Tax does it seem fair?

Ray Palmer

People are always going on about tax and how the rich( whatever that is) should pay more tax. See the table below. To me it seems like there is a pretty big disincentive to getting your income up after a certain point due to tax. I certainly wouldn't work overtime knowing I will get less than half of it.

To me a lot of people are unaware how much tax people on higher salaries are on. If you look at the last record you can see if you earn 100k more than somebody on 35k you are earning 285% more but you are actually only 68% better off after tax. I really don't think people are aware of this.
Income|Income Tax|After Tax|Tax as %|% of After tax income above 35k|% above 35k before tax

€20,000.00|€2,218.80|€17,781.20|11.09%|-55.61%|-42.86%

€25,000.00|€3,768.80|€21,231.20|15.08%|-30.32%|-28.57%

€30,000.00|€5,318.80|€24,681.20|17.73%|-12.11%|-14.29%

€35,000.00|€7,330.80|€27,669.20|20.95%|0.00%|0.00%

€40,000.00|€9,930.80|€30,069.20|24.83%|7.98%|14.29%

€45,000.00|€12,530.80|€32,469.20|27.85%|14.78%|28.57%

€50,000.00|€15,130.80|€34,869.20|30.26%|20.65%|42.86%

€55,000.00|€17,730.80|€37,269.20|32.24%|25.76%|57.14%

€60,000.00|€20,330.80|€39,669.20|33.88%|30.25%|71.43%

€65,000.00|€22,930.80|€42,069.20|35.28%|34.23%|85.71%

€70,000.00|€25,530.80|€44,469.20|36.47%|37.78%|100.00%

€75,000.00|€28,130.80|€46,869.20|37.51%|40.97%|114.29%

€80,000.00|€30,730.80|€49,269.20|38.41%|43.84%|128.57%

€85,000.00|€33,330.80|€51,669.20|39.21%|46.45%|142.86%

€90,000.00|€35,930.80|€54,069.20|39.92%|48.83%|157.14%

€95,000.00|€38,530.80|€56,469.20|40.56%|51.00%|171.43%

€100,000.00|€41,130.80|€58,869.20|41.13%|53.00%|185.71%

€105,000.00|€43,730.80|€61,269.20|41.65%|54.84%|200.00%

€110,000.00|€46,330.80|€63,669.20|42.12%|56.54%|214.29%

€115,000.00|€48,930.80|€66,069.20|42.55%|58.12%|228.57%

€120,000.00|€51,530.80|€68,469.20|42.94%|59.59%|242.86%

€125,000.00|€54,130.80|€70,869.20|43.30%|60.96%|257.14%

€130,000.00|€56,730.80|€73,269.20|43.64%|62.24%|271.43%

€135,000.00|€59,330.80|€75,669.20|43.95%|63.43%|285.71%

[/

Banjo String

Ray Palmer wrote: »

People are always going on about tax and how the rich( whatever that is) should pay more tax. See the table below. To me it seems like there is a pretty big disincentive to getting your income up after a certain point due to tax. I certainly wouldn't work overtime knowing I will get less than half of it.

To me a lot of people are unaware how much tax people on higher salaries are on. If you look at the last record you can see if you earn 100k more than somebody on 35k you are earning 285% more but you are actually only 68% better off after tax. I really don't think people are aware of this.
Income Income Tax After Tax Tax as % % of After tax income above 35k % above 35k before tax €20,000.00 €2,218.80
€17,781.20
11.09% -55.61% -42.86% €25,000.00 €3,768.80
€21,231.20
15.08% -30.32% -28.57% €30,000.00 €5,318.80
€24,681.20
17.73% -12.11% -14.29% €35,000.00 €7,330.80
€27,669.20
20.95% 0.00% 0.00% €40,000.00 €9,930.80
€30,069.20
24.83% 7.98% 14.29% €45,000.00 €12,530.80
€32,469.20
27.85% 14.78% 28.57% €50,000.00 €15,130.80
€34,869.20
30.26% 20.65% 42.86% €55,000.00 €17,730.80
€37,269.20
32.24% 25.76% 57.14% €60,000.00 €20,330.80
€39,669.20
33.88% 30.25% 71.43% €65,000.00 €22,930.80
€42,069.20
35.28% 34.23% 85.71% €70,000.00 €25,530.80
€44,469.20
36.47% 37.78% 100.00% €75,000.00 €28,130.80
€46,869.20
37.51% 40.97% 114.29% €80,000.00 €30,730.80
€49,269.20
38.41% 43.84% 128.57% €85,000.00 €33,330.80
€51,669.20
39.21% 46.45% 142.86% €90,000.00 €35,930.80
€54,069.20
39.92% 48.83% 157.14% €95,000.00 €38,530.80
€56,469.20
40.56% 51.00% 171.43% €100,000.00 €41,130.80
€58,869.20
41.13% 53.00% 185.71% €105,000.00 €43,730.80
€61,269.20
41.65% 54.84% 200.00% €110,000.00 €46,330.80
€63,669.20
42.12% 56.54% 214.29% €115,000.00 €48,930.80
€66,069.20
42.55% 58.12% 228.57% €120,000.00 €51,530.80
€68,469.20
42.94% 59.59% 242.86% €125,000.00 €54,130.80
€70,869.20
43.30% 60.96% 257.14% €130,000.00 €56,730.80
€73,269.20
43.64% 62.24% 271.43% €135,000.00 €59,330.80
€75,669.20
43.95% 63.43% 285.71%

All those fcuking figures have made me Cock eyed.

Hope your happy.

Alf. A. Male

It's like looking at the Matrix and not in a good way.

ohbygod

Too many figures for my brain to process

hfallada

Half of income earners pay no income tax. But they pay a greater proportion of their income on indirect taxes like duties on cigarettes, alcohol and most consumer goods.

But I find the fact OAP dont pay DIRT and get an extra tax credit on income taxes, to be unfair. They dont have to support children, pay mortgages, etc. How is it fair?

miece16

hfallada wrote: »

But I find the fact OAP dont pay DIRT and get an extra tax credit on income taxes, to be unfair. They dont have to support children, pay mortgages, etc. How is it fair?

they paid extortionate tax their whole working lives. just like i am doing right now

Coat22

Its whats called a progressive tax system – the problem is in Ireland its taken to the extreme where a huge chunk aren’t expected to contribute at all and get all the benefits that drive up the need to get even more tax from those earning more.

In theory I agree with it to an extent – someone on €30k a year has the same living expenses (food, housing, transport etc) as someone on say €60k so the higher earner has more room to contribute a bit more. However in Ireland it is taken to the extreme – the person on 30k is expected to contribute very little, they then hammer the lad on €60k, give houses and medical cards etc to the lad on 30k and then ask the 60k earner to contribute more again. When they eventually ask the 30k earner to contribute a bit more they revolt and vote for other parties because the ruling party “gives them nothing”.

The 2008/9 only hit those on higher incomes. They quietly took it on the chin and got on with it. Their houses halved in value but they were left with the massive mortgages but still they soldiered on silently realising it had to be done. Then we got to the point where the masses were asked to contribute via property taxes and water charges and hey presto – marches, protests, independent TDs who can’t dress or talk yet alone draft economic plans or laws.

A Parable that explains it all perfectly:

The wealthy pay most of the taxes, so it should be no surprised that they get a larger percentage of the tax cut total back! It is only fair.
——
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that’s what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. ‘Since you are all such good customers, he said, ‘I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20. Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men – the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his ‘fair share?’ They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
And so:
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.
‘I only got a dollar out of the $20,’declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,’ but he got $10!’
‘Yeah, that’s right,’ exclaimed the fifth man. ‘I only saved a dollar, too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more than I!’
‘That’s true!!’ shouted the seventh man. ‘Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!’
‘Wait a minute,’ yelled the first four men in unison. ‘We didn’t get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!’
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill

Karl Stein

The reason we have progressive taxation is because wealthier a person gets the more they can avoid tax by using it to 'reservoir' wealth by buying property, antiques/collectibles, becoming non-domicile, creative accounting, trust funds, stocks and shares etc.

That completely ignores that the more you benefit from the the economy the more it serves you and the more it is in your interest to invest in it.

I arrived with $250 in my pocket, and got where I am based entirely on my hard work.” This is true, but it’s not the whole truth.

A more accurate telling of my story would consider that every day I benefit from schools, hospitals, roads, bridges, parks and civic amenities that were built and paid for by previous generations. They were much less well off than we are today. Yet they had the collective will to invest in their future and the future of their children.

Arul Menezes, Microsoft Millionaire.

Here's what the 'Father of Capitalism' Adam Smith has to say about taxation in his tome 'Wealth of Nations'.

The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government [...] in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state.

It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.

Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations.

Iwasfrozen

I think tax is fine in this country but I'd like to see lower earners brought into the tax brackets. Everyone even those on welfare should pay tax.

The tax brackets limits should also be tied to inflation.

Coat22

Karl Stein wrote: »

The reason we have progressive taxation is because wealthier a person gets the more they can avoid tax by using it to 'reservoir' wealth by buying property, antiques/collectibles, becoming non-domicile, creative accounting, trust funds, stocks and shares etc.

That completely ignores that the more you benefit from the the economy the more it serves you and the more it is in your interest to invest in it.


What sort of marxist rubbish is this?


“Rich” in Ireland seems to mean “doesn’t have a council house” or “went to college”. 99% of those currently paying 52% marginal tax don’t have the resources to invest in hotels / become non domicile etc. The problem in Ireland is people talk about “taxing the rich” but actually mean “tax the lad who earns (declares) more than me”

I have a good job, 2 kids (one in school) and drive 45Kms a day on our roads. I pay for my own house, my own medical bills etc. Explain to me how I somehow “the more you benefit from the the economy the more it serves you”

Coat22

Coat22 wrote: »

I have a good job, 2 kids (one in school) and drive 45Kms a day on our roads. I pay for my own house, my own medical bills etc. Explain to me how I somehow “the more you benefit from the the economy the more it serves you”

Yeah but when you call an ambulance, 6 will show up. And they'll be 10 times faster. Plus you stay in school 10 times longer.

Vito Corleone

I will be leaving this country to work elsewhere due to the tax system.

runawaybishop

Ray Palmer wrote: »

People are always going on about tax and how the rich( whatever that is) should pay more tax. See the table below. To me it seems like there is a pretty big disincentive to getting your income up after a certain point due to tax. I certainly wouldn't work overtime knowing I will get less than half of it.

To me a lot of people are unaware how much tax people on higher salaries are on. If you look at the last record you can see if you earn 100k more than somebody on 35k you are earning 285% more but you are actually only 68% better off after tax. I really don't think people are aware of this.

The more you earn the less tax you pay - you think people on big wads actually pay the full tax amount?

Coat22

bluewolf wrote: »

Yeah but when you call an ambulance, 6 will show up. And they'll be 10 times faster. Plus you stay in school 10 times longer.

Doubt it but my employer pays 3k a year for health insurance and I then pay the government a further €1500 in taxes for the privilege so I would expect a better service but doubt it ever will be when the time comes. I spent 4 years in college, on a course the EU paid for.

So explain to me how remaining in education to get a better job, pay more in taxes and not be a welfare burden costs the state more than leaving school early, getting a girl up the duff and living in local authority housing is using more of the state resources?

Ray Palmer

Banjo String wrote: »

All those fcuking figures have made me Cock eyed.

Hope your happy.

I agree. I put it in a table but it came out as above:o

Coat22

runawaybishop wrote: »

The more you earn the less tax you pay - you think people on big wads actually pay the full tax amount?

How exactly would you define "big wads"??? 100k? You are dilusional if you believe people earning 100k have some sort of tax shelters. They may have private pensions but the state will get their cut of that eventually when it starts paying out. In fact they take a cut already throught the pension levy but the unwashed don't talk about that one.

Coat22

Coat22 wrote: »

Doubt it

I should think so, it was a joke
You use the same resources, if not less, was the point

The Backwards Man

I can't see those figures on the dark theme.

Karl Stein

Coat22 wrote: »

What sort of marxist rubbish is this?

I didn't mention Marx. Indeed it was Adam Smith I cited. Maybe your socialist education didn't develop your reading comprehension enough.

Btw I think people in the middle are the most squeezed when it comes to tax and what they get in return but that's a different discussion.

Explain to me how I somehow “the more you benefit from the the economy the more it serves you”

It's quite simple really. The wealthier you are (not you personally) the more the economy serves you and the more it is in your interests that the economic ecosystem remains healthy.

Where would anyone be without motorways/roads, airports, ports, police, courts, prisons, hospitals, universities, graduates, publicly funded R&D, controlled borders, schools, defence, energy supply systems, tax breaks, mortgage relief etc?

Coat22 wrote: »

I spent 4 years in college, on a course the EU paid for.

You dirty socialist you.

Coat22

Karl Stein wrote: »

It's quite simple really. The wealthier you are (not you personally) the more the economy serves you and the more it is in your interests that the economic ecosystem remains healthy.


Sorry still at a loss to understand how "the wealthier you are the more the economy serves you" - this maybe true if I owned a string of betting shops or pubs which boomed if the economy picked up but for most its a case of the more you earn, the more you contribute but the less you actually draw on the state.

We all use the services you outline, all neccessary but its not lie I drive more on the motorway because I earn 5k more than the guy next to me.

Ray Palmer

Karl Stein wrote: »

The reason we have progressive taxation is because wealthier a person gets the more they can avoid tax by using it to 'reservoir' wealth by buying property, antiques/collectibles, becoming non-domicile, creative accounting, trust funds, stocks and shares etc.

You see I don't believe this. It is often spouted.
Buy a property with your money after you paid tax on the income you then pay income tax on any revenue from it. Same goes for shares. Non domicile people are the ultra rich and they are still paying tax on the Irish income but not on the non-irish income to our state but are paying to the state it was earned in.

Forget about the ultra rich and just focus on the people earning money here. The figure don't display great but you can see the more you earn you pay a hell of a lot more income tax.

Please explain these schemes to avoid tax as I can't find them and own my own company. Anytime I ask people to explain how to avoid tax they can never back up what they are saying. You might be the one who knows so spill the beans

tobsey

Ray Palmer wrote: »

People are always going on about tax and how the rich( whatever that is) should pay more tax. See the table below. To me it seems like there is a pretty big disincentive to getting your income up after a certain point due to tax. I certainly wouldn't work overtime knowing I will get less than half of it.

To me a lot of people are unaware how much tax people on higher salaries are on. If you look at the last record you can see if you earn 100k more than somebody on 35k you are earning 285% more but you are actually only 68% better off after tax. I really don't think people are aware of this.

Income|Income Tax|After Tax|Tax as %|% of After tax income above 35k|% above 35k before tax
€20,000.00|€2,218.80|€17,781.20|11.09%|-55.61%|-42.86%
€25,000.00|€3,768.80|€21,231.20|15.08%|-30.32%|-28.57%
€30,000.00|€5,318.80|€24,681.20|17.73%|-12.11%|-14.29%
€35,000.00|€7,330.80|€27,669.20|20.95%|0.00%|0.00%
€40,000.00|€9,930.80|€30,069.20|24.83%|7.98%|14.29%
€45,000.00|€12,530.80|€32,469.20|27.85%|14.78%|28.57%
€50,000.00|€15,130.80|€34,869.20|30.26%|20.65%|42.86%
€55,000.00|€17,730.80|€37,269.20|32.24%|25.76%|57.14%
€60,000.00|€20,330.80|€39,669.20|33.88%|30.25%|71.43%
€65,000.00|€22,930.80|€42,069.20|35.28%|34.23%|85.71%
€70,000.00|€25,530.80|€44,469.20|36.47%|37.78%|100.00%
€75,000.00|€28,130.80|€46,869.20|37.51%|40.97%|114.29%
€80,000.00|€30,730.80|€49,269.20|38.41%|43.84%|128.57%
€85,000.00|€33,330.80|€51,669.20|39.21%|46.45%|142.86%
€90,000.00|€35,930.80|€54,069.20|39.92%|48.83%|157.14%
€95,000.00|€38,530.80|€56,469.20|40.56%|51.00%|171.43%
€100,000.00|€41,130.80|€58,869.20|41.13%|53.00%|185.71%
€105,000.00|€43,730.80|€61,269.20|41.65%|54.84%|200.00%
€110,000.00|€46,330.80|€63,669.20|42.12%|56.54%|214.29%
€115,000.00|€48,930.80|€66,069.20|42.55%|58.12%|228.57%
€120,000.00|€51,530.80|€68,469.20|42.94%|59.59%|242.86%
€125,000.00|€54,130.80|€70,869.20|43.30%|60.96%|257.14%
€130,000.00|€56,730.80|€73,269.20|43.64%|62.24%|271.43%
€135,000.00|€59,330.80|€75,669.20|43.95%|63.43%|285.71%

AlexisM

Karl Stein wrote: »

It's quite simple really. The wealthier you are (not you personally) the more the economy serves you

Repeating what you said is not explaining what you said. In what way does the economy serve a wealthy person better? (And I think we are talking about a higher income earner rather than a wealthier person as we have no wealth taxes other than the pension levy).

Ray Palmer

runawaybishop wrote: »

The more you earn the less tax you pay - you think people on big wads actually pay the full tax amount?

Prove it. I have provided the figures up to 135k. How do these people get the companies they work for to avoid their income tax?

I don't see how it is even possible so feel free to explain.

kippy

What is the definition people have in their heads for "wealthy" or "high income" earners?

awec

runawaybishop wrote: »

The more you earn the less tax you pay - you think people on big wads actually pay the full tax amount?

Total nonsense.

Ray Palmer

kippy wrote: »

What is the definition people have in their heads for "wealthy" or "high income" earners?

It doesn't really matter in this case as the figures are provided. It is a break down of how much income can retain after tax.
Roughly you have to earn 90k to have double the take home pay of somebody on 35k. Does that seem fair and reasonable?

There seems to be a belief that once you get higher wages you can somehow instantly know how to avoid paying income tax. I say that is BS. I doubt anybody will explain how it is done but still claim it is a fact.

Karl Stein

Coat22 wrote: »

Sorry still at a loss to understand how "the wealthier you are the more the economy serves you"

Why is this axiom so hard for people to grasp?

Let's try an analogy shall we?

It is in the interest of the biggest fish in the lake that the ecosystem in which they reside is healthy.

The big fish is the wealthy person. The lake is the socio-economy he derives his wealth from.

Ray Palmer

Karl Stein wrote: »

Why is this axiom so hard for people to grasp?

Let's try an analogy shall we?

It is in the interest of the biggest fish in the lake that the ecosystem in which they resides is healthy.

The big fish is the wealthy person. The lake is the socio-economy he derives his wealth from.

Why can't you explain how people avoid tax as you have claimed?

seamus

Ray Palmer wrote: »

There seems to be a belief that once you get higher wages you can somehow instantly know how to avoid paying income tax. I say that is BS. I doubt anybody will explain how it is done but still claim it is a fact.

This. It's hilarious. "The more you earn the less you pay". Complete bollox.

Even people earning €200k can't afford to give €10k of that to an accountant to find loopholes to reduce their tax bill.

When you hear of tax exiles and creative accounting, you're talking about people with six-figure-plus yearly incomes, who are less individuals and more individuals operating as companies, like Bono.

Even then, it's a relatively fair thing they're doing because it's not like they're getting €10m deposited into their cash account with no tax paid on it. In most cases the money goes into investments and sits there as assets rather than free cash to play with.

Ray Palmer

seamus wrote: »

Even then, it's a relatively fair thing they're doing because it's not like they're getting €10m deposited into their cash account with no tax paid on it. In most cases the money goes into investments and sits there as assets rather than free cash to play with.

It's often fairer than that as they just aren't paying tax a 2nd time on income they already paid tax on in the country they earned it in.

Coat22

Karl Stein wrote: »

Why is this axiom so hard for people to grasp?

Let's try an analogy shall we?

It is in the interest of the biggest fish in the lake that the ecosystem in which they reside is healthy.

The big fish is the wealthy person. The lake is the socio-economy he derives his wealth from.

Are you fellow marxist Gerry Adams in disguise? Can you not answer the questions that are put to you?

Karl Stein

AlexisM wrote: »

Repeating what you said is not explaining what you said. In what way does the economy serve a wealthy person better?

For a good economy you need all those things that make a country stable and amenable to growth, social mobility and the ability to accumulate wealth.

Police, courts, prisons, probation officers, social workers, schools, teachers, universities, hospitals, nurses, doctors, motorways, airports, ports, customs officials, copyrights/patent protection all contribute to the health of the economic ecosystem. These are a public cost.

The above serve you the more you have. A policed motorway serves business far more than it serves a single parent in a bedsit who doesn't even own a car.

Karl Stein

Coat22 wrote: »

Are you fellow marxist Gerry Adams in disguise?

If you're going to come out with idiotic nonsensical statements then I'll just ignore you.

Do I recognise your posting style? Weren't you banned from boards before?

Greyian

Ray Palmer wrote: »

People are always going on about tax and how the rich( whatever that is) should pay more tax. See the table below. To me it seems like there is a pretty big disincentive to getting your income up after a certain point due to tax. I certainly wouldn't work overtime knowing I will get less than half of it.

To me a lot of people are unaware how much tax people on higher salaries are on. If you look at the last record you can see if you earn 100k more than somebody on 35k you are earning 285% more but you are actually only 68% better off after tax. I really don't think people are aware of this.
Income|Income Tax|After Tax|Tax as %|% of After tax income above 35k|% above 35k before tax

€20,000.00|€2,218.80|€17,781.20|11.09%|-55.61%|-42.86%

€25,000.00|€3,768.80|€21,231.20|15.08%|-30.32%|-28.57%

€30,000.00|€5,318.80|€24,681.20|17.73%|-12.11%|-14.29%

€35,000.00|€7,330.80|€27,669.20|20.95%|0.00%|0.00%

€40,000.00|€9,930.80|€30,069.20|24.83%|7.98%|14.29%

€45,000.00|€12,530.80|€32,469.20|27.85%|14.78%|28.57%

€50,000.00|€15,130.80|€34,869.20|30.26%|20.65%|42.86%

€55,000.00|€17,730.80|€37,269.20|32.24%|25.76%|57.14%

€60,000.00|€20,330.80|€39,669.20|33.88%|30.25%|71.43%

€65,000.00|€22,930.80|€42,069.20|35.28%|34.23%|85.71%

€70,000.00|€25,530.80|€44,469.20|36.47%|37.78%|100.00%

€75,000.00|€28,130.80|€46,869.20|37.51%|40.97%|114.29%

€80,000.00|€30,730.80|€49,269.20|38.41%|43.84%|128.57%

€85,000.00|€33,330.80|€51,669.20|39.21%|46.45%|142.86%

€90,000.00|€35,930.80|€54,069.20|39.92%|48.83%|157.14%

€95,000.00|€38,530.80|€56,469.20|40.56%|51.00%|171.43%

€100,000.00|€41,130.80|€58,869.20|41.13%|53.00%|185.71%

€105,000.00|€43,730.80|€61,269.20|41.65%|54.84%|200.00%

€110,000.00|€46,330.80|€63,669.20|42.12%|56.54%|214.29%

€115,000.00|€48,930.80|€66,069.20|42.55%|58.12%|228.57%

€120,000.00|€51,530.80|€68,469.20|42.94%|59.59%|242.86%

€125,000.00|€54,130.80|€70,869.20|43.30%|60.96%|257.14%

€130,000.00|€56,730.80|€73,269.20|43.64%|62.24%|271.43%

€135,000.00|€59,330.80|€75,669.20|43.95%|63.43%|285.71%

It needs to be pointed out that your After Tax Income %s are wrong. Take the 35k after tax income, which is €27769.20, and the 135k after tax income, which is €75669.20. €75669.20 is not only 68% higher than €27769.20. It is actually 172% higher. The 27769.20 is 68% LOWER than €75669.20, but there's a huge difference in the meaning of those statements. The way you're using these calculations, you'd be saying €2 is 50% higher than €1, when it's actually 100% higher (aka double), or €1 is 50% LOWER than €2.

The funniest part is that your calculations for the Before Tax rates are correct (i.e €135k is 285% higher than €35k), which leads me to believe you understand how these measurements should work, so I can only assume you're actually deliberately misrepresenting the after tax numbers to create some sort of outrage.

Hell, because I have some free time on my hands, here's an updated, accurate table.

Income|Income Tax|After Tax|Tax as %|% of After tax income above 35k|% above 35k before tax

€20,000.00|€2,218.80|€17,781.20|11.09%|-35.74%|-42.86%

€25,000.00|€3,768.80|€21,231.20|15.08%|-23.27%|-28.57%

€30,000.00|€5,318.80|€24,681.20|17.73%|-10.80%|-14.29%

€35,000.00|€7,330.80|€27,669.20|20.95%|0.00%|0.00%

€40,000.00|€9,930.80|€30,069.20|24.83%|8.67%|14.29%

€45,000.00|€12,530.80|€32,469.20|27.85%|17.35%|28.57%

€50,000.00|€15,130.80|€34,869.20|30.26%|26.02%|42.86%

€55,000.00|€17,730.80|€37,269.20|32.24%|34.70%|57.14%

€60,000.00|€20,330.80|€39,669.20|33.88%|43.37%|71.43%

€65,000.00|€22,930.80|€42,069.20|35.28%|52.04%|85.71%

€70,000.00|€25,530.80|€44,469.20|36.47%|60.72%|100.00%

€75,000.00|€28,130.80|€46,869.20|37.51%|69.39%|114.29%

€80,000.00|€30,730.80|€49,269.20|38.41%|78.07%|128.57%

€85,000.00|€33,330.80|€51,669.20|39.21%|86.74%|142.86%

€90,000.00|€35,930.80|€54,069.20|39.92%|95.41%|157.14%

€95,000.00|€38,530.80|€56,469.20|40.56%|104.09%|171.43%

€100,000.00|€41,130.80|€58,869.20|41.13%|112.76%|185.71%

€105,000.00|€43,730.80|€61,269.20|41.65%|121.43%|200.00%

€110,000.00|€46,330.80|€63,669.20|42.12%|130.11%|214.29%

€115,000.00|€48,930.80|€66,069.20|42.55%|138.78%|228.57%

€120,000.00|€51,530.80|€68,469.20|42.94%|147.46%|242.86%

€125,000.00|€54,130.80|€70,869.20|43.30%|156.13%|257.14%

€130,000.00|€56,730.80|€73,269.20|43.64%|164.80%|271.43%

€135,000.00|€59,330.80|€75,669.20|43.95%|173.48%|285.71%

Karl Stein

seamus wrote: »

In most cases the money goes into investments and sits there as assets rather than free cash to play with.

Which makes it practically useless to the real economy.

$21 to $33 trillion being held tax free offshore by the wealthy.

The trickle down theory lie is utter bullshit.

Carawaystick

seamus wrote: »

Even people earning €200k can't afford to give €10k of that to an accountant to find loopholes to reduce their tax bill.

When you hear of tax exiles and creative accounting, you're talking about people with six-figure-plus yearly incomes, who are less individuals

The person on 200k can not bother with an accountant, and put 10k into a pension
there's a tax saving of 5200

Jonny Blaze

Yeah the poor rich people.. my heart bleeds for them..

shruikan2553

My main annoyance is with inheritance tax and how much bonuses are taxed. 32k is a bit low for the higher bracket too.

AlexisM

Carawaystick wrote: »

The person on 200k can not bother with an accountant, and put 10k into a pension
there's a tax saving of 5200

It's a tax deferment, not a tax saving (and accompanied by an income deferment too...). Anyone on 200K will likely be a high-rate tax payer in retirement. If you expect to be a high rate taxpayer in retirement, it makes no financial sense to put money into a pension.

[And the tax saving/deferment is 41%, not 52% - you don't get relief from PRSI or USC on pension contributions - although you get to pay these again when you draw down your pension - double taxation - lovely...]

AlexisM

Karl Stein wrote: »

For a good economy you need all those things that make a country stable and amenable to growth, social mobility and the ability to accumulate wealth.

Police, courts, prisons, probation officers, social workers, schools, teachers, universities, hospitals, nurses, doctors, motorways, airports, ports, customs officials, copyrights/patent protection all contribute to the health of the economic ecosystem. These are a public cost.

The above serve you the more you have. A policed motorway serves business far more than it serves a single parent in a bedsit who doesn't even own a car.

You're mixing businesses and people again. Those who benefit most from a functioning society and economy are surely those who have nothing to begin with - they get provided with the basics of existence which are kinda important... It is more important to the single parent in the bedsit that the economy functions than it is to someone who has an independent source of wealth or income.

But back to your view that "The wealthier you are, the more the economy serves you", how, for example, does the economy better serve a PAYE worker on 200K than a PAYE worker on 100K?

Greyian

bluewolf wrote: »

@greyian, both calcs were done consistently
135k-35k / 135k
75669-27669 / 75669

No they weren't. 135k-35k / 135k = 105k / 135k, which would obviously be under 100% (it'd be 77.7777%).

What he did for the first one was 135k-35k/35k (which could also be written as (135k/35k)-1). This would give you 285.71%, which is correct:
i.e. 35k + 35k*285.71% is 35k + 99998.50 (so it's that the % is rounded to 2 decimal places, which is obviously perfectly acceptable).

His calculations for the 2nd %s are false. There is nothing to discuss there. 75k is not 68% higher than 28k. That should be obvious to everyone. The figures are being misrepresented.


Edit: I see now you've deleted your post, I'm guessing you also noticed the error.

Yea I deleted the post when I saw what you meant

shouldn't mess with calcs on phone

Greyian

bluewolf wrote: »

Yea I deleted the post when I saw what you meant

shouldn't mess with calcs on phone

If he had used the same false method of calculating both the pre-tax and post-tax figures, it'd not provide much information of use, but it would at least be understandable.

The fact that his calculation of the pre-tax figures is accurate, but the calculation of post-tax figures is not, leads me to believe it isn't accidental. What there is to gain from misrepresenting the taxation load (seeing as the actual euro figures seem fine, just the representation of the advantages of higher pay is wrong), I don't know.

Frank Lee Midere

Karl Stein wrote: »

The reason we have progressive taxation is because wealthier a person gets the more they can avoid tax by using it to 'reservoir' wealth by buying property, antiques/collectibles, becoming non-domicile, creative accounting, trust funds, stocks and shares etc.

That completely ignores that the more you benefit from the the economy the more it serves you and the more it is in your interest to invest in it.



Here's what the 'Father of Capitalism' Adam Smith has to say about taxation in his tome 'Wealth of Nations'.

This is a typical confusion. Salaried workers can't park their earnings anywhere. People who earn money in other ways can and aren't taxed as much anyway.

There's a farmer at work who rents out a field he owns to the neighbours. I asked him the tax implications of that, he looked at me blankly. M
Very few PAYE workers will make it rich - independently wealthy with a high (potential) income.

Karl Stein

AlexisM wrote: »

Those who benefit most from a functioning society and economy are surely those who have nothing to begin with - they get provided with the basics of existence which are kinda important..

Those who benefit most financially is what I mean.

It is more important to the single parent in the bedsit that the economy functions than it is to someone who has an independent source of wealth or income.

What exactly is an 'independent source of income'? How can any income not be dependent on the society/economy from which it is derived? Even if you found a gold mine under your land the gold is worthless unless there are lots of other people around who want it.

how, for example, does the economy better serve a PAYE worker on 200K than a PAYE worker on 100K?

Is that supposed to be a trick question?

Because, all things being equal, the guy on 200k is getting twice as much from the economy as the guy on 100K.

That's twice as much incentive for him to ensure that economy's health.

A Primal Nut

Karl Stein wrote: »

For a good economy you need all those things that make a country stable and amenable to growth, social mobility and the ability to accumulate wealth.

Police, courts, prisons, probation officers, social workers, schools, teachers, universities, hospitals, nurses, doctors, motorways, airports, ports, customs officials, copyrights/patent protection all contribute to the health of the economic ecosystem. These are a public cost.

The above serve you the more you have. A policed motorway serves business far more than it serves a single parent in a bedsit who doesn't even own a car.

What about social welfare; by far the biggest cost to the state? Does that benefit richer people more than poor people?

Karl Stein wrote: »

Which makes it practically useless to the real economy.

$21 to $33 trillion being held tax free offshore by the wealthy.

The trickle down theory lie is utter bullshit.

That is referring to billionaires and multinational companies; of which there are very few in Ireland so it's irrelevant. It's not referring to people earning six figure salaries for example; who are generally considered wealthy in Ireland.

Frank Lee Midere

awec wrote: »

Total nonsense.

He's right but not for the PAYE sector. If you earn a million other than wages the chances of getting taxed on it the same way as a worker are slim to none.

Shooosh

Karl Stein wrote: »

Why is this axiom so hard for people to grasp?

Let's try an analogy shall we?

It is in the interest of the biggest fish in the lake that the ecosystem in which they reside is healthy.

The big fish is the wealthy person. The lake is the socio-economy he derives his wealth from.

Rich people usually create wealth.

Shooosh

Karl Stein wrote: »

Those who benefit most financially is what I mean.



What exactly is an 'independent source of income'? How can any income not be dependent on the society/economy from which it is derived? Even if you found a gold mine under your land the gold is worthless unless there are lots of other people around who want it.



Is that supposed to be a trick question?

Because, all things being equal, the guy on 200k is getting twice as much from the economy as the guy on 100K.

That's twice as much incentive for him to ensure that economy's health.

Your logic is flawed, people don't take from the economy generally speaking, they create wealth which yields a greater reward. People who create more value add value to the economy.

AlexisM

Karl Stein wrote: »

What exactly is an 'independent source of income'? How can any income not be dependent on the society/economy from which it is derived?

Independent of the economy doing the taxing for example. I work for a US company (which is not tax-based here) - they don't care if I live in Ireland or Outer Mongolia. My source of income is totally independent of Ireland's economy. A lot of people with foreign employers have incomes independent of the economy in which they live and pay taxes.

Karl Stein wrote: »

Is that supposed to be a trick question?

Because, all things being equal, the guy on 200k is getting twice as much from the economy as the guy on 100K.

That's twice as much incentive for him to ensure that economy's health.

So now, do tell - how is someone with a foreign employer getting twice as much from the economy?