Joan Burton to increase tax on the Rich

ABC101

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Great - another plan to take from the workers and give to the idle. Nothing new from the Labour party then.

I disagree....

Joan the finger wagging Moan has taken from the mentally handicapped and physically disabled to give to the idle.

steddyeddy

I'll put it this way I can take more of a hit than the disabled. So find a way to make me pay more.

Daith

darkpagandeath wrote: »

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

Sure go on and tax them to the fullest. I'm sure they'll still stay in Ireland.

ebbsy

I wouldn't piss on Burton if she was on fire.

darkpagandeath

Daith wrote: »

Sure go on and tax them to the fullest. I'm sure they'll still stay in Ireland.

You mean tax them the correct amount that they should be paying ? Who is asking them to pay more tax ? Most people just want them to pay the headline rate. And were will they go once all the loopholes are closed ?

Daith

darkpagandeath wrote: »

You mean tax them the correct amount that they should be paying ? Who is asking them to pay more tax ? Most people just want them to pay the headline rate. And were will they go once all the loopholes are closed ?

Sorry. Are you saying they're breaking Irish law?

Iwasfrozen

darkpagandeath wrote: »

You mean tax them the correct amount that they should be paying ? Who is asking them to pay more tax ? Most people just want them to pay the headline rate. And were will they go once all the loopholes are closed ?

The current levels are too high. If anything we should have a tax cut for the rich to bring us in line with other EU countries.

seamus

darkpagandeath wrote: »

You mean tax them the correct amount that they should be paying ? Who is asking them to pay more tax ? Most people just want them to pay the headline rate. And were will they go once all the loopholes are closed ?

To another country where the loopholes are still open?

Worth noting that no companies get a break or a reduction on their corporation tax rate. Provided the amount of tax they do pay is perfectly legal regardless of the number of accounting tricks they've pulled, I don't see the issue. Nobody is legally, morally or ethically obliged to pay more tax than the law states.

darkpagandeath

seamus wrote: »

To another country where the loopholes are still open?

Worth noting that no companies get a break or a reduction on their corporation tax rate. Provided the amount of tax they do pay is perfectly legal regardless of the number of accounting tricks they've pulled, I don't see the issue. Nobody is legally, morally or ethically obliged to pay more tax than the law states.

Hmm I beg to differ did not the USA and the UK Question the levels of tax the Big corporations are paying. I forget did not the Americans Question the amount of tax These companies were paying by using Ireland to avoid massive amounts of tax.

Daith

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Hmm I beg to differ did not the USA and the UK Question the levels of tax the Big corporations are paying. I forget did not the Americans Question the amount of tax These companies were paying by using Ireland to avoid massive amounts of tax.

Yes because they wanted the tax money for themselves.

seamus

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Hmm I beg to differ did not the USA and the UK Question the levels of tax the Big corporations are paying. I forget did not the Americans Question the amount of tax These companies were paying by using Ireland to avoid massive amounts of tax.

They question it because they want to find ways of extracting as much money as they can.

Questioning something doesn't immediately mean that it's suspicious. They're looking at companies with massive offices in their countries who are paying small amounts of corporation tax. That doesn't mean the companies are doing anything wrong.

The Americans don't exactly have very ethical tax policies anyway. They require that all American citizens file tax returns every year, regardless of where you live. Effectively saying that the US has worldwide authority over your private financial affairs because you happen to have been born in the US. Nice.

keano89

They should cut VAT, its an inequitable tax that everyone pays the same regardless of whether you make 3k or 300 a week.

Long term jobseekers allowance should be cut and those on low incomes below 20k shouldn't be paying tax.

lightspeed

seamus wrote: »

To another country where the loopholes are still open?

Worth noting that no companies get a break or a reduction on their corporation tax rate. Provided the amount of tax they do pay is perfectly legal regardless of the number of accounting tricks they've pulled, I don't see the issue. Nobody is legally, morally or ethically obliged to pay more tax than the law states.

Im studying to become a tax adviser and only at the part 1 stage, but one of the videos i watched mentions how Ireland has a very generous R&D tax credit which is how companies like Apple can reduce their effective corporate tax rate from 12.5% to 2%. It is still legal as they are still paying 12.5% just on a much smaller amount due to the tax credit making it the equivalent in some cases to 2.5%.

darkpagandeath

seamus wrote: »

They question it because they want to find ways of extracting as much money as they can.

Questioning something doesn't immediately mean that it's suspicious. They're looking at companies with massive offices in their countries who are paying small amounts of corporation tax. That doesn't mean the companies are doing anything wrong.

The Americans don't exactly have very ethical tax policies anyway. They require that all American citizens file tax returns every year, regardless of where you live. Effectively saying that the US has worldwide authority over your private financial affairs because you happen to have been born in the US. Nice.

And I think you will find these companies are trying to avoid as much tax as they can, And at the moment they have a massive edge in paying very little tax.

And they are doing nothing wrong line gets trotted out alot, It's like they think they have the right to avoid huge amounts of tax because the have the means to do so. I'm guessing you were fine with people only paying 1 pound in tax for example ? You know because they had the means to avoid paying their share. If everyone did this there would be no hospitals no police no ambulances nothing.

lightspeed wrote: »

Im studying to become a tax adviser and only at the part 1 stage, but one of the videos i watched mentions how Ireland has a very generous R&D tax credit which is how companies like Apple can reduce their effective corporate tax rate from 12.5% to 2%. It is still legal as they are still paying 12.5% just on a much smaller amount due to the tax credit making it the equivalent in some cases to 2.5%.

This is true why do you think they bought out a company here and then transferred all their intellectual property to it. They don't actually do any R&D here The company is a brass plate.

Lumen

Most people's greatest asset is their claim on future pensions and benefits. Particularly current and former members of government.

Mary "five pensions" Hanafin, for instance, was reputed some time ago to take 140k in pension, which at current rates (3% for index-linked pension) gives her 4.2m alone, purely in terms of pension wealth.

So I wouldn't mind if Joan would start by bailing herself in.

seamus

darkpagandeath wrote: »

And they are doing nothing wrong line gets trotted out alot, It's like they think they have the right to avoid huge amounts of tax because the have the means to do so. I'm guessing you were fine with people only paying 1 pound in tax for example ? You know because they had the means to avoid paying their share. If everyone did this there would be no hospitals no police no ambulances nothing.

If everyone could do this, they would. Just because they can't, doesn't mean it's wrong for those who can.
It's like saying that it's morally wrong for someone to avail of private healthcare because they have the means to do so when others have to slum it in public.

As private companies they have the right to seek financial advice and act on that financial advice for their own benefit.

If you think that something which is legal, is wrong, then change the law. But don't try and say that someone who's not breaking the law is under any obligation to follow financial rules that don't exist. You're basically claiming that companies (and by extension private individuals) are obligated to provide more money to the state than the state has legally required them to?

darkpagandeath

seamus wrote: »

If everyone could do this, they would. Just because they can't, doesn't mean it's wrong for those who can.
It's like saying that it's morally wrong for someone to avail of private healthcare because they have the means to do so when others have to slum it in public.

As private companies they have the right to seek financial advice and act on that financial advice for their own benefit.

If you think that something which is legal, is wrong, then change the law. But don't try and say that someone who's not breaking the law is under any obligation to follow financial rules that don't exist. You're basically claiming that companies (and by extension private individuals) are obligated to provide more money to the state than the state has legally required them to?

You know full well most tax laws were created before globalisation took off (or should) Most tax law is not fit for purpose in this regard. Governments are in a hard position they want to change these laws but are finding it hard to do so. These massive companies know full well they are doing wrong but are making hey while the sun shines.

seamus

I don't disagree with you at all that tax law is outdated and needs to be fixed to deal with a global economy, but I fail to see why companies are obliged to fix it off their own bat.

It would be in their own interests to come up with a system that works and present this to world governments before some government tries to create it, but I see no reason why they are morally obliged to hand over money that they don't legally have to.

It's a nonsense concept; companies exist to make their shareholders wealthier. They don't owe the state anything except that which they are legally obliged to pay.

tayto lover

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.

Flip-flop, flip-flop.
Take the medical cards, return the medical cards.

Bob the Builder

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

The only thing you've said there that I disagree with is about minority. It's not a minority anymore. It's still a massive figure, and growing daily. Masqueraded only by these FETAC and FÁS "courses" etc

tayto lover

[QUOTE=seamus;90620612]If everyone could do this, they would. Just because they can't, doesn't mean it's wrong for those who can.
It's like saying that it's morally wrong for someone to avail of private healthcare because they have the means to do so when others have to slum it in public.

As private companies they have the right to seek financial advice and act on that financial advice for their own benefit.

If you think that something which is legal, is wrong, then change the law. But don't try and say that someone who's not breaking the law is under any obligation to follow financial rules that don't exist. You're basically claiming that companies (and by extension private individuals) are obligated to provide more money to the state than the state has legally required them to?[/QUOTE]

It's sharp practice at best and loopholes like this should be closed. They should pay the full 12.5%. Its up to the Govt to do this but this shower hasn't the balls. They find it easier to tackle the poor.