Joan Burton to increase tax on the Rich

Ray Palmer

Caliden wrote: »

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

If you read that article you will see these people pay tax on Irish earnings. What they aren't doing is paying tax on world wide earnings in this country.

Depending on the taxes in those other countries they may very well have paid tax on those earnings in the countries they have been earned in.

Should they pay tax twice? They aren't resident here so both perfectly legal and also seems fair.

If you look at the tax system in Ireland if you say make money in Spain but live here you pay the tax in Spain and if it is less than what you would be taxed in Ireland till you pay the same amount as if you earned it here. The Irish government did nothing to help you earn this money so what is their claim to any of the money?

Idbatterim

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.

when you ad in USC, PRSI and income tax it does come to 52%, I couldnt care less, what way they spin it, whether they want to make it 50% USC, 1% PRSI, 1% income tax or 52% called the Ahern and Neary or banker tax, I couldnt care less. Its a zero sum game.

http://www.deloitte.ie/tc/

conorhal

Mr.David wrote: »

The 'rich' already pay practically the entire tax intake, why penalise them any more? Typical Labour nonsense.

I laugh my ass off every time some labour politician starts going on about Swedish style socialism and taxes necessary to fund the state.
They should take a good hard look at the Swedish tax system. The poor might be in for a surprise because EVERBODY has to pay tax in Sweden, the tax base is pretty broad there and that ensures that everybody in society pays a contribution towards what they recieve, it's quite narrow here where very few pay quite a lot.
All this guff about removing the vast bulk of workers from the tax net and ensuring that the low paid are exempt from the USC would be anethema to the Swedes who would splutter 'What! You mean that half your population pays no tax?!?!'

Plus the Swedes actually get a service for the tax they pay. A friend of mine that's Swedish would be fairly wealthy, and because of the nature of his business and the fact that he spends very little time there, he could probably easily be tax domiciled somewhere that he wouldn't have to pay much tax at all. He prefers to pay his taxes in Sweden however because of the excelent public schooling his kids get and the home care his elderly mother recieves etc. Here the notion seems to be that the more you pay the less you get due to the slow encroachment of means testing that is eroding universality and ultimately social cohesion, as many people begin to wonder if they wouldn't be better off emigrating to lower tax economies with better services where they get something for their tax other then the opportunity to pay for sombody else.

Barely There

The Shinner and Labour Dream - an incredibly generous welfare state that someone else has to pay for.

thomas anderson.

Barely There wrote: »

Pensioners are undoubtedly the most well off members of society

Not my Nan

beardy_brady

Barely There wrote: »

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.

the goverment have absolute cover to spoil pensioners as the bulk of the population support the policy due to soft headed sentimentality

beardy_brady

conorhal wrote: »

I laugh my ass off every time some labour politician starts going on about Swedish style socialism and taxes necessary to fund the state.
They should take a good hard look at the Swedish tax system. The poor might be in for a surprise because EVERBODY has to pay tax in Sweden, the tax base is pretty broad there and that ensures that everybody in society pays a contribution towards what they recieve, it's quite narrow here where very few pay quite a lot.
All this guff about removing the vast bulk of workers from the tax net and ensuring that the low paid are exempt from the USC would be anethema to the Swedes who would splutter 'What! You mean that half your population pays no tax?!?!'

the left here would like a sweedish style system only without the 30% tax rates on those earning below 25 k per anum

in other words , they dont really want a sweedish system at all

beardy_brady

thomas anderson. wrote: »

Not my Nan

well she still gets a minimum of 218 per week + medical card , fuel allowance , free tv licence ,free public travel , subsidised electricity , phone

and thats if she never paid a red cent in tax ,the contributory pension is 230 per week

in england its 112 pound per week

Bannasidhe

I suppose 'Burton vows to close tax loopholes' wouldn't have made a sexy headline for the Indo or fodder for AH faux outrage.

mickydoomsux

beardy_brady wrote: »

well she still gets a minimum of 218 per week + medical card , fuel allowance , free tv licence ,free public travel , subsidised electricity , phone

and thats if she never paid a red cent in tax ,the contributory pension is 230 per week

in england its 112 pound per week

Hilarious isn't it?

Pay tax your entire life and get 12 quid extra a week. Sure you'd be on the pigs back.

thomas anderson.

beardy_brady wrote: »

well she still gets a minimum of 218 per week + medical card , fuel allowance , free tv licence ,free public travel , subsidised electricity , phone

and thats if she never paid a red cent in tax ,the contributory pension is 230 per week

in england its 112 pound per week

After a lifetime of paying into the system, shure she doesnt deserve it all.

Lets just give it all back to the unsecured bondholder or pay the lord mayors more than presidents of other countries

baldbear

Anyone mention Bono yet?

folan

any more on what it is to be rich yet?

is it
- to earn above the average industrial wage
- to have disposable income after essential bills are paid
- to have thousands in a bank account
- to have valuable assets

mickydoomsux

baldbear wrote: »

Anyone mention Bono yet?

Apparently he's mad for the childrens allowance.

Spends every penny on Dutch Gold.

folan

baldbear wrote: »

Anyone mention Bono yet?

Bono.

there, done.

Turtwig

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I suppose 'Burton vows to close tax loopholes' wouldn't have made a sexy headline for the Indo or fodder for AH faux outrage.

Strawmen make for more fun.
And money for media!

steddyeddy

Mr.David wrote: »

The 'rich' already pay practically the entire tax intake, why penalise them any more? Typical Labour nonsense.

There are people becoming homeless in our economy in part because of of cuts. They are taking far more pain than the rich.

Ray Palmer

thomas anderson. wrote: »

After a lifetime of paying into the system, shure she doesnt deserve it all.

Lets just give it all back to the unsecured bondholder or pay the lord mayors more than presidents of other countries

Most pensions don't realise they were paying for their parents pensions and now expect us to pay their pensions regardless of what money is there.

Unfortunately when the pensions were going to be cut there was a lot of support from the general public who didn't want that to happen.

steddyeddy

The "pro austerity" crowd fascinate me. They go on and on about cuts needed ect but when it comes to a certain socio-economic group taking more cuts they're against it. Guess what people are suffering because of this recession. I know the better off paid more so far but in no stretch of the imagination have they suffered more.

Cuts so far have increased poverty. More cuts to the less well off will be less likely to increase poverty.

banquo

I reckon if she's leader I'll be up on the roof of my garage, stockpiling canned goods and firing a rifle into the air.

the_syco

jank wrote: »

Lastly for people under 30, if you are not working or learning you don't get a cent.

So if someone worked for 8 years, they don't get a cent if they're unemployed, but if someone is 32, and never worked in their life, get free money? Funk that!

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.

Is there a breakdown of how many of the people who

• have a disability
• got a disability at the age of 18 (call me cynical if you want)
• have worked
• have never worked

Barely There

Unfortunately it would appear after their drubbing in the local elections, that Labour are going to return to their 'core' values - i.e. complete and utter economic illiteracy.
A 'tax the workers and lets have a bloated social welfare state' mentality.

I'd love to see someone like Alex White win the leadership. He impresses me evertime I hear him on the airwaves - instead Labour will rever to type under the brutal Burton.

Idbatterim

wasnt one of their junior members on the other day saying how the focus had to be on the working poor? Think another poster said he heard this on the radio.

lightspeed

This is just Labour trying to compete in the market to but votes with Sinn fein, socialist and other magic bean salesmen and women.

Sinn fein and socialist party want a wealth tax and now all of sudden after the thrashing in the election, labour have come out with this innovative spark plug of an idea.

What all the left wing parties fail to mention is that other countries may have higher taxes on higher earners, but they do not have the same welfare and services that we have

A close example for Ireland would be the great socialist France. They introduced a large wealth tax and are world famous for their generous social services.

It has not helped France and there have been huge opposition to such policies there. My understanding is that Ireland is considerably more indebted than France. Also i think they have property taxes and water charges in France. So im still awaiting a solid argument, that we can avoid such charges here and maintain the welfare state that is Ireland, even with a wealth tax?.

If I was earning a large salary and taxes were increased while others can get houses on welfare and live off of benefits, I would be pretty pissed off regardless of my own living situation.

Why should i stay here when i can up sticks and move abroad and take my money with me?

As i mentioned here before, Ireland is 19% more expensive than Dubai. We are one of the most expensive countries in the world and yet we dont have nearly as development infrastructure and public transport networks as other countries. High earners are usually high earners as they are skilled workers.

You increases taxes on skilled workers and most will have a choice. Stay here and pay more for less or move and earn more or the same in a country with better and more equitable services.

If im no mistaken, have there not been issues with poorly trained doctors coming to work here and skilled doctors leaving to elsewhere? If that was to happen in other professions, there will be less skilled employees in the country.

If this lack of supply results, in companies having to pay more to compensate for tax increases, how will that help Ireland compete against other countries attracting skilled workers?

MY CUP OF TEA

lee_baby_simms wrote: »

I read this thread as 'Joey Barton to increase tax on the Rich'.

I need a coffee.

No..he's proposing a tax on ugly people

bumper234

lee_baby_simms wrote: »

I read this thread as 'Joey Barton to increase tax on the Rich'.

I need a coffee.

MY CUP OF TEA wrote: »

No..he's proposing a tax on ugly people

Ask for a coffee and get a cup of tea, Not a great day for you

darkpagandeath

I Would Imagine it means the people with 20% of the wealth and or those companies using Ireland to skim a massive amount of there tax liabilities off.

Daith

darkpagandeath wrote: »

those companies using Ireland to skim a massive amount of there tax liabilities off.

There's no point having a low corporate tax if you're just going to tax them some other way. They also hire alot of people in Ireland too.

Caliden

Barely There wrote: »

Unfortunately it would appear after their drubbing in the local elections, that Labour are going to return to their 'core' values - i.e. complete and utter economic illiteracy.
A 'tax the workers and lets have a bloated social welfare state' mentality.

I'd love to see someone like Alex White win the leadership. He impresses me evertime I hear him on the airwaves - instead Labour will rever to type under the brutal Burton.

Her reasoning for why she should be the next leader is along the lines of "I've been a politician for a long time...".

It's as if she has a right to be leader for sticking with it for so long.

darkpagandeath

Daith wrote: »

There's no point having a low corporate tax if you're just going to tax them some other way. They also hire alot of people in Ireland too.

This is a pointless statement they don't pay even close to our low level of corporation tax.