O'Gara poised to join Sexton at Racing Metro

Winters

You must retire from playing professional rugby in Ireland to be eligible.

I would imagine as he has retired now he is in the process of claiming that and so if he plays again in France it would be an issue.

Rightwing

Winters wrote: »

You must retire from playing professional rugby in Ireland to be eligible.

I would imagine as he has retired now he is in the process of claiming that and so if he plays again in France it would be an issue.

That rule should be scrapped. Everyone should pay their taxes.

trouttrout

Rightwing wrote: »

That rule should be scrapped. Everyone should pay their taxes.

So by that logic every tax rebate in the country should be scrapped? Sportspeople do a hell of a lot for the spirit of a country, and rugby players deserve every penny they get imo considering the duress they put their bodies under for such a short career

Winters

Buer wrote: »

I don't believe there is one. Most teams don't have a dedicated kicking coach. It's a luxury and, if there is one, they combine it with another role like Richie Murphy does at Leinster as skills coach. ROG will be involved in backs coaching too I'd say.

Ah right thanks for that. I wonder if the likes of having a national kicking coach visiting all four provinces and academies would be worthwhile. Did Mark Taunton do this?

Rightwing

trouttrout wrote: »

So by that logic every tax rebate in the country should be scrapped? Sportspeople do a hell of a lot for the spirit of a country, and rugby players deserve every penny they get imo considering the duress they put their bodies under for such a short career

There's no doubt it's a complex argument.

thomond2006

Rightwing wrote: »

That rule should be scrapped. Everyone should pay their taxes.

I'm surprised it hasn't been scrapped (or at least the rebate rate reduced) BUT there are some economic benefits to it. If you lose the best players to overseas it would affect revenues (ticket sales, merchandise sales, sponsorship, meritocracy payments etc) and ultimately jobs. So while it does make relatively rich people richer, those people produce a lot of revenue for Irish Rugby. If Ireland lose its top ten players to overseas tomorrow it would have a big effect on revenues. I've no big problem with the rebate. When you really think about the macro effect of it, it's a good thing.

Winters

I think the reasoning behind Charlie's tax rebate it at the start was because of the amount of revenue that sporting occasions bring into the state. Also its only 40% of their tax paid up to a maximum of 10 years I think.

We might have turned out more like Wales without it..

irishbucsfan

Its a very profitable rule for Ireland. Its been explained over and over.

thomond2006

Winters wrote: »

I think the reasoning behind Charlie's tax rebate it at the start was because of the amount of revenue that sporting occasions bring into the state. Also its only 40% of their tax paid up to a maximum of 10 years I think.

We might have turned out more like Wales without it..

The Six Nations weekends would be particularly lucrative for Dublin businesses and therefore the government. It's only fair that the players get a slice of the cake.

Rightwing

thomond2006 wrote: »

I'm surprised it hasn't been scrapped (or at least the rebate rate reduced) BUT there are some economic benefits to it. If you lose the best players to overseas it would affect revenues (ticket sales, merchandise sales, sponsorship, meritocracy payments etc) and ultimately jobs. So while it does make relatively rich people richer, those people produce a lot of revenue for Irish Rugby. If Ireland lose its top ten players to overseas tomorrow it would have a big effect on revenues. I've no big problem with the rebate.

I fully agree with you, but we could use that very argument for other cases/professions too.

irishbucsfan

Rightwing wrote: »

I fully agree with you, but we could use that very argument for other cases/professions too.

Really? Like which professions?

CIARAN_BOYLE

Winters wrote: »

Ah right thanks for that. I wonder if the likes of having a national kicking coach visiting all four provinces and academies would be worthwhile. Did Mark Taunton do this?

That would be an interesting idea, I don't actually know

thomond2006 wrote: »

The Six Nations weekends would be particularly lucrative for Dublin businesses and therefore the government. It's only fair that the players get a slice of the cake.

Government estimates (there was a report a few years back) state that every foreign visitor during a six nations weekend is worth on average €1,000 to the economy of Ireland.

thomond2006

Rightwing wrote: »

I fully agree with you, but we could use that very argument for other cases/professions too.

What other professions bring in such large revenues for the economy?

Rightwing

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Really? Like which professions?

Richard Bruton was on TV a week or so ago and reckoned executives from MNC's on salaries of €500K should be on a reduced rate of 23% tax, and get grants to send their kids to private education.

His argument, they bring in loads of jobs etc. They are very valuable and an asset to the country.

irishbucsfan

Rightwing wrote: »

Richard Bruton was on TV a week or so ago and reckoned executives from MNC's on salaries of €500K should be on a reduced rate of 23% tax, and get grants to send their kids to private education.

His argument, they bring in loads of jobs etc. They are very valuable and an asset to the country.

But thousands of tourists dont fly in every weekend to watch them do their jobs, spending money locally

Maybe the executives should get a tax break, that's a completely different discussion and pretty irrelevant. It doesn't change the fact the rugby tax break is justified.

trouttrout

Rightwing wrote: »

Richard Bruton was on TV a week or so ago and reckoned executives from MNC's on salaries of €500K should be on a reduced rate of 23% tax, and get grants to send their kids to private education.

His argument, they bring in loads of jobs etc. They are very valuable and an asset to the country.

Sorry now, but **** that. Whatever about a fair rate of taxation to attract investment, but grants for their kids to go to private school!? My arse

totallegend

thomond2006 wrote: »

What other professions bring in such large revenues for the economy?

We're going waaaay off topic here, but let's say some guy opens a huge pub in the centre of Dublin.

At the end of ten years, he says "I've generated millions of euro in VAT and excise, my employees have paid millions of euro in tax and PRSI, the total contribution to the local economy has been enormous", would you be in favour of him getting a rebate on his tax? I doubt it.

Rugby players are very, very well paid. Don't get me wrong, I'm delighted that we get to keep the majority of them in Ireland and I'd imagine the overall cost of the scheme is quite low, but basing the argument on economic value doesn't stack up.

Rightwing

irishbucsfan wrote: »

But thousands of tourists dont fly in every weekend to watch them do their jobs, spending money locally

Maybe the executives should get a tax break, that's a completely different discussion and pretty irrelevant. It doesn't change the fact the rugby tax break is justified.

What about the actors and bands like U2, should they pay nothing, because people will go to concerts, sell out a few hotels?

trouttrout

Rightwing wrote: »

What about the actors and bands like U2, should they pay nothing, because people will go to concerts, sell out a few hotels?

They don't spend anything. They actively avoid tax by basing their company in Holland. Bono, a sound man

thomond2006

totallegend wrote: »

We're going waaaay off topic here, but let's say some guy opens a huge pub in the centre of Dublin.

At the end of ten years, he says "I've generated millions of euro in VAT and excise, my employees have paid millions of euro in tax and PRSI, the total contribution to the local economy has been enormous", would you be in favour of him getting a rebate on his tax? I doubt it.

Rugby players are very, very well paid. Don't get me wrong, I'm delighted that we get to keep the majority of them in Ireland and I'd imagine the overall cost of the scheme is quite low, but basing the argument on economic value doesn't stack up.

[off topic] I actually wouldn't be majorly against your example getting a rebate! [/off topic]

What other argument is there other than economic value? I don't know the reasons behind it, I'm only speculating why. As you say the overall cost of the scheme would be low (time value of money). I'm sure the government would have carried out some kind of cost-benefit analysis on the merits of a rebate for professional players. I have no figures to back up what I said earlier, but I get the feeling that if top players were to leave en masse then the provincial revenues would really suffer and that it wouldn't be offset by the money saved from no rebate.

Rightwing

trouttrout wrote: »

They don't spend anything. They actively avoid tax by basing their company in Holland. Bono, a sound man

I agree, but people could base an argument and say 'U2 shouldn't even have to go Holland' Look at all the good they have done, all the revenue they've brought in over the years.

Winters

Spending money in the state and creating revenue in the state is just business but the issue here is thousands of non Ireland based tourists bringing revenue from another state into Ireland just to watch 15 lads arm wrestle.

I dont know what other sports are in the same category.

irishbucsfan

Rightwing wrote: »

What about the actors and bands like U2, should they pay nothing, because people will go to concerts, sell out a few hotels?

You're completely missing the point of it. Why Charlie brought it in.

Our government earns far more by keeping these players here than losing them to England and France. So players who live and pay tax in Ireland get their rebate for really quite obvious reasons.

Bands aren't comparable, their industry is far different. And film companies get looked after quite nicely as well. Offering actors a rebate is a stupid example.

Rightwing

irishbucsfan wrote: »

You're completely missing the point of it. Why Charlie brought it in.

Our government earns far more by keeping these players here than losing them to England and France. So players who live and pay tax in Ireland get their rebate for really quite obvious reasons.

Bands aren't comparable, their industry is far different. And film companies get looked after quite nicely as well. Offering actors a rebate is a stupid example.

That's got absolutely nothing to do with my point. No one is saying otherwise.

We saw what Charlie's policies did to the country,,,led to financial ruin.

It's a bit like Apple paying 2% Corp tax,,,'ah shure it's better than them paying nathin at all'

trouttrout

Rightwing wrote: »

That's got absolutely nothing to do with my point. No one is saying otherwise.

We saw what Charlie's policies did to the country,,,led to financial ruin.

It's a bit like Apple paying 2% Corp tax,,,'ah shure it's better than them paying nathin at all'

Not it's not. In fact that's a terrible comparison

irishbucsfan

Rightwing wrote: »

That's got absolutely nothing to do with my point. No one is saying otherwise.

We saw what Charlie's policies did to the country,,,led to financial ruin.

It's a bit like Apple paying 2% Corp tax,,,'ah shure it's better than them paying nathin at all'

I really don't think you understand the aim of the rebate and what it has done for rugby in the country to be honest. Especially judging by the examples you've given.

totallegend

irishbucsfan wrote: »

You're completely missing the point of it. Why Charlie brought it in.

Our government earns far more by keeping these players here than losing them to England and France. So players who live and pay tax in Ireland get their rebate for really quite obvious reasons.

Bands aren't comparable, their industry is far different. And film companies get looked after quite nicely as well. Offering actors a rebate is a stupid example.

Is that sort of tone necessary? Disagree with him, fair enough, but that just provokes people.

trouttrout

totallegend wrote: »

Is that sort of tone necessary? Disagree with him, fair enough, but that just provokes people.

He is completely missing the point though. He's equating a tax rebate with tax avoidance

totallegend

thomond2006 wrote: »

[off topic] I actually wouldn't be majorly against your example getting a rebate! [/off topic]

What other argument is there other than economic value? I don't know the reasons behind it, I'm only speculating why. As you say the overall cost of the scheme would be low (time value of money). I'm sure the government would have carried out some kind of cost-benefit analysis on the merits of a rebate for professional players. I have no figures to back up what I said earlier, but I get the feeling that if top players were to leave en masse then the provincial revenues would really suffer and that it wouldn't be offset by the money saved from no rebate.

This was brought in by Charlie McCreevy, pretty much every scheme he brought in had one objective; garnering votes. SSIAs, decentralisation etc etc. The economics were generally an after-thought.

The main economic benefit to the country from rugby is foreigners coming over for internationals, correct? The numbers arriving for Rabo and HC games is probably a lot lower by comparison.

But you'd still have international games without the rebate, you'd just have the players coming home from England/France to play for the national team.

irishbucsfan

totallegend wrote: »

Is that sort of tone necessary? Disagree with him, fair enough, but that just provokes people.

It's not a tone. But fair enough. I was posting from my phone and I find my posts can come across a little sharp when I do that