The Pro Austerity Crowd

Bubbaclaus

SafeSurfer wrote: »

The usual response from the tax everything except corporate profit brigade.

The US corporate tax rate is 35% and their unemployment rate is what BUbbaclaus?

The rate seems to make little difference because of the availability of so many ways to legally reduce profits and shift profit to tax free countries. At least imposing a USC would ensure these billion dollar corporations would make a meaningful contribution from their profits to Irish society.

The 12.5% CT Rate is why the Multinationals are here.

It's heartening to see you think Ireland is comparable to the USA, but lets be honest here...we are small fish. If we offered the same CT rate here as what they have at home they will just stay at home.

Satriale

ryan101 wrote: »

I don't see the well off facing any austerity. Austerity should be for everyone, not just the working / coping classes.

Their austerity is having to fire one of their "wipers"...

although there is always jobsbridge...

tritium

KyussBishop wrote: »

The difference is when stats are needed to actually prove a point (as they were, what I presume you're talking about, in the feminist threads to justify generalizations). Here they aren't, as tax arguments can be backed purely on morals.

There's no difference. Its something I could point to on several threads you've contributed to - you pick your style to suit which side of the debate you're on

The rich can pay is also a generalisation by the way

SafeSurfer

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

The 12.5% CT Rate is why the Multinationals are .

Why should I take your word for that?

Every CEO that locates here is quick to point
To our workforce as the most important reason for locating here. Indeed many MNCs are now saying high personal tax rates in Ireland are an impediment to attracting the kind of workers they want.

This is what the corporations locating here say.

http://www.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/high-personal-taxes-force-out-the-great-and-the-good-26748154.html


http://www.idaireland.com/news-media/featured-news/why-multinationals-keep-c/

Bubbaclaus

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Why should I take your word for that?

Every CEO that locates here is quick to point
To our workforce as the most important reason for locating here. Indeed many MNCs are now saying high personal tax rates in Ireland are an impediment to attracting the kind of workers they want.

This is what the corporations locating here say.

http://www.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/high-personal-taxes-force-out-the-great-and-the-good-26748154.html


http://www.idaireland.com/news-media/featured-news/why-multinationals-keep-c/

Of course they would say that?

They are hardly going to go out and say "Yeah we came here to pay **** all taxes"

tritium

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Why should I take your word for that?

Every CEO that locates here is quick to point
To our workforce as the most important reason for locating here. Indeed many MNCs are now saying high personal tax rates in Ireland are an impediment to attracting the kind of workers they want.

This is what the corporations locating here say.

http://www.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/high-personal-taxes-force-out-the-great-and-the-good-26748154.html


http://www.idaireland.com/news-media/featured-news/why-multinationals-keep-c/

I can explain the effect of having a more welcoming government elsewhere in one word: Dell

SafeSurfer

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

Of course they would say that?

They are hardly going to go out and say "Yeah we came here to pay **** all taxes"

Oh right. So what you say, is correct and what they say is wrong. That sort of logic belongs in the conspiracy forum.

KyussBishop

tritium wrote: »

There's no difference. Its something I could point to on several threads you've contributed to - you pick your style to suit which side of the debate you're on

The rich can pay is also a generalisation by the way

There's no difference between a generalization, and having to prove it, and being able to make moral arguments about taxes, without writing up a complete plan for a tax system? That's nonsense - you're stretching to make a false comparison.

Cazzoenorme

KyussBishop wrote: »

Did he assert that the fiscal deficit can be closed? As far as I can see, no. That's your straw-man, for trying to pin him into your frame of argument, where you demand stats/figures.

The argument can be justified purely on morals.

Did I assert that he asserted that the fiscal deficit can be closed? . As far as I can see no. That's your strawman, for trying to pin me into the frame of your argument, where you say I made an assertion that I didn't.

tritium

KyussBishop wrote: »

There's no difference between a generalization, and having to prove it, and being able to make moral arguments about taxes, without writing up a complete plan for a tax system? That's nonsense - you're stretching to make a false comparison.

And you accuse others of misrepresentation....

I note you've completely ignored the last point I made by the way...

Kermit.de.frog

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Oh right. So what you say, is correct and what they say is wrong. That sort of logic belongs in the conspiracy forum.

Do you seriously believe that all the multinationals are here because of the mighty Irish workforce?



Really?

KyussBishop

Cazzoenorme wrote: »

Did I assert that he asserted that the fiscal deficit can be closed? . As far as I can see no. That's your strawman, for trying to pin me into the frame of your argument, where you say I made an assertion that I didn't.

Yes, you did:
"I f someone asserts that our fiscal deficit can be closed"
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=90442351#post90442351

Are you here to actually debate anything, or just take potshots?

KyussBishop

tritium wrote: »

And you accuse others of misrepresentation....

I note you've completely ignored the last point I made by the way...

Well you're accusing me of misrepresentation now, so do you want to actually back that up with something? Or are you just going to leave it implied, so you can pull it back later?

Yes actually, I missed your last point: "The rich can pay is also a generalisation by the way"

Take what tayto said (quoting him directly - I bet it wasn't as simple as 'the rich can pay'), and prove how any of it is a generalization - just asserting that something is generalizing, doesn't make it so - you seem to be just making that up completely.

Bubbaclaus

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Oh right. So what you say, is correct and what they say is wrong. That sort of logic belongs in the conspiracy forum.

If our CT rate was always 35% would all the multinationals currently in Ireland have come to Ireland?

Bubbaclaus

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Do you seriously believe that all the multinationals are here because of the mighty Irish workforce?



Really?

Indeed.

It's fine to be proud of ones country but when you throw that kind of delusion in it doesn't do anyone any favours.

Kermit.de.frog

Nail on head. It is actual delusion. Dangerous for the many workers employed in these companies as well. Why would a small country like this take such a gamble and take away our own (only?) advantage ourselves?

mickydoomsux

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Nail on head. It is actual delusion. Dangerous for the many workers employed in these companies as well. Why would a small country like this take such a gamble and take away our own (only?) advantage ourselves?

It's obvious that the government and IDA know it's important as well because it was something that wasn't going to be budged on during the bailout negotiations despite a lot of other EU countries saying it gave us an unfair advantage.

SafeSurfer

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

If our CT rate was always 35% would all the multinationals currently in Ireland have come to Ireland?

You are asking a hypothetical question which is as impossible to know as your assertion that any increase in our CT rate would see a corporate exodus.

If you look at a list of the world's top destinations for FDI, there seems to be little correlation with the CT rate.

Cazzoenorme

KyussBishop wrote: »

Yes, you did:
"I f someone asserts that our fiscal deficit can be closed"
//ww w.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=90442351#post9044235

Are you here to actually debate anything, or just take potshots?

Key word being someone. Don't expect that I'll just let you misrepresent me without pointing out your logical inconsistencies.

Bubbaclaus

SafeSurfer wrote: »

You are asking a hypothetical question which is as impossible to know as your assertion that any increase in our CT rate would see a corporate exodus.

If you look at a list of the world's top destinations for FDI, there seems to be little correlation with the CT rate.

The top destinations for FDI are top destinations because they offer advantages over other destinations. Ireland's advantage is its 12.5% CT rate.

KyussBishop

Cazzoenorme wrote: »

Key word being someone. Don't expect that I'll just let you misrepresent me without pointing out your logical inconsistencies.

Ok, who is that someone?

Mr. Incognito

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Or here is a mad idea, Close all the loop holes that are used to aggressively avoid paying their fair share. On paper yes they look like their paying alot from their wage. In reality it's hugely mitigated though various tax schemes exemptions, Gifting, Charity. I would wager some of these top earners are getting easily 75% of what they pay in back. Look at the people getting caught out in the UK, Odd it’s not happening here because their all at it and don't want a light shining back at themselves. If you think the top earners are paying the correct on paper amount your deluded. It’s not about taxing them more, It’s about getting the actual amount they should be paying. They always give out the revenue figures for what they paid in but not what they claimed back or mitigated. And if you try to push for answers you get “They will leave”

If you want to know what any multinational pays in tax you can freely download their accounts. Any high earner here is paying 41percent income tax, then prsi and USC. There is no shelter available for charitable donations. The charity claims the credit not the donee. Either way the person is out of pocket.

Anyone who thinks Ireland is subsidising multinationals are deluded. The multinationals are subsidising Ireland.

They have even begun building their own internet and fibre and power supply infrastructures because our government can't even get that set up.

Britain and France are begging for these multinationals.

longhalloween

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

Any high earner here is paying 41percent income tax,

Actually 52% after earnings of €36k.

tritium

KyussBishop wrote: »

Well you're accusing me of misrepresentation now, so do you want to actually back that up with something? Or are you just going to leave it implied, so you can pull it back later?

Yes actually, I missed your last point: "The rich can pay is also a generalisation by the way"

Take what tayto said (quoting him directly - I bet it wasn't as simple as 'the rich can pay'), and prove how any of it is a generalization - just asserting that something is generalizing, doesn't make it so - you seem to be just making that up completely.

Ah here's the Kyuss we kniw , argue fine detail when it suits to derail an argument that's not going g too well. Normally I wouldn't indulge but have a look at the following

tayto lover wrote: »

How the Hell would I know. I'm not an economist.
All i'm saying is that people earning/having plenty of money should pay more rather than taking from the struggling people. Regardless of how much they already pay.

Send you query to David Mc Williams though rather than any of the other economists who didn't see the collapse coming or who thought we'd have a soft landing.

tayto lover wrote: »

I would expect the people who earn a net income of 60 K and over to give some more.
I wouldn't lump any more on people under 30 K as they have very little left to give. The OAP's have paid all their working lives through many recession and they should be allowed to live out their remaining time without worry.

tayto lover wrote: »

Every worker is working hard now.
Those who earn most should be prepared to give a little more as they can afford it. It hurts them less.
We are in a recession as most of you keep pointing out.

tayto lover wrote: »

I didn't say they were exempt.
I said they should be paying more as they can afford to.

tayto lover wrote: »

Well at present it's tax the elderly, the student, the worker, the home-owner, the carers, the special needs children etc etc. Anything but taxing those who can afford to pay it most.

Now are you really going to argue semantics on this?

(I rather expect you will since it will take us down another rabbit hole)

steddyeddy

Conditionally pro austerity posters (i.e. you're only favour certain targets taking hits before getting sentimental about your own tribe) I have a problem with your rhetoric for one reason. You do not give a feck in the world about baseline health, education and housing and for that reason I can't agree with you. Most of the people I have encountered in college with such views as those who rely entirely on mammy and daddy for their adult lifestyle. What sort of lifestyle are the pro austerity side coming from?

KyussBishop

tritium wrote: »

Ah here's the Kyuss we kniw , argue fine detail when it suits to derail an argument that's not going g too well. Normally I wouldn't indulge but have a look at the following

Now are you really going to argue semantics on this?

(I rather expect you will since it will take us down another rabbit hole)

Right, so it wasn't as simple as 'the rich can pay'. You missed the part, where you explain how he is generalizing. How was he generalizing?

Ray Palmer

I'll make it clear. I will leave the country and take my assets out of country if the government do any of the suggestion to increase the inheritance tax or income tax.

I currently turn down work because of tax. it prevents me from creating other businesses. I am not going to work more and risk investment doe 48% of what I would earn. Knowing it also would get 33% of it removed on the event of my death too.

Paid 48K on income tax one year and the next year when there was no work I was entitled to no dole. I get there will be some haggle on fair but nobody can say that is fair.

Bubbaclaus

steddyeddy wrote: »

What sort of lifestyle are the pro austerity side coming from?

I'm supporting myself on €24k a year. Share a small apartment over a cafe with 2 other friends.

Mr. Incognito

longhalloween wrote: »

Actually 52% after earnings of €36k.

Prsi and USC are not income tax but are chargeable under the social Security legislation and amendments to the TCA. But that's being pedantic

Cazzoenorme

steddyeddy wrote: »

Conditionally pro austerity posters (i.e. you're only favour certain targets taking hits before getting sentimental about your own tribe) I have a problem with your rhetoric for one reason. You do not give a feck in the world about baseline health, education and housing and for that reason I can't agree with you. Most of the people I have encountered in college with such views as those who rely entirely on mammy and daddy for their adult lifestyle. What sort of lifestyle are the pro austerity side coming from?

I can barely pay my bills and I'm "pro austerity".