Joan Burton to increase tax on the Rich

dark crystal

Arthur Beesley wrote: »

How about we have the poor pay some income tax for a change?

All state benefits should be taxable.

I'm sick of bailing the poor out.

jank wrote: »

Agreed with the above. Tax all benefits you get from the state. The more you benefit, the more you get taxed and there should be a maximum cap on what one household can get.
Lastly for people under 30, if you are not working or learning you don't get a cent.

Define poor. Not all people on benefits are lazy scroungers who haven't seen a day's work in their lives.

The Celtic Tiger has changed Ireland in more ways than one. When I see posts like these, it reads more like something you'd hear on one of those awful FOX news shows in the US.

DeanAustin

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

I think it's disgusting that people who get up early to do an honest days work just to pay their mortgage and provide for their families are being targeted over and over again whilst you have people in this country who have never worked and have no intention of ever working with rent allowance, dole and child benefit, medical card among other things.

And I know someone will say "it's a minority". To be honest I don't give a fcuk if it's a minority. It is not right.

I am in an ok job with an ok wage stressed to bits to keep a roof over my head with mortgage, bills, medical and all the rest. I can literally go out once every 2 weeks for an hour for a drink.

The people around me in the pub a few weeks back, the 3 I know were on the dole (2 with rent allowance) - they seemingly had more expendable income that night than I did! And given their reputation and fondness for drink i'd say it's a fair bet they were having piss ups on Thursday and Friday night too.

Me you and every worker are paying for that and the 5 kids and all the rest.

It's soul destroying if you are even an average wage today.

It's just not right.

/rant

Well said. I've no problem with the dole and rent allowance being available. Any of us could find ourselves unemployed tomorrow and needing help.

However, I object to funding people who have no intention of ever working. Why should the rest of us pay massive taxes to help people who have no intention of helping themselves?

jank

dark crystal wrote: »

Define poor. Not all people on benefits are lazy scroungers who haven't seen a day's work in their lives.

The Celtic Tiger has changed Ireland in more ways than one. When I see posts like these, it reads more like something you'd hear on one of those awful FOX news shows in the US.

When I read posts like this then I think, no wonder Ireland is bankrupt.

mariaalice

That a great question who are the rich exactly? there is an a lot of someone else( but not us) will have to pay about the policies like that.

You will find you can not pin labour or people before profit or sinn fein down on this issue it always a case of someone else will have to pay.

Valetta

Most state benefits are taxable.

Most people receiving benefits, however do not receive enough to be over the tax free threshold.

Barely There

Burton's 'tax the rich' bolloxology is nothing more than the preliminary attempt to start winning back some of the votes Labour lost to the Shinners in the local elections.

It's meaningless in reality as there's no definition of who is 'rich' or how much extra tax she wants them to pay.

Labour have obviously seen that there's a certain percentage of voters (let's call them 'The Dumbasses') who will buy into a 'magic-beans' solution to our economic difficulties.

It depresses me that politics often becomes about pandering to the stupid.

folan

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

The top .1 % pay nothing.

source?

Elmer Blooker

Good. Lets hope Joan B is next Labour leader and Tanaiste,
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056383599

muppetkiller

Also Child Benefit in this country is simply scandalous ! Why pay people to have children who cannot afford to raise them ?

Child benefit should only be given for the first two children and after that only as a tax benefit if you are actually working. If you want 10 kids then pay for them yourself :mad:

This country does everything it can to penalize the middle Income earner while giving no incentive for an unemployed family/person to find jobs. And make no mistake about it , it's the system that's the problem so lets not blame the unemployed. It's got to the stage now where it's stupid to take on a minimum wage job for all the benefits you lose.

I'm on holiday here with my Girlfriend in Hungary and all people on Welfare are out Cutting the Grass along the roads, Cleaning graffiti , Cutting down trees in the woods for Firewood etc ..If they don't turn up to do it for a certain number of days each week they don't get paid. We should have the same here.

mariaalice

Why o why does it always turn in to those on welfare rant rant.. and welfare bashing... and followed by get rid of child benefit its so predictable and derails what could be interesting debate on who are the rich.

seamus

Caliden wrote: »

Increasing taxes during a recession was pure idiotic.

Well not really, taxes were already exceptionally low.

Consumer confidence collapsed due to falling wages and increasing costs. Reducing taxation or keeping it stable wouldn't encourage spending, it would just encourage more fervent savings.

You're right now - the recession is over and the economy is on the up, so a small drop in income taxes would free up more disposable income and increase the flow of money into the economy. VAT is a tough one. I think we should look at phasing out VAT overall, or maybe keeping it at a nominal 10% as it doesn't provide a very stable income stream and is surprisingly inflexible in altering consumer pricing. That is, if you drop VAT by 5%, you don't find that prices actually drop by the same amount. Retailers hold onto a piece of it for themselves. Likewise when you increase VAT, generally what you see is an increase of VAT on the product + the price being rounded up.
Decreasing VAT drastically would also save a big chunk on the Social welfare bill because you could cut social welfare spending quite a bit.

There are some strange ways that we flow money into the economy which are costing us money. VAT is one of them - we give someone welfare payments and then collect VAT on the stuff they buy with those payments. And in some cases even collect tax on these payments. The cost per head of this extra admin is probably in the fractions of percent, but when you apply it over a €20bn welfare it becomes not insignificant sums of money.
In the same way that we can analyse that a charity "spends" X% of every euro donated, it must be possible to calculate how much it costs us to give €1 in social welfare. And then look at attacking that. i.e. if it costs 20c to give someone €1 in social welfare, then try and eliminate those costs and reduce social welfare by 20c. Saving == 40c, and the welfare recipient experiences no real decrease in income.

mariaalice

I think its all about perspective to be honest, there was a vox pop on the the radio recently and anyway the question was on paying tax and one woman said take more tax from the teacher and the doctors and they should not get child benefit, now the woman really meant it because in her situation they were the "rich", in absolute terms teacher and the like, even ones on 65k are not rich ( well off is a relative term too )

muppetkiller

mariaalice wrote: »

Why o why does it always turn in to those on welfare rant rant.. and welfare bashing... and followed by get rid of child benefit its so predictable and derails what could be interesting debate on who are the rich.

It's not a rant about Welfare..It's a rant about how the system keeps people on Welfare. All benefits in this country should be brought into the tax system. We also shouldn't have twenty different taxes ..PRSI / USC / Income Tax etc.. One tax with different rates depending on what you earn.

dark crystal

jank wrote: »

When I read posts like this then I think, no wonder Ireland is bankrupt.

If you think it was the poor that bankrupted this country, your opinions really don't mean a whole lot.

mickydoomsux

mariaalice wrote: »

Why o why does it always turn in to those on welfare rant rant.. and welfare bashing... and followed by get rid of child benefit its so predictable and derails what could be interesting debate on who are the rich.

Because welfare costs the state 23bn a year and child benefit is a universal entitlement to anyone with children regardless of any other factors.

Both of these points are pure insanity in the context of an economy where anyone earning over 32k per annum (which i think is actually lower than the average wage) is taxed at a rate of 52%.

Welfare needs to be gutted and rebuilt from the ground up because it isn't sustainable in its current state. That probably won't happen because it is political suicide and we've already seen a u turn on discretionary medical cards this week as a direct result of poor election results.

mariaalice

mickydoomsux wrote: »

Because welfare costs the state 23bn a year and child benefit is a universal entitlement to anyone with children regardless of any other factors.

Both of these points are pure insanity in the context of an economy where anyone earning over 32k per annum (which i think is actually lower than the average wage) is taxed at a rate of 52%.

Welfare needs to be gutted and rebuilt from the ground up because it isn't sustainable in its current state. That probably won't happen because it is political suicide and we've already seen a u turn on discretionary medical cards this week as a direct result of poor election results.

You could well be right, however what had that got to do with who are the rich? welfare spending includes pensions and all kind of other support, that always slips peoples mind in favour of thinking welfare is only about the long term unemployed.

tayto lover

I have no problem with people on the dole at all.
I have a problem with people who never worked and don't intend to work.

The latter should be cut or made to do some necessary work like cutting over-grown hedges, clearing drains, cleaning graffiti etc.
Career dole-claiming should not be an option.

seamus

muppetkiller wrote: »

Child benefit should only be given for the first two children and after that only as a tax benefit if you are actually working. If you want 10 kids then pay for them yourself :mad:

And if you're too stupid to understand this simple concept and spend your days popping out children and watching Jeremy Kyle, we just allow you to get further into debt and your children become impoverished and uneducated, eventually leading to a life of crime and more overbreeding?

The purpose of child benefit is to try and ensure the child doesn't suffer, not to reward people for child-rearing.

Unfortunately our system of benefits payments is broken because you basically hand someone money and say, "That's for food now, not for booze and fags" and hope they do the right thing with it.

We should be putting in place systems which ensure that those who require welfare assistance receive it, but the absolute minimum amount of cash goes into their own hands. Rent is paid directly to the landlord, utilities are paid directly, and so forth. SW is a safety net, but if you're not providing the four posts to hold up the safety net, then some people won't understand how to use it properly.

This country does everything it can to penalize the middle Income earner while giving no incentive for an unemployed family/person to find jobs. And make no mistake about it , it's the system that's the problem so lets not blame the unemployed. It's got to the stage now where it's stupid to take on a minimum wage job for all the benefits you lose.

It's not necessarily a simple fix though. There's new research in the states which suggests that reducing benefits doesn't encourage the long-term unemployed to get jobs. All it actually does is force people into poverty and/or criminal activity in order to survive.

There's an entrenched 3-5% of people who won't work, regardless of conditions. What to do with them is a social matter more than a financial one.

To a certain extent it makes me happy to be part of a country where for all intents and purposes we do our best to make sure no-one is left behind. Unlike the US, as an example, where someone can find themselves literally penniless and homeless out of sheer circumstance, you cannot find yourself in a position in Ireland where you cannot access social welfare and emergency accommodation. If you are literally penniless and homeless in Ireland, 99.99% of the time it is because of personal choice and not circumstance.

I'm on holiday here with my Girlfriend in Hungary and all people on Welfare are out Cutting the Grass along the roads, Cleaning graffiti , Cutting down trees in the woods for Firewood etc ..If they don't turn up to do it for a certain number of days each week they don't get paid. We should have the same here.

The usual argument then is who are you putting out of work by getting this stuff done for free?

mickydoomsux

tayto lover wrote: »

I have no problem with people on the dole at all.
I have a problem with people who never worked and don't intend to work.

The latter should be cut or made to do some necessary work like cutting over-grown hedges, clearing drains, cleaning graffiti etc.
Career dole-claiming should not be an option.

That's another misconception as well. A lot of people who seem to be lifetime dole-ites are actually on "disability allowance" or "carers allowance" which means they will never have to work in their lives and will receive numerous other benefits on top of the standard payment.

I believe David Mc Williams had a good article about it on his website and it shows that Ireland has an abnormally high percentage of the workforce on disability payments compared to other OECD nations because it covers so many conditions in this country.

Also, I believe the 23bn p.a. figure for welfare expenditure doesn't include pensions but I may be wrong.

garv123

Idbatterim wrote: »

Yeah it is absolutely jaw dropping. For every thousand you earn over that amount, they want E520 of it? For what I am not sure.

E1000, they get E520, you get E480. F**cking great country we live in.

Um is it not 20% up until the cut off point and then 41% after the cut off point?

So excluding all other taxes someone on 50K a year pays 20% up to 38,800 and 41% on the remaining 11,200.

and the op said him and his wife earn 80k, The cut off for 2 working partners is 65600 so only 15k would be taxed in the higher bracket...

Then the other taxes and pension and prsi and what not i suppose are taken off.


Not that I'll ever have to worry about the upper bracket.

folan

lets not forget that Welfare is more than just the dole. it is an important subsidy to many.

I have private health insurance and a private pension plan, both subsidized by my work. my take home pay per month is enough to live comfortably off after bills. My tax bill is roughly 38% of my weekly pay. I currently have no children.

I make more than the average industrial wage.

Does that make me rich?

EDIT: Stupid maths

mariaalice

muppetkiller wrote: »

It's not a rant about Welfare..It's a rant about how the system keeps people on Welfare. All benefits in this country should be brought into the tax system. We also shouldn't have twenty different taxes ..PRSI / USC / Income Tax etc.. One tax with different rates depending on what you earn.

As someone pointed our most welfare benefits are taxable, all income should be taxable and passive income from assets should be taxed the most i.e tax on assets such as property should be taxed the most and active assets such as a businesses which employs people should be taxed the least.

The tax system should be used to make it unattractive ( a small bit) for people buying property as an asset, maybe deducting tax at source form rent allowance and so on. The tax system should make it attractive to invest in businesses that employ people.

Ray Palmer

The poll is pointless. The brackets are too large towards the top. 100k-300k is way too large. Of course most people are going to consider that amount as rich. It doesn't even mention if that is assets or just earnings.

Anyway increasing taxes is pretty much the only idea the politicians seem to be able to consider.

It is important to note that the biggest payments from the state are for OAPs. People went mental about this being cut in anyway. I know plenty of OAPs with large assets and income that are much higher than the average industrial wage.

It is slightly tricky in that why should somebody who took care of their future be punished for doing it while people who didn't get more? It isn't easy to come up with a fair solution.

jank

dark crystal wrote: »

If you think it was the poor that bankrupted this country, your opinions really don't mean a whole lot.

I never said it was the poor's fault but just to clarify for those who are heard of hearing or reading, it the constant populist attitude that we can have all these services yet someone else can pay for them.

42% of the population have a medical card. About half the population receive some sort of state benefit. We have one of the highest rates of dependants in the OECD. The culture of entitlement is what bankrupted Ireland both from the top, middle and bottom.

awec

Rich = able to lose your source of income but maintain the same standard of living for a long period of time.

100k a year is definitely not rich. Not even close.

Caliden

folan wrote: »

source?

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/one-in-eight-of-our-superrich-are-tax-exiles-reveals-revenue-28824422.html

Geomy

mezuzaj wrote: »

Joan Burton to increase tax on the Rich if she becomes leader. But exactly who are the rich? Or exactly at what point of income to you become rich?

Wife and I earn 80K a year. So after USC, TAX, PRSI, Motor Tax, House Tax, TV TAX, etc.. I would say we would be lucky to take home about 45K. Minus Mortgage, food, kids expenses, ESB, Tel, heating the house, there really is not much left. Just about manage to pay private health insurance.

I got 2% pay rise this year, it added 25 euros to my net take home pay, because any money over 60K is taxed 42%+11%+4%. 58% deducted.

So who exactly is rich?

You might as well put that 25 euro away for the water charges, no matter what pay rises people on middle to low incomes get, there's always a new tax to take it away. ...

Kerrydude1981

Somewhere down the line Joan Burton will screech the words in the Dail,

"the lady's not for turning"

beardy_brady

Ray Palmer wrote: »

The poll is pointless. The brackets are too large towards the top. 100k-300k is way too large. Of course most people are going to consider that amount as rich. It doesn't even mention if that is assets or just earnings.

Anyway increasing taxes is pretty much the only idea the politicians seem to be able to consider.

It is important to note that the biggest payments from the state are for OAPs. People went mental about this being cut in anyway. I know plenty of OAPs with large assets and income that are much higher than the average industrial wage.

It is slightly tricky in that why should somebody who took care of their future be punished for doing it while people who didn't get more? It isn't easy to come up with a fair solution.

their are half a dozen QUANGO,s who get paid to potray the elderly as universally povertry stricken , they have easy access to the media so people are conditioned into thinking that pensioners have it terrible

in the vast majority of cases , they have it peachy

Barely There

beardy_brady wrote: »

their are half a dozen QUANGO,s who get paid to potray the elderly as universally povertry stricken , they have easy access to the media so people are conditioned into thinking that pensioners have it terrible

in the vast majority of cases , they have it peachy

100%

Pensioners are undoubtedly the most well off members of society, I was at a pretty expensive spa hotel a few weeks ago and the place was full of retirees, but say the word 'pensioner' to someone and they will imagine a frail old lady with a shawl around their shoulders huddled in front of a fire trying to keep warm.

The pensioners did better out of the Celtic Tiger than anyone - rising house prices allowed many to cash in as a massive transfer of cash took place between the young generation of buyers and the older generation of sellers.
Add to that the fact that they were bought off by successive FF governments and voted for FF in vast numbers and you could argue that they're as responsible for the economic collapse more than any other sector.

The irony is that they've been protected from nearly every aspect of the recession as no Govt wants to risk pissing off this vocal and voter active sector of our society.