote: »

Gas isn't it .. people criticise PS for having a gold plated pension and say they should take a pay cut to compentate others for not having the damn thing .. then when PS say they would like to opt out of this wonderful pension they get criticised by the same people ..even though it would save the state/private taxpayer a fortune .. I'm not sure what side the grandstanding is on to be honest.

Hang on a second, where in my post did i say any of this?

its simply an inability to do maths if any employee would look to opt-out of a pension scheme that is as beneficial in the long term to the employee as this one.

In this context its grandstanding of the highest order.

sean200

Jaysoose wrote: »

Hang on a second, where in my post did i say any of this?

its simply an inability to do maths if any employee would look to opt-out of a pension scheme that is as beneficial in the long term to the employee as this one.

In this context its grandstanding of the highest order.

did we not say that it may be an inability to pay into the pension as we need the money now not in 30 years time
As for beneficial to me it will be once i am aged 83 as then i will make a profit from my pension

HellFireClub

frankosw wrote: »

In what way are they overpaid?

I seriously hope you are not working in the Dept. of Finance! They are overpaid according any basic analysis, when we do not have the money from taxpayers funds to pay them and need to use a bailout to the tune of 12 billion Euro a year, to run the country. It is no longer acceptable that we have benchmarking to inflate PS wages in the good times, to keep the PS in line with the private sector, but that we don't have a process to deflate PS wages, IN LINE WITH A DEFLATION IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR!

What kind of a country conducts its business like this??? Only a country like this place, where the vast majority of the public sector are highly unionised and the vast majority of the private sector are union hostile. This is a situation that was allowed to unfold, ironically, during our "social partnership" years where large lobby organisations like IBEC, were allowed to dictate state policy as IBEC is highly influenced by some of the largest US MNC's in Ireland which refuse to recognise unions in their businesses.

The same dictator type approach has been coming from IBEC in relation to Corporation tax, where there is an ever present threat that to increase CT will result in some large US employers here, leaving the state.

The consequence of us tolerating this way of doing business, which is pandering on a public policy level, to the IBEC style, highly undemocratic, bully boy type schoolyard behaviour, is that we have one half of our economy completely protected from the effects of austerity by collective union demands and associated threats, with a siege type mentality holding the whole protectionist agreement together, and we have the other half of the economy, completely exposed to whatever is thrown at it, with all the attendant job losses and business closures that come down the line with those decisions.

HellFireClub

sarumite wrote: »

You would be mad to do it. I used to work in place where the old guard had a DB pensions scheme. They used to refer to them as the golden-handcuffs. (Personally I think the whole 'would opt out if I could' is a lot of boards.ie talk and not much else.)

Lol I think I used to work there too!

Riskymove

HellFireClub wrote: »

It is no longer acceptable that we have benchmarking to inflate PS wages in the good times, to keep the PS in line with the private sector, but that we don't have a process to deflate PS wages, IN LINE WITH A DEFLATION IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR!

we dont have benchmarking anymore, it is almost 5 years since the second benchmarking report came out and recommended no increase for the vast majority in the PS.

The pay cut reversed many PS workers increases under Benchmarking - I put forward the idea that if there was to be as paycut it should be the exact reverse of benchmarking for each grade.

The last percentage increases under the last National Pay Agreement were also cancelled so its been 3 or 4 years since any increase

Joe 90

Stheno wrote: »

I agree with this.

I'm not in the 100k+ a year bracket, but were I to choose to become self employed, I probably would be.

Were I to do that, I'd set myself up outside of Ireland, and I'd only accept contracts that meant I was not tax resident in Ireland as it would be far more beneficial to me.

And I work in a very specialised area, which means that apart from women unfriendly countries, I could literally pick and choose where I'd work.

I work at the moment as a permanent employee, but get a significant bonus based on performance. When I do get that bonus and see the amount of tax I pay I feel resentful. It can be up to 40% of my gross pay.

Then I calm down, enjoy the fact that I've a secure job, enjoy it, and get over the tax I pay.

I'm a typical middle earner, I've the option to leave, and if tax were to go up much more in my band of earnings I would.

That of course is what is going to happen. More and more people who have skills that are in demand and who have no overwhelming reason to stay in Ireland are going to take their skills, their earning power and their tax paying abroad.

HellFireClub

Riskymove wrote: »

we dont have benchmarking anymore, it is almost 5 years since the second benchmarking report came out and recommended no increase for the vast majority in the PS.

The pay cut reversed many PS workers increases under Benchmarking - I put forward the idea that if there was to be as paycut it should be the exact reverse of benchmarking for each grade.

The last percentage increases under the last National Pay Agreement were also cancelled so its been 3 or 4 years since any increase

Are you joking?!? Automatic increments have since completely reversed the effect of the pay cuts!!! I never got an "automatic increment" in the private sector in my entire career, every pay rise I got, I had to go in and fight for it!!!

To say that there is a "pay pause", is not the same thing as recognising that major pay cuts have taken place in the private sector, if you took the entire public sector workforce, and multiplied it by 2, that's the approximate number of people in the private sector who have taken the ultimate pay cut when they lost their jobs!!!

Not a single person in the public sector has had to face that situation. I've no problem with that in itself, but to see people who cannot be made redundant EVER, telling us, when they enjoy these jobs for life, that they also think that they should be paid the same salaries that they enjoyed at the very height of the boom, is nothing less than revolting & stomach churning.

How in the name of all that is serious, did we ever agree a pay scale that let's a teacher end up on a salary of 70K, after a whole series of "allowances" are claimed?

http://www.asti.ie/pay-and-conditions/pay/salary-scale/salary-scale-for-teachers-appointed-prior-to-january-2011/

The very same is going on with the Civil Servants:

http://www.impact.ie/Your-Sector/Public-Sector/Civil-Service/Civil-service-salary-scales/Pre-paycut-scales-2008/General-service-grades-2008.htm

These levels of remuneration are nothing short of fúcking mind boggling when you look at the salaries that are being paid.

Then you have state employees in the local authorities/County/City Councils, linked into this absolute fúcking madness, and people are wondering why we now need a property tax but are getting absolutely nothing in return for it by way of services provided?!?

Godge

HellFireClub wrote: »

I seriously hope you are not working in the Dept. of Finance! They are overpaid according any basic analysis, when we do not have the money from taxpayers funds to pay them and need to use a bailout to the tune of 12 billion Euro a year, to run the country. It is no longer acceptable that we have benchmarking to inflate PS wages in the good times, to keep the PS in line with the private sector, but that we don't have a process to deflate PS wages, IN LINE WITH A DEFLATION IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR!

What kind of a country conducts its business like this??? Only a country like this place, where the vast majority of the public sector are highly unionised and the vast majority of the private sector are union hostile. This is a situation that was allowed to unfold, ironically, during our "social partnership" years where large lobby organisations like IBEC, were allowed to dictate state policy as IBEC is highly influenced by some of the largest US MNC's in Ireland which refuse to recognise unions in their businesses.

The same dictator type approach has been coming from IBEC in relation to Corporation tax, where there is an ever present threat that to increase CT will result in some large US employers here, leaving the state.

The consequence of us tolerating this way of doing business, which is pandering on a public policy level, to the IBEC style, highly undemocratic, bully boy type schoolyard behaviour, is that we have one half of our economy completely protected from the effects of austerity by collective union demands and associated threats, with a siege type mentality holding the whole protectionist agreement together, and we have the other half of the economy, completely exposed to whatever is thrown at it, with all the attendant job losses and business closures that come down the line with those decisions.

Are you still at this?

By now I thought you would have been aware of the facts, that all public servants have seen their pay cut twice, that only some private sector workers have seen pay cuts (four out of thirteen sub-sectors have seen an increase since 2008 while others only marginally down), that the budget deficit is coming down without the need to cut public sector pay etc.

You are either wilfully ignoring all of the hard evidence presented to you or you are not able to fully grasp it. I despair sometimes.

HellFireClub

Joe 90 wrote: »

That of course is what is going to happen. More and more people who have skills that are in demand and who have no overwhelming reason to stay in Ireland are going to take their skills, their earning power and their tax paying abroad.

If this were true, then the citizens of countries that have a higher effective tax rate than us, such as Nordic Countries, would all be living in Ireland. And all the corporations that are based in countries with a higher Corporate Tax rate than us, wouldn't be based where they are, they would all be based in Ireland.

hatrickpatrick

iPringle wrote: »

Just because we have horrendously high marginal tax rates for the self-employed doesn't mean we should have the same for employees. It means marginal tax rates in general are too high.

Two wrongs don't make a right and all of that.

So you don't believe in equality then?

Self employed people should be taxed in exactly the same way as everyone else, I have absolutely no idea why this is not the case. Either bring everyone else up to meet them or bring them down to everyone else's level, but why the hell should they be treated differently? What difference does it make whether you're making money working for someone else or making it doing your own thing?

HellFireClub

Godge wrote: »

Are you still at this?

By now I thought you would have been aware of the facts, that all public servants have seen their pay cut twice, that only some private sector workers have seen pay cuts (four out of thirteen sub-sectors have seen an increase since 2008 while others only marginally down), that the budget deficit is coming down without the need to cut public sector pay etc.

You are either wilfully ignoring all of the hard evidence presented to you or you are not able to fully grasp it. I despair sometimes.

We all know that automatic (and generous) increments have already eradicated the savings made by the two previous rounds of pay cuts. As I've already stated and this is a fact, if you took the whole public sector workforce and multiplied it by two, you'd have the approximate number of people in the private sector who took the ultimate pay cut when they lost their job and got bumped down to 188 Euro a week IF they were entitled to the dole, which excludes many who were self employed who were not entitled to the dole.

What part of that very simple analysis are you having the difficulty with??? Are you telling me we do not presently have half a million people in this country on the dole, not a single one of whom suffered a compulsory redundancy in the public sector (because there were none!). The nearly half a million people on the dole obviously excludes the 100-200 thousand people who have emigrated.

The deficit is only coming down because services are being slashed, how on earth can it be coming down due to public sector pay savings when there is an agreement not to cut pay?!?

Godge

HellFireClub wrote: »

If this were true, then the citizens of countries that have a higher effective tax rate than us, such as Nordic Countries, would all be living in Ireland. And all the corporations that are based in countries with a higher Corporate Tax rate than us, wouldn't be based where they are, they would all be based in Ireland.

Corporation tax wouldn't be the only criterion but in some cases it might be the key one and in others other factors might come into play.

For example, we have seven of the top ten pharmaceutical companies in the world in Ireland. Ditto in IT with dropbox the latest to join google, facebook, paypal etc. It is noticeable that in both cases, shipping costs are low to zero, and therefore there is no issue in being located on a small island off the west coast of Europe.

We don't have truck manufacturers based here. Is that because of the corporation tax or because the corporation tax isn't enough of a reason to offset the high shipping costs?

Similar with people, many of the Nordics have grown up in a culture of the best state services in the world and don't want to leave that. Yet, we have many coming from Eastern Europe to live here.

Riskymove

HellFireClub wrote: »

Are you joking?!? Automatic increments have since completely reversed the effect of the pay cuts!!!

well I sort of expected you to jump to increments, this has been done already in many threads. All I'll say is that I disagree

if you took the entire public sector workforce, and multiplied it by 2, that's the approximate number of people in the private sector who have taken the ultimate pay cut when they lost their jobs!!!

600,000 have lost their jobs?

Not a single person in the public sector has had to face that situation

nonsense