Major Tax reform Idea

StigmaMan

I sort of growing tired of the current tax system, so I thougth I would post my proposal for a major tax reform for Ireland. What about abolishing all Tax credits besides pension relief? Merge the Income tax, USC and Social Insurance in one (also employer side). It could be something similar to the income tax in New Zealand but instead of the 10.5% start bracket make it 0% and move the 30% bracket downwards. Furthermore abolish joint filling. That way we would go over to a broad based system instead of the current system of high rates and huge deductions. This would give us something in the line of:

Income from €0 to €8,500 Nil
Income from €8,501 to €16,000 17.5%
Income from €16,001 to €43,000 30%
Income above €43,001 33%

If the current tax brackets would not raise enough revenue the 30% could be moved downwards to for example €12,000 and the 33% bracket raised to 35%. Just as long as the rates are low, and few brackets. All deductions are gone as mentioned to pay for lower rates and make up for the loss of abolishing social Insurance and USC.

Furthermore make the VAT a single flat rate of 19% on all goods and services instead of the different rates, so just one rate for VAT. That way we raise extra revenue, to pay for abolishing SI and USC and at the same time get rid of gift taxes, inheritance taxes and stamp duty. Huge simplification of the tax system. Make the corporate tax 19% too, same goes for capital gains, dividends, interest, royalties and so on.

Furthermore drop the system of different rates of VRT and just make it a flat 40%. the current small difference in VRT rates dont make any difference for peoples choice of car anyway. One higher rate will make people think more about getting a vehicle and choose public transportation instead - that way decrease CO2 emissions more.

Anyway I making a excel calculator for my income tax reform idea. Will be up when ever i figure out how to upload. Update: Seems to be done.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/32196431/Ireland%20Income%20Tax%20Proposal.xls

Freddie Dodge

Have you costed any of this?

At a glance:
The rise in services VAT sounds like it would cause huge cost increase to consumers.

A 19% rate of corporation tax = about 200,000 job losses over the short term, how do you propose to rectify this?

The marginal rates paid today on lower incomes would be less than those you propose, so why the increase for lower and middle incomes, and a huge reduction of the order of 19% for very high earners?

Way to go if your goal is to bankrupt both the exchequer and the people.

Are you a Sinn Fein economist?

StigmaMan

Haha it is a proposal that took me 20 minutes to make I just noticed another thread which touched the topic so got the idea of a proposal for a major tax reform. Anyway I largely still working on it, still have to figure out how to calculate how much that 19% flat VAT rate will bring in of GDP, but my guess based on a similar single flat rate of 19% in slovakia and chile it will bring in around 8% of gdp. It is largely based on the tax system in New Zealand which largely got an equal tax revenue as a charge of GDP to Ireland. The VAT in New Zealand is only 15% flat rate though instead.

The unification of the different VAT bands into one rate of 19% will certainly have an impact but is done to make up the for the loss of revenue for abolishing SI for both employee and employer and abolishing USC. Same goes for the hike in corporate tax, which is also used to make up the loss of revenue elsewhere. I have made a calculator to look at what the impact will be for different incomes (the link), currently the income tax rates is largely the same as the ones in New Zealand, but i have noticed the hike for poor and middle. So the rates may have to be changes a bit. But Ireland is currently one of the countries one the planet with the most progressive income tax, which makes it very awful place to be a high income earner.

I dont see how it should bankrupt the government all revenue lost by abolishing SI and USC are made up by higher income taxes on the low and middle and Merging VAT in one higher rate of 19% like Slovakia for example did and furthermore the corporate tax increase. I dont see how the job loss impact could be that big, this is revenue neutral. All my reform proposal does it bringing us from many taxes with high rates and many deductions over to few taxes with low rates no deductions.

the cost increase for consumers by the single VAT rate of 19% on all goods and services wont be that big, when people no longer way SI and employer increase the employees wages now he no longer have to pay any SI share, that the employer simply carry over in form of lower wages in the first place. aka wages will increase the amount the employer no longer have to pay in SI share of 10.75%. Besides all things that before was exempt from VAT are still exempted besides food stuff that were at 0% they are now at 19%.

anyway look at the calculator i made, yes the income tax rates people pay are higher but remember they no longer pay USC and SI. So in the end no big change.

paul71

StigmaMan wrote: »

Besides all things that before was exempt from VAT are still exempted besides food stuff that were at 0% they are now at 19%.

Probably about 300,000 people on breadline or below and you are proposing a 20% increase in the price of bread, milk, veg, fruit, and meat?

StigmaMan

paul71 wrote: »

Probably about 300,000 people on breadline or below and you are proposing a 20% increase in the price of bread, milk, veg, fruit, and meat?

The can afford it, they well see a major income tax cut through they no longer pay SI or USC. Besides other countries have single flat rate for VAT that includes food and they don't have starving problems.

paul71

StigmaMan wrote: »

The can afford it, they well see a major income tax cut through they no longer pay SI or USC. Besides other countries have single flat rate for VAT that includes food and they don't have starving problems.

People on social welfare don't pay SI or USC so they would have an immediate increase on necessary expenditure and no income increase to offset it.

You also propose standard DIRT and dividend rates at lower then the highest marginal tax rates, this would result in a lower direct tax burden on the wealthiest whilst indirect taxes increase based on spending on necessities.

The poorer members of society always spend a higher proportion of income on necessities then the better off. In effect what you are proposing is a massive sift of the overall tax burden onto the poorest sections of society.

StigmaMan

paul71 wrote: »

People on social welfare don't pay SI or USC so they would have an immediate increase on necessary expenditure and no income increase to offset it.

You also propose standard DIRT and dividend rates at lower then the highest marginal tax rates, this would result in a lower direct tax burden on the wealthiest whilst indirect taxes increase based on spending on necessities.

The poorer members of society always spend a higher proportion of income on necessities then the better off. In effect what you are proposing is a massive sift of the overall tax burden onto the poorest sections of society.

true I am making some shifts to a substantively higher flat rate VAT that is to make up for the loss of revenue from ending SI and USC. The higher medium Income tax bands further pay for the cost of ending this two, so does the higher corporate tax. The lower DIRT and dividend taxes is to compensate for the higher corporate tax. So the tax cut the rich get aint that big as you make it sound. Besides the lost revenue from lower DIRT and dividends taxes is tiny.

We border the UK ( in the form of NI ) so if our vat rate is our of kilter with there's, people will change habits and buy in NI.

Will your policy bring in the same amount of revenue as at present, because if it does not you haven't a hope of anyone taking it seriously.

StigmaMan

mariaalice wrote: »

We border the UK ( in the form of NI ) so if our vat rate is our of kilter with there's, people will change habits and buy in NI.

Will your policy bring in the same amount of revenue as at present, because if it does not you haven't a hope of anyone taking it seriously.

It brings in the same amount of revenue as present as far as i can see, I base estimates on how much revenue similar taxes bring in, in other countries. So around 30% of gdp.

Idbatterim

the most likely is they will just leave it as is and reduce the marginal rate. Maybe leave it as it, then for the next band, say 35-85k have it at high 30's and 85k and over high 40's, I still think its scandalous. Pyschologically, knowing that they are getting over 50% from you is headf**cking, even it could be gotten under 50%, it would be a start... If someone asks where the revenue will come from, by freezing everything else for several years... It's payback time! Those who have lost their jobs, followed by the middle classes, have been hit by far the hardest IMO...

antoobrien

paul71 wrote: »

you are proposing a 20% increase in the price of bread, milk, veg, fruit, and meat?

Exempt from VAT along with children's clothing, so would not be affected.

antoobrien

StigmaMan wrote: »

I sort of growing tired of the current tax system, so I thougth I would post my proposal for a major tax reform for Ireland. What about abolishing all Tax credits besides pension relief? Merge the Income tax, USC and Social Insurance in one (also employer side).


Income from €0 to €8,500 Nil
Income from €8,501 to €16,000 17.5%
Income from €16,001 to €43,000 30%
Income above €43,001 33%


Anyway I making a excel calculator for my income tax reform idea. Will be up when ever i figure out how to upload. Update: Seems to be done.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/32196431/Ireland%20Income%20Tax%20Proposal.xls

I'm going to make a suggestion, move the 0% band to 10k, where the revenue statistics start. It won't make much of a difference in the grand scheme as the tax, usc & prsi from that group is negligible.

I'd stay clear of your suggestion for employers PRSI, or at the very least split it out from talking about employee PAYE, PRSI & USC. While it is a cost to the employer, the other three are not and conflating them is a bad idea.

Gus99

How about this (abolish the standard/paye credit & merge USC into Income Tax, keep PRSI separate). 5 tax rates, one PRSI rate with an earnings ceiling. Comparative figures are approximations in some cases:

a, 00-10k Income Tax 3% PRSI 5% (up from combined 6% currently)
b, 10-16k Income Tax 3% PRSI 5% (same as combined 8% currently)
c, 16-32k Income Tax 25% PRSI 5% (down from combined 31% currently)
d, 32-65k Income Tax 35% PRSI 5% (down from combined 52% currently)
e, 65-100k Income Tax 40% PRSI 5% (down from combined 52% currently)
f, 100k+ Income Tax 50% PRSI 0% (down from combined 52% currently)

If total earnings <10k, no Tax or PRSI payable (same as currently)
If total earnings 10k-16k Tax and PRSI payable only payable on portion over 10k

Makes system a little less progressive as someone earning between 10k and 18k would now pay PRSI.

This will probably reduce total revenue but its where I would focus any tax cuts as circumstances allow. People tend to equate "progressive" with "equitable" - that is true to a point, but when a tax system becomes too progressive, it can also be unfair.

This would also increase Social Insurance fund, the current 4% rate is low compared to other countries (and we should have an upper earnings ceiling, else it is effectively just another income tax).

Over time I would also aim to decrease the tax rates in each of c,d,e and f by a further 5%.

StigmaMan

antoobrien wrote: »

Exempt from VAT along with children's clothing, so would not be affected.

I actually recommended abolishing the VAT exemption for those too. Yeah I know my plan crush to poor, i did not think about it when i made the plan. I am looking into having a flat rate of 15% instead, but have to get the revenue from elsewhere to make up for the loss.

Gus99 wrote: »

How about this (abolish the standard/paye credit & merge USC into Income Tax, keep PRSI separate). 5 tax rates, one PRSI rate with an earnings ceiling. Comparative figures are approximations in some cases:

a, 00-10k Income Tax 3% PRSI 5% (up from combined 6% currently)
b, 10-16k Income Tax 3% PRSI 5% (same as combined 8% currently)
c, 16-32k Income Tax 25% PRSI 5% (down from combined 31% currently)
d, 32-65k Income Tax 35% PRSI 5% (down from combined 52% currently)
e, 65-100k Income Tax 40% PRSI 5% (down from combined 52% currently)
f, 100k+ Income Tax 50% PRSI 0% (down from combined 52% currently)

If total earnings <10k, no Tax or PRSI payable (same as currently)
If total earnings 10k-16k Tax and PRSI payable only payable on portion over 10k

Makes system a little less progressive as someone earning between 10k and 18k would now pay PRSI.

This will probably reduce total revenue but its where I would focus any tax cuts as circumstances allow. People tend to equate "progressive" with "equitable" - that is true to a point, but when a tax system becomes too progressive, it can also be unfair.

This would also increase Social Insurance fund, the current 4% rate is low compared to other countries (and we should have an upper earnings ceiling, else it is effectively just another income tax).

Over time I would also aim to decrease the tax rates in each of c,d,e and f by a further 5%.

Why in the world you want to keep PRSI there is no good reasons for having multiple income taxes running at the same time, they all end in the same put of money anyway. Lets just get rid of it, we can bring in 30% of GDP in without having this tax.

paul71

antoobrien wrote: »

Exempt from VAT along with children's clothing, so would not be affected.

Wrong not exempt, zero rated, and that is a very important distinction.

Medical, education and insurance are exempt, food and childrens clothes are not, which means VAT can be applied by our government on these at any time without changing the rules on VAT at an EU level.

percy212

Electricity, gas, phone, and oil should also be zero rated. They are essentials. Can't live without em.

Frank Lee Midere

Most of you guys don't seem to understand this becomes a tax on the poor compared to now. A single PAYE worker gets tax credits of 1650 for being a tax payer and another 1650 for being in the PAYE sector. That's tax free earnings up to 16500.

And merging USC into tax is dumb. It's a tax anyway. So is PRSI.

ger664

Our problem is not our tax system or how it is collected. Its how current and past governments have squandered it.

paul71

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

Most of you guys don't seem to understand this becomes a tax on the poor compared to now. A single PAYE worker gets tax credits of 1650 for being a tax payer and another 1650 for being in the PAYE sector. That's tax free earnings up to 16500.

And merging USC into tax is dumb. It's a tax anyway. So is PRSI.

I understood it perfectly, but upon confronting op with it he simply stated "they can afford it"

According to him someone who as lost their job, can't pay mortgage and struggles to afford bare essentials "can afford" a 20% increase in the cost of feeding a family in order to give DIRT and dividend relief to multi-millionaires.

It is so divorced from reality that I am out of here, good luck with selling your idea OP, but I suspect the only buyers would be to the right of the tea party.

Frank Lee Midere

paul71 wrote: »

I understood it perfectly, but upon confronting op with it he simply stated "they can afford it"

According to him someone who as lost their job, can't pay mortgage and struggles to afford bare essentials "can afford" a 20% increase in the cost of feeding a family in order to give DIRT and dividend relief to multi-millionaires.

It is so divorced from reality that I am out of here, good luck with selling your idea OP, but I suspect the only buyers would be to the right of the tea party.

Well there is nothing in his proposal about welfare but low paid workers will lose out big time.

StigmaMan

Haha I can see my proposal brought up some hatred. Anyway lets discuss if it is revenue neutral, yes it is it brings in 30% of GDP based on estimates from other countries with similar taxes. But there are some smaller shifts towards the poor/middle to pay for having a tax rate of maximum a third of your income. Furthermore the VAT hike to a flat 19% on all things ALSO the zero rated bracket, is necessary to pay for abolishing USC and keeping the low corporate tax.

I thought the income gains and loses did not mean that much, it was just a starting proposal, things can still be changed. Dividends, interest and capital gains taxation can be brought up to 25% for all, and the higher income tax brackets can be raised to 35% from 33%, stamp duty reintroduced, to pay for cutting the flat VAT down to 15%. Or we could split the new 15% up in two brackets again of 7% and 19% like Germany?

A Scoundrel

StigmaMan wrote: »

But Ireland is currently one of the countries one the planet with the most progressive income tax, which makes it very awful place to be a high income earner.

Lets call this musical, "It's Oh So Hard To Be Rich. Sounds like a scream.

High income earners have no problems avoiding 'punitive' taxation in Ireland, nor do foreign employees of MNCs who are relocating here. Looks like your 'solution' is designed to combat a problem that doesn't even exist, or do anything worthwhile at all.

For clarity, are you making this proposal out of some moral belief, or because you think there is some sort of observable problem with the current system?

Idbatterim

the below relevant piece was in the indo earlier...

http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/high-taxes-cost-ireland-talent-warns-cpl-boss-29970776.html

High taxes cost Ireland talent, warns CPL boss

LOUISE MCBRIDE – 02 FEBRUARY 2014

HIGH taxes are keeping talented people away from Ireland, the head of Ireland's biggest recruitment company, CPL, has warned.
"Ireland hit the high rate of tax too early," Anne Heraty told the Sunday Independent. "It can become an issue in terms of attracting people here. We certainly couldn't have any more increases in personal taxes."

Heraty said there was evidence that some of the people who were forced to leave this country for work during the recession were now returning to Ireland. However, almost half of Irish jobseekers are still emigrating to find work – and about a 10th say they have no choice but to look abroad, according to a recent CPL survey.



"There are signs that some Irish emigrants are coming back, particularly those working in financial services and technology," said Heraty. "This is very encouraging.

"However, the key thing is that our environment and infrastructure are good enough to attract people back – and to encourage highly skilled people to work here. The tax environment and education infrastructure have to be right."

CPL's profits for the last six months of 2013 increased by almost a fifth, according to its latest interim results, which were published last week.

The fees pocketed by the agency for securing permanent placements for employers jumped by about a third.

"This is a healthy sign as it shows there's been a pick-up in permanent jobs," said Heraty. "We're coming back to some economic growth in this country – and economic growth drives job creation."

She said there was evidence that the jobs recovery was spreading outside Dublin. "Employment in regional cities, such as Cork, Limerick and Galway, is improving," said Heraty. "Previously, a lot of the growth was in Dublin."

However, there is an oversupply of workers in some areas, such as retail and sales and marketing. Technology, engineering and pharmaceutical workers are in high demand, as well as those with experience in the fund industry.

The pay cuts and freezes that dominated the recession could now be a thing of the past, according to recent CPL research, which suggests that pay rises will be more common in 2014 than in 2012.

"People have gone through a tough few years - we are starting to see pay rises of between 2 and 3 per cent in some sectors," said Heraty.

"In technology, pay rises are much stronger. Those working in mobile technology, such as Java or dot net developers, can expect pay rises of between 5 and 6 per cent – if they're staying with their existing employer. Those changing jobs can expect a premium on that."

People are more confident about changing jobs today, which marks another change on the recession, when workers were afraid to jump ship, said Heraty.

There has also been an increase in the number of small businesses that are taking on staff.

"Multinationals have been very good to Ireland in terms of jobs – right through the recession," she said.

"We are starting to see the domestic and small and medium-sized businesses come back as employers.

"Small businesses are saying, 'we need to hire sales executives' or 'we need an accountant' and so on.

"That's encouraging and I hope that momentum continues."

Greyfoot

A Scoundrel wrote: »

Lets call this musical, "It's Oh So Hard To Be Rich. Sounds like a scream.

High income earners have no problems avoiding 'punitive' taxation in Ireland, nor do foreign employees of MNCs who are relocating here. Looks like your 'solution' is designed to combat a problem that doesn't even exist, or do anything worthwhile at all.

For clarity, are you making this proposal out of some moral belief, or because you think there is some sort of observable problem with the current system?

This is not only the case in Ireland mate, the fatter the cat, the less tax it pays(of course technically they just getting away with murder here).

Only solution for this economic mayhap is a perfectly new system, based on completely (not so)new values:

Complete transparency
Upper cap on salaries
Voluntary tax


It is time that we realize that there is no real shortage of materials and manpower, technology any more. We can indeed house,feed and provide water to everyone out of this 6 something billion. Borders are useless by now anyway, every national you find everywhere..

StigmaMan

A Scoundrel wrote: »

Lets call this musical, "It's Oh So Hard To Be Rich. Sounds like a scream.

High income earners have no problems avoiding 'punitive' taxation in Ireland, nor do foreign employees of MNCs who are relocating here. Looks like your 'solution' is designed to combat a problem that doesn't even exist, or do anything worthwhile at all.

For clarity, are you making this proposal out of some moral belief, or because you think there is some sort of observable problem with the current system?

I made a proposal cause i wanted to simplify the tax system, while keep bringing the same amount of revenue. I am just simply tired of us having 3 income taxes (USC, SI and the normal income tax) instead of just one.

A Scoundrel

Greyfoot wrote: »

This is not only the case in Ireland mate, the fatter the cat, the less tax it pays(of course technically they just getting away with murder here).

Yes it's a universal issue, albeit not without its merits. Our economic history, and common sense, tell us we need to have competitive incentives in place for valuable workers, and sometimes that includes facilitating - nay, encouraging - tax arbitrage.

Mark Fielding and ISME's fanboys may queen it up with their mock fury at the "55% rate" that everyone except the low waged, no waged, and small children understand to be a mirage. I'm not criticizing the mirage, per se, it just gets my goat when people try to deny that mirage.

StigmaMan wrote: »

I made a proposal cause i wanted to simplify the tax system, while keep bringing the same amount of revenue.

As above, if the tax system were simplified, and people knew how little tax company directors, the self employed, and high earners actually pay, your 'misfortunate rich' (I'm paraphrasing) would be in for a much less comfortable ride from the taxman.

I don't see any compelling reason to overhaul the taxation system in this country for the sake of mere transparency. Most people's eyes automatically shift to the net salary line on their payslip; if they are somehow unable to understand, read, or calculate their total tax contributions from that payslip, they have bigger problems than personal taxation.

I just don't see the point.

StigmaMan

A Scoundrel wrote: »

Yes it's a universal issue, albeit not without its merits. Our economic history, and common sense, tell us we need to have competitive incentives in place for valuable workers, and sometimes that includes facilitating - nay, encouraging - tax arbitrage.

Mark Fielding and ISME's fanboys may queen it up with their mock fury at the "55% rate" that everyone except the low waged, no waged, and small children understand to be a mirage. I'm not criticizing the mirage, per se, it just gets my goat when people try to deny that mirage.


As above, if the tax system were simplified, and people knew how little tax company directors, the self employed, and high earners actually pay, your 'misfortunate rich' (I'm paraphrasing) would be in for a much less comfortable ride from the taxman.

I don't see any compelling reason to overhaul the taxation system in this country for the sake of mere transparency. Most people's eyes automatically shift to the net salary line on their payslip; if they are somehow unable to understand, read, or calculate their total tax contributions from that payslip, they have bigger problems than personal taxation.

I just don't see the point.

Simplifying the tax code is a way to make things simpler, it takes more time for the government to collect and calculate 3 different income taxes than just one. And collecting one single vat instead of 3 different rates is much easier to administrate now where every single goods dont have to be put in some brackets before it can be sold. My point was simply just to give us a much simpler tax code with fewer holes.

A Scoundrel

StigmaMan wrote: »

Simplifying the tax code is a way to make things simpler, it takes more time for the government to collect and calculate 3 different income taxes than just one.

Seriously? Do you have any figures for the added administrative costs of collecting USC? My understanding has always been that the bulk of Revenue's administrative costs have gone on staff and compliance, that USC admin doesn't figure anywhere, and that administrative costs have fallen consistently, even since the introduction of the USC.

really, I think you're trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist here. If someone wants to know what tax they're paying, they should read their payslip. It is entirely acceptable for the Government of the day to collect varying taxes in various bands and at varying rates, depending on incomes.

Gus99

StigmaMan wrote: »

Why in the world you want to keep PRSI there is no good reasons for having multiple income taxes running at the same time, they all end in the same put of money anyway. Lets just get rid of it, we can bring in 30% of GDP in without having this tax.

I prefer to keep PRSI separate but only if it is genuinely uses as a social insurance fund - I agree it is effectively just another income tax as it is now structured. My larger interest is whether the total marginal rate that I proposed (in Post 13) is fairer for the different income levels, than what we have now (or even what you were suggesting in the OP). I know it is not cost neutral, it could only be implemented as circumstances allow.

StigmaMan

Haha I really feel my proposal for a new tax system haven't been well taken. What the hell is wrong with making everyone paying there fair share, the lower and middle-class is already massively under-taxed compared to higher income. But i feel people dont share that view

Nermal

A Scoundrel wrote: »

Seriously? Do you have any figures for the added administrative costs of collecting USC? My understanding has always been that the bulk of Revenue's administrative costs have gone on staff and compliance, that USC admin doesn't figure anywhere, and that administrative costs have fallen consistently, even since the introduction of the USC.

The cost falls on business, not Revenue.

The rules surrounding USC, Income tax & PRSI are stupidly complex.

Add to that CAT, CGT, stamp duty, CGT, VAT, various levys...

No one could say that the tax system is not in need of simplification.

A Scoundrel

Nermal wrote: »

The cost falls on business, not Revenue.

Actually, if you want to go down that road, all taxes and related costs ultimately fall on householders.

I haven't come across any serious complaints that payroll costs are a major burden on firms because of the USC, or that Ireland is in any way unusual in this regard, with respect to its competitors.

I'm not sure why we are even treating this idea seriously, the OP doesn't seem to be.

StigmaMan

A Scoundrel wrote: »

Actually, if you want to go down that road, all taxes and related costs ultimately fall on householders.

I haven't come across any serious complaints that payroll costs are a major burden on firms because of the USC, or that Ireland is in any way unusual in this regard, with respect to its competitors.

I'm not sure why we are even treating this idea seriously, the OP doesn't seem to be.

huh? I consider my tax proposal to be serious, and i certainly treat it as being so.. Though I am am aware it is unlikely to be implemented.

Income from €0 to €8,500 Nil
Income from €8,501 to €12,000 17.5%
Income from €12,001 to €43,000 30%
Income above €43,001 33%

Anyway brought the starting point of the 30% tax bracket down to €12,000.

antoobrien

StigmaMan wrote: »

Haha I can see my proposal brought up some hatred. Anyway lets discuss if it is revenue neutral, yes it is it brings in 30% of GDP based on estimates from other countries with similar taxes.

I did a comparison using the 2010 income statistics as published by revenue. The bands don't match exactly, so I had to change them sightly. I used the average income from each revenue band & the A rates of PRSI ( which we know is far from universal - many public servants & schemes pay lower rates) to try to come up with a kinda realistic current potential tax intake.

Ignoring tax credits, we come with a potential tax intake of 21bn (which is 4bn higher than the actual 2010 figures, due to certain reliefs & exemptions). There's approx 3bn prsi & 4bn usc, for a potential total of 28.9bn.

Applying your scheme to the revenue figures we get bands of:
< 10,000 - 0%
10,000 - 17,000 - 17.5%
17,000 - 40,000 - 30%
> 40,000 - 33%

That brings us up with a potential total of 25.8bn of taxes & levies on income, before we calculate the impact of any changes to employers PRSI (I'm not sure what you want to do about that).

No wonder you want to put vat on foot.

As for the suggestion for the CT rate, it would take about 2 years for the multinationals to figure out that either the Netherland or Luxembourg were now better options and run their operations from there, which would have a big effect on CT and quite likely the income tax take as there would be tens of thousands of sales & finance jobs in the balance.

You want to abolish stamp duty - don't make me laugh.

VRT is something that I believe the EU are unhappy about, so may have to be phased out (just as excise on cars was phased out because of the single market). Regardless putting extra costs on something - the current highest rate is 40% - is not going to raise extra revenue, it's going to make people not buy newer cars, which means a knock on effect on other revenues and will have no effect on the uptake on public transport (the obsession with PT is borderline cult religion considering most of the population doesn't have access to local PT). Instead of reducing the CO2 emissions they'll get higher as people will not replace older cars whose emissions profiles will deteriorate further.

These suggestions are not properly costed or thought out at all (ffs the "calculator" is a single income above the mean and median wages) and are so idiotic as to not warrant further comment.

StigmaMan

Errrmm the start of post Was just the ideas i had, read all pages for the chances. And btw the calculators salary Can be changed you know that Right? You Can entre what ever salary you want... So who cares what salary the calculator say enter what ever salary you Want. Stamp duty - remember i abolished all vat brackets that means the 0% brackets to.. Aka vat on house sale as in some other countries but i rolled that back to stamp duty because i found it to be a little too extreme. Your estimate for the revenue of the income tax is horrible, my estimate is based on a similar tax in new Zealand With the same brackets except the lower bracket which is zero instead of 10,5% which paid for by moving the 30% downwards. The tax brackets is of course transfered to euro and joint filling is abolished. Therefore same revenue will come from this tax as the one it is based on. The employer PRSI is abolished and therefore the employees wage will be larger, when the employer dont have to carry his share over in form of lower wages, therefore the employees wage will be around 10.75% bigger (standard employer PRSI, we though got a lower employer PRSI rate too).

The VRT changes was just an idea, we can bring it back to old system, i have just always found the current system useless and unfair for some car producers. I dont like the idea of treating some products differently just because they are certain product, same reason why i want to abolish the exeptions for the VAT and make it a flat rate instead.

And of pure interest why dont you like the calculator? It is capable of calculating the tax on what ever income you have, i used it to make the average tax follow the percentage of the the income tax brackets are based on - to bring in the same amount of revenue. Anyway I brought the 30% bracket all the way down to 12,000 euro's, hammered the DIRT and dividens taxes up to 25% instead, reintroduced Stamp Duty, lowered the VAT to flat 15%. Thats same pretty radical changes.

But can't seem to find enough revenue to keep corporate rate at 12.5%...