Noonan: Universal social charge here to stay

Dep!

Its easy to make Noonan, Burton etc figures of hate when it could be argued that they're "just doing their job" or "making the tough decisions".

Most, however, will go with "a pair of self serving f*ckers living on borrowed time". This should add another 10 thousand or so in numbers to the December 10th protest.

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/noonan-universal-social-charge-here-to-stay-652701.html

The Minister for Finance has said the Universal Social Charge is here to stay.

Michael Noonan said the charge was not likely to be abolished, because it takes in too much cash.

The charge brings in morethan €4.5bn a year, which the minister says Ireland cannot afford to give up.

He said that although the tax was meant to be temporary, it was now the only way to get money from those on lower incomes.

"(Some) people would not pay personal tax at all if it were not for USC," he said.

Surely no USC = more money being spent in the economy?

Mr.McLovin

at least he's being honest I suppose...

Fuhrer

Dep! wrote: »

"(Some) people would not pay personal tax at all if it were not for USC," he said.

Like Dennis O'Brien

Valetta

No USC = More Income Tax.

= less people paying the same overall amount

= not good.

Valetta

Fuhrer wrote: »

Like Dennis O'Brien

Why should someone who doesn't live here pay income tax here?

listermint

Valetta wrote: »

No USC = More Income Tax.

= less people paying the same overall amount

= not good.

Whats not good is the fairly rigid existing bands.

Quite honestly they are a bloody farce and there needs to be more.

Valetta

listermint wrote: »

Whats not good is the fairly rigid existing bands.

Quite honestly they are a bloody farce and there needs to be more.

Can't disagree with that.

valderrama1

Dep! wrote: »

Surely no USC = more money being spent in the economy?

that's what I always thought, the government is being criticised by the european commission et al for not going through with the full amount of tax increases possible etc etc

But it totally depends on your economic point of view. You could make a very valid argument to say that we should actually try to stimulate the economy as much as possible and cut taxes as much as possible rather than going this route. That is the route taken by the US and UK and they are doing much better than the EU at the moment. US unemployment is down around 6% now and they are actively trying to get it lower. We have a similar goal but how are we going to reach it without stimulating the economy only taxing more? People are going to tend to leave or not bother with marginal rates at 52% (or 51% whoopedeedoo). When people have less money in general they're obviously not going to spend so businesses also will be in the sh!tter.

This should add another 10 thousand or so in numbers to the December 10th protest.

If the water protests simply articulate the idea that we are paying way too much tax then they will be worthwhile even if there is an argument to be made that we need to properly sort out the water infrastructure and raise funds to do that.

To get rid of USC we would have to reduce our spending. So concretely that means not having to service debt, but also not having a huge public sector and health service bill, and stuff like that. This is a huge problem created over years and led to the deficit creeping up over years. In fairness to the current government they are not entirely responsible for that..
But it is terrible management of the country over years that has led to this.. We are Rochdale and well run countries like germany are Man united

Valetta

valderrama1 wrote: »

that's what I always thought, the government is being criticised by the european commission et al for not going through with the full amount of tax increases possible etc etc

But it totally depends on your economic point of view. You could make a very valid argument to say that we should actually try to stimulate the economy as much as possible and cut taxes as much as possible rather than going this route. That is the route taken by the US and UK and they are doing much better than the EU at the moment. US unemployment is down around 6% now and they are actively trying to get it lower. We have a similar goal but how are we going to reach it without stimulating the economy only taxing more? People are going to tend to leave or not bother with marginal rates at 52% (or 51% whoopedeedoo). When people have less money in general they're obviously not going to spend so businesses also will be in the sh!tter.



If the water protests simply articulate the idea that we are paying way too much tax then they will be worthwhile even if there is an argument to be made that we need to properly sort out the water infrastructure and raise funds to do that.

To get rid of USC we would have to reduce our spending. So concretely that means not having to service debt, but also not having a huge public sector and health service bill, and stuff like that. This is a huge problem created over years and led to the deficit creeping up over years. In fairness to the current government they are not entirely responsible for that..
But it is terrible management of the country over years that has led to this.. We are Rochdale and well run countries like germany are Man united

They're not increasing the USC and have reduced it somewhat in the last budget.

They have reduced income tax and this new proposal is to reduce it further.

Seems to be just what you are advocating.

Xios

Tax levels should not be static. They should be adjusted in a temporal manner in response to a changing economic climate.

Higher costs of living should = a higher base line for tax.
Introducing the USC during a recession to tax the lowest earners was malicious.
As cost of Living goes down, so should the threshold for taxation.

I think we need an overhall of the taxation system. It seems outdated and the encroachment of stealth taxes are obvious indicators that system is failing.

Just like our leaky water pipes, so too is our tax system inefficient.

valderrama1

Valetta wrote: »

They're not increasing the USC and have reduced it somewhat in the last budget.

They have reduced income tax and this new proposal is to reduce it further.

Seems to be just what you are advocating.

They have reduced it a little but it's still more or less at the same level. Compare it to UK/Northern Ireland income tax rates which are 20% up to £41k (pounds).
They might lower it under 50% after the next election but I doubt they will be in a position to do much more than that.

Xios

valderrama1 wrote: »

They have reduced it a little but it's still more or less at the same level. Compare it to UK/Northern Ireland income tax rates which are 20% up to £41k (pounds).
They might lower it under 50% after the next election but I doubt they will be in a position to do much more than that.

This article is interesting.
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26327114

Dep!

Only 11 replies to this news? Seriously? I think that sums up the country's apathy right there.

Potential-Monke

I thought it was only an emergency measure and had to be wound up (last year if i was not mistaken)?

tobsey

The ridiculous FF boom time policy that removed all full time minimum wage workers from paying any income tax was the problem. You could earn 17k in 2007 and not pay a cent in income tax. That couldn't be sustained. The current model with USC means every worker pays something, and those that can pay the most do so.

Breffnigolfer

Dep! wrote: »

Only 11 replies to this news? Seriously? I think that sums up the country's apathy right there.

It's more to do with it being a fairly uninteresting thread with not much thought put into the OP.

dxhound2005

Dep! wrote: »

Only 11 replies to this news? Seriously? I think that sums up the country's apathy right there.

It's not news. Just because the newspapers call it news it doesn't mean it's news. They recycle the same stuff all the time, pretending it's some big revelation.

USC replaced two previous levies and it was always intended to be permanent.

https://www.kildarestreet.com/sendebates/?id=2014-10-23a.116&s=speaker%3A34

I thank Senator Bradford for raising this issue today.

The situation is that the universal social charge, known as USC, was introduced by the previous Government in budget 2011 to replace the income levy and the health levy. It was a necessary measure to widen the tax base, remove poverty traps and raise revenue to reduce the budget deficit. It is a more sustainable charge than those it replaced. It was never intended by my predecessor that the USC would be a temporary measure. The legislation under which it was introduced did not include any sunset clauses or place time limits on the charge. It was designed and incorporated into the Irish taxation system as part of its permanent structure. The €4 billion in revenues collected from the USC play a vital part in meeting the many expenditure demands placed on the Exchequer. The USC is applied at a low rate on a wide base which insures that while most people have to pay USC on their earnings the amount is lower as a proportion of their income as would be the case if the revenue from the charge was delivered through the income tax system.

The Senator should be aware that the universal social charge cannot be avoided by using tax reliefs which are mostly used by the higher earners to reduce their tax burden. In fact, by increasing the USC rates applicable to higher incomes in the budget, it has allowed me to cap the benefits that individuals get from the tax changes introduced in budget 2015. As I outlined on budget day, the progressivity of our income tax system will be copperfastened by giving greater importance to USC at higher incomes so that the capacity of higher earners to shelter their income through tax breaks is significantly curtailed.

hfallada

Xios wrote: »

Tax levels should not be static. They should be adjusted in a temporal manner in response to a changing economic climate.

Higher costs of living should = a higher base line for tax.
Introducing the USC during a recession to tax the lowest earners was malicious.
As cost of Living goes down, so should the threshold for taxation.

I think we need an overhall of the taxation system. It seems outdated and the encroachment of stealth taxes are obvious indicators that system is failing.

Just like our leaky water pipes, so too is our tax system inefficient.

Well Ireland has the most progessive tax system in the OECD. Nearly half of all working people pay no income tax, while the top 10% pay 70% of income taxes. That is what you call a fair tax system. Debt is just deferred taxation. Without increasing taxes, we were just going to pass on this generations mistakes onto the next generation to pay.

Deflation is almost unheard(except for Japan and the last few years in Europe). So your point about lowering tax thresholds is pretty irrelevant. Our income tax system is perfectly fine. Although a band in the middle might make a little more sense. But if you dont levy taxes on income, they have to be increased elsewhere.

Saipanne

Dep! wrote: »

Only 11 replies to this news? Seriously? I think that sums up the country's apathy right there.

I know, I mean its only the 11 billionth such thread this week! Why aren't people interested?

goat2

we have an election not far off, hopefully the next gov will keep the promises

Penny Tration

I don't like our government, but tbh, paying USC doesn't bother me. It's not a huge % of my income. I assumed most people were used to it by now.

hmmm

I agree with Noonan. Everyone should pay some Income tax, no matter how little you earn. Paying tax means you are an active member of society and means you'll hold governments responsible for how well they spend the money you've had to give them. Otherwise you end up with a country like Ireland where only a small group of people pay most of the tax, and a larger group of people are forever demanding "free" stuff from the government.

shruikan2553

hfallada wrote: »

Well Ireland has the most progessive tax system in the OECD. Nearly half of all working people pay no income tax, while the top 10% pay 70% of income taxes. That is what you call a fair tax system. Debt is just deferred taxation. Without increasing taxes, we were just going to pass on this generations mistakes onto the next generation to pay.

Deflation is almost unheard(except for Japan and the last few years in Europe). So your point about lowering tax thresholds is pretty irrelevant. Our income tax system is perfectly fine. Although a band in the middle might make a little more sense. But if you dont levy taxes on income, they have to be increased elsewhere.

That doesn't sound very fair to me. Of course people who earn less should pay less but there is paying less and then there is paying nothing which is hardly fair.

goat2

my big problem with them is, they were bringing in enormous water charges,
made mistakes in what it would have been to put the meters in, i bet they that were giving the advice on what the costs would be were earning big, bet they got paid, yet they did not do the job they were paid to do properly,
we have
home insurance
tv licence
dog licence
bin charges
socail charge
vhi
home heating
electricity
car
and i guess some i cannot think of
how can we manage any more,
if the money that has spent in advisers were spent fixing pipes, and leave out these meters, and charge a small fee from each home, my bet is it would have done better for all and the economy

Saipanne

goat2 wrote: »

my big problem with them is, they were bringing in enormous water charges,
made mistakes in what it would have been to put the meters in, i bet they that were giving the advice on what the costs would be were earning big, bet they got paid, yet they did not do the job they were paid to do properly,
we have
home insurance
tv licence
dog licence
bin charges
socail charge
vhi
home heating
electricity
car
and i guess some i cannot think of
how can we manage any more,
if the money that has spent in advisers were spent fixing pipes, and leave out these meters, and charge a small fee from each home, my bet is it would have done better for all and the economy

Are you being forced to pay all of those things?

Timberrrrrrrr

goat2 wrote: »

we have an election not far off, hopefully the next gov will keep the promises

Who do you think the next gov will be and what promises do you think they will make?

goat2

Saipanne wrote: »

Are you being forced to pay all of those things?

i have a dog,
a tv,
a home,
and all that entails,
live in the country no buses where i live, so a car is a help

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

I actually like his stance.

Like it or not, there are debts and bills to be paid and services to provide. Where do you think the money's going to come from? At least he's not lying through his teeth and telling you he'll scrap it if you vote for them again.

The way some people go on, you'd think the entire concept of paying for something is inhuman.

Timberrrrrrrr

goat2 wrote: »

my big problem with them is, they were bringing in enormous water charges,
made mistakes in what it would have been to put the meters in, i bet they that were giving the advice on what the costs would be were earning big, bet they got paid, yet they did not do the job they were paid to do properly,
we have
home insurance
tv licence
dog licence
bin charges
socail charge
vhi
home heating
electricity
[/b]car[/b]
and i guess some i cannot think of
how can we manage any more,
if the money that has spent in advisers were spent fixing pipes, and leave out these meters, and charge a small fee from each home, my bet is it would have done better for all and the economy

All voluntary, you don't HAVE to have those things you choose to have them.

Saipanne

goat2 wrote: »

i have a dog,
a tv,
a home,
and all that entails,
live in the country no buses where i live, so a car is a help

Ok, but vhi is a choice.

martingriff

Potential-Monke wrote: »

I thought it was only an emergency measure and had to be wound up (last year if i was not mistaken)?

No USC was not emergency I think the tax on the pensions was

Saipanne

Sure wasn't prsi meant to be temporary?

5starpool

USC and also VAT hit the lower paid far harder on a pro rata basis than water charges or property tax, but for some reason the socialists and general rabble rousers who like to protest have fixated on the wrong items as usual.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

goat2 wrote: »

my big problem with them is, they were bringing in enormous water charges,
made mistakes in what it would have been to put the meters in, i bet they that were giving the advice on what the costs would be were earning big, bet they got paid, yet they did not do the job they were paid to do properly,
we have
home insurance
tv licence
dog licence
bin charges
socail charge
vhi
home heating
electricity
car
and i guess some i cannot think of
how can we manage any more,
if the money that has spent in advisers were spent fixing pipes, and leave out these meters, and charge a small fee from each home, my bet is it would have done better for all and the economy

Who do you think should by paying for them?

fedor.2.

Saipanne wrote: »

Ok, but vhi is a choice.

Ya, why can't he just wait years to be seen, like the rest of us

Saipanne

fedor.2. wrote: »

Ya, why can't he just wait years to be seen, like the rest of us

I'm still right.

michael999999

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

I actually like his stance.

Like it or not, there are debts and bills to be paid and services to provide. Where do you think the money's going to come from? At least he's not lying through his teeth and telling you he'll scrap it if you vote for them again.

The way some people go on, you'd think the entire concept of paying for something is inhuman.

Debts to be paid you say!

Like the 300 million debt write off that Denis o Briens INM received from the Irish banks?

No fine Gael links there I'm sure!

AlekSmart

tobsey wrote: »

The ridiculous FF boom time policy that removed all full time minimum wage workers from paying any income tax was the problem. You could earn 17k in 2007 and not pay a cent in income tax. That couldn't be sustained. The current model with USC means every worker pays something, and those that can pay the most do so.

This "removal from the tax-net" blather became a hoary old Budget Day chesnut,trotted out year after year by Ministers for Finance at the front end of their speeches.

The entirely civil concept of every citizen rendering unto Caesar what is Caesars sticks in the craw of the current grouping of anti-austerity protesters,as they loudly cry their support for Denis O Brien to pay for them all....;)

Saipanne

Before this debate kicks off...

Typical tax paid, by tax type and income decile (based on RC, ESRI and CSO data)



http://www.ronanlyons.com/2012/04/10/paying-tax-in-ireland-where-the-richest-and-poorest-pay/

AlekSmart

Saipanne wrote: »

Before this debate kicks off...

Typical tax paid, by tax type and income decile (based on RC, ESRI and CSO data)



http://www.ronanlyons.com/2012/04/10/paying-tax-in-ireland-where-the-richest-and-poorest-pay/

Debate ....?

What is this "Debate" you speak of ?

All a load of oul bumph,designed to confuse ordinary folks....

Lookit...what part of "Can't Pay-Won't Pay" do yiz not understand...:eek:

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

michael999999 wrote: »

Debts to be paid you say!

Like the 300 million debt write off that Denis o Briens INM received from the Irish banks?

No fine Gael links there I'm sure!

A write-off is different to a debt.

Beyond that, the governemnt provides services which it requires money to pay for. It has debts with other governments and financial institutions. None of this is news to you, I'm sure. What Denis O'Brien or cheapshots at FG have to do with it, I'm not sure.

BoJack Horseman

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

I'm sure. What Denis O'Brien or cheapshots at FG have to do with it, I'm not sure.

Cheap shots are far far easier than thinking up better policy

cerastes

Dep! wrote: »

Its easy to make Noonan, Burton etc figures of hate when it could be argued that they're "just doing their job" or "making the tough decisions".

Most, however, will go with "a pair of self serving f*ckers living on borrowed time". This should add another 10 thousand or so in numbers to the December 10th protest.

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/noonan-universal-social-charge-here-to-stay-652701.html

Surely no USC = more money being spent in the economy?

Wouldnt the tough decisions be reducing whats spent, I appreciate that takes time, planning and even worse organisation.

Xios wrote: »

This article is interesting.
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26327114

How so, you'd think they'd have Ireland in there for a comparison, they have Greece.

Saipanne wrote: »

Are you being forced to pay all of those things?

Most of them are essential, what should the OP do? kill their dog? hide their tv? The idea has been flaunted to make tv licence mandatory regardless of usage, and yes in many cases Home Insurance is a condition of a mortgage and a person would be foolish not to have it.

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

All voluntary, you don't HAVE to have those things you choose to have them.

They are far from ALL voluntary, and despite the spend on our health services, its practically essential to have private cover to get even minor things done in a reasonable timeframe.

Saipanne wrote: »

Ok, but vhi is a choice.

As above, maybe they should give up all foods, except cake, cake for the poor all round, everyone, have some cake.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Who do you think should by paying for them?

Im fairly sure that poster is saying they dont have more to give and they cant keep giving, without disposable income where do people have anything to spend in the economy? fcuk why dont they just make more ****ty taxes up? Im all for everyone contributing, having more tax bands and increasing the figure at which the higher rate cuts in.
See where the bloat is and cut it out, they cant do that as that will probably entail cutting some jobs, health service, make it more efficient, clearer taxation, more direct, instead of just pouring it into a pot, some basic insurance for health cover for everyone, owned by the state, run/managed by private insurers?
otherwise what? just keep putting taxes up here, there, anywhere because of mismanagement of the public finances and no clear longterm plan.

Cantremember

Typical bollixology from Noonan. An emergency charge is to stay. Let's bring in a "capped" water charge. Nod nod wink wink. And Enda says we've no choice but to vote for them. No choice at all at all. They just don't get it: they have no credibility left.

goat2

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Who do you think should by paying for them?

i pay for them,
vhi gone up in price
tv gone up ,, ,,
bins gone up ,, ,,
home insurance ,, ,,
dog licence ,, ,,
car tax ,, ,,
nct of car
as i say no bus in my area, 10 mls from nearest town, need to get to work
wages down
then slap us with enormous water bill, i dont mind paying small fee,

goat2

Saipanne wrote: »

Ok, but vhi is a choice.

vhi is vital for my child,
has a serious sickness, has had operations, hospital care, and is on medicine fulltime, all paid out of my poca
i will not risk my childs health, would rather go without some things for the sake of my child

dxhound2005

goat2 wrote: »

i pay for them,
vhi gone up in price
tv gone up ,, ,,
bins gone up ,, ,,
home insurance ,, ,,
dog licence ,, ,,
car tax ,, ,,
nct of car
as i say no bus in my area, 10 mls from nearest town, need to get to work
wages down
then slap us with enormous water bill, i dont mind paying small fee,

The last time the TV licence was increased was in 2008. Increased by €2. That was three years before USC came in.

goat2

dxhound2005 wrote: »

The last time the TV licence was increased was in 2008. Increased by €2. That was three years before USC came in.

anyway they dont give us much for our fee,
then i made a mistake there,
but all the others have gone up

cerastes

dxhound2005 wrote: »

The last time the TV licence was increased was in 2008. Increased by €2. That was three years before USC came in.

And its still a con, why dont they cut through RTE savagely? cut out the bloat, waste and excessive salaries, well as long is it is funded by a legislated charge, why bother.