Would you vote for a party that promised Tax increases?

PopePalpatine

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

No but I'd like to see spending cuts to hep grow the economy.

LOL, good one. I suppose the workhouse sector will boom in your utopia.

El_Duderino 09

ssmith6287 wrote: »

Water charges: The biggest arguement is we already pay for them. True, but its taken from road tax and general tax. I would gladly pay water charges if I know all of the taxes brought in through water went on water and road tax went on the roads.

We need the black and white of a vissionary and an accountant to look at how our taxes are spent. Let them argue until theyre both happy. This way we should be happy.

That's a fair sounding point but how would emergency services be funded? Could be through council tax like in the UK. What would pay for administration and the civil service? Everyone likes to say they do nothing but they're necessary

ssmith6287

HSE, Board of Education etc is what our taxes should be spent on.

Motortax is generated for the upkeep of our roads
Water Charges should be for the upkeep of our water services
Public lighting, street cleaning etc should be taken from our property tax/corperation tax
Education, Helath, Security, Welfare should be taken from general taxation

I could possibly be thinking too logically but the way its currently done doesnt make sense to me

El_Duderino 09

ssmith6287 wrote: »

HSE, Board of Education etc is what our taxes should be spent on.

Motortax is generated for the upkeep of our roads
Water Charges should be for the upkeep of our water services
Public lighting, street cleaning etc should be taken from our property tax/corperation tax
Education, Helath, Security, Welfare should be taken from general taxation

I could possibly be thinking too logically but the way its currently done doesnt make sense to me

Yeah that sounds good but the amount of money needed to fund services fluctuates. So your each tax could vary wildly every few years. Investment requires large sums so it would make tax unpredictable and much more complicated.

I imagine the current system pools the money together and then assigns budgets as needed.

ssmith6287

Well thats where the ministers in charge should make their money. New ways to do things cheaper and more efficient. I know its easier said then done but I'm sure anyone in the private sector can see where the cuts have been yet the performance has been maintained

jimmycrackcorm

Hollister11 wrote:

I don't think a small increase, would cause these big corporations to leave. Sure even at 12.5%, they hardly pay that on there profits.

The problem is that one you start increasing it then you are planting the seed that companies investing in Ireland are liable to be nervous about future tax increases.

The argument on the tax take is skewed very much by the really large companies like Apple who are taking advantage of schemes like the double irish that gives the impression that there's a potential tax collection goldmine when in reality is not going to happen.

For most companies that want to grow, low taxes help fund their investment, providing more jobs.

But even the likes of Apple, google, facebook etc here employ people with very significant wages, when you consider that the marginal rate of tax of 52% for someone on €100k combined with the employer PRSI then we're not doing so bad for such a small country.

jimmycrackcorm

ssmith6287 wrote:

Motortax is generated for the upkeep of our roads Water Charges should be for the upkeep of our water services

There's a misconception about taxes raised which is why so many people refer to motor tax as a tax to specifically pay for road maintenance. That doesn't make sense, after all why have a specific tax for roads but none for policing?

Instead, taxes are formed on the basis of how they can be collected and the ideal is to broaden them, to make then as optional as possible. Motor tax is a consumption choice based on whether you choose to drive, as is the duty on petrol or VAT.

lanos

Godge wrote: »

To answer the OP, yes, but only taxes I think are right.

We need to lower taxes on income and replace with broader taxes such as the property tax, water charges, etc.

let me guess....you are renting (I know renters are directly billed for water)

Godge wrote: »

Our focus should be on taking more people out of the higher rate and reducing it dramatically and/or a third rate inbetween.

let me guess again, you would fall into that 3rd inbetween tax bracket

lanos

ssmith6287 wrote: »

Low to mid earner here, 25k salary.

Low

Icepick

The only taxes I'd support increasing would put pensioners etc on the same level as everyone else.

JPNelsforearm

No, a fair, flat tax rate across the board, single payment, deducted from your wages, no stealth taxes. Lower tax on healthy food, raise it on unhealthy food, etc etc, simple and consistent, which is why no party suggests it. All the current tax system does is create loopholes for the wealthy and hammer the middle.

oscarBravo

Icepick wrote: »

The only taxes I'd support increasing would put pensioners etc on the same level as everyone else.

"Everyone else" isn't on the same level.

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

No, a fair, flat tax rate across the board, single payment, deducted from your wages, no stealth taxes. Lower tax on healthy food, raise it on unhealthy food, etc etc, simple and consistent, which is why no party suggests it. All the current tax system does is create loopholes for the wealthy and hammer the middle.

So, a 20% tax on minimum wage earners, and the same 20% tax on a billionaire? I can see that being universally popular.

Icepick

oscarBravo wrote: »

"Everyone else" isn't on the same level.

exactly my point

same thresholds, credits, etc

JPNelsforearm

oscarBravo wrote: »

"Everyone else" isn't on the same level.

So, a 20% tax on minimum wage earners, and the same 20% tax on a billionaire? I can see that being universally popular.

Billionaires and large companies probably pay less as it is.

PopePalpatine

And do you honestly think billionaires will happily pay the 20% flat tax? Nope, they're going to try every trick in the book to slash that to single figures.

jimmycrackcorm

PopePalpatine wrote:

And do you honestly think billionaires will happily pay the 20% flat tax? Nope, they're going to try every trick in the book to slash that to single figures.

I think they might just be. If you consider the efforts that they have to go to to avoid executive taxation. Setting up convoluted money diversion through offshore companies and multiple layers of management and control, it might be easier. By some accounts the Quinns efforts to hide assets in Russia have fallen to the control of their Russian partners.

Don't forget that billionaires still can have many ways to cut down their tax bills and they are still people. They're not too different than me having bought the Sunday world today for €2.45 to get an Aldi €10 discount voucher.

oscarBravo

Never mind the billionaires, you think the unions and other assorted social partners are going to cheerfully agree to a 20% tax on all income?

Cookie_Monster

oscarBravo wrote: »

So, a 20% tax on minimum wage earners, and the same 20% tax on a billionaire? I can see that being universally popular.

This is by far the best solution, set at something like 15-17%. Really simple to administer, everyone in the tax net, no favoritism of low income earners, no 'punishing' those who earn more for no justifiable reason.

The billionaires will still arrange their tax affairs as they do now, avoiding income tax of 42% or 17% it doesn't really matter. They may be more willing to pay it if only 17%...

quadrifoglio verde

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

This is by far the best solution, set at something like 15-17%. Really simple to administer, everyone in the tax net, no favoritism of low income earners, no 'punishing' those who earn more for no justifiable reason.

The billionaires will still arrange their tax affairs as they do now, avoiding income tax of 42% or 17% it doesn't really matter. They may be more willing to pay it if only 17%...

Trust me, no one wants to pay one more cent of tax than they legally have to. So if they could find a way of paying 16% tax instead of 17%, they would.

oscarBravo

It's not going to happen. Even if it was a good idea (simple solutions to complex problems tend not to be) it fails the only metric that ever seems to be applied to taxes in this country: it's not progressive.

JPNelsforearm

oscarBravo wrote: »

It's not going to happen. Even if it was a good idea (simple solutions to complex problems tend not to be)

it fails the only metric that ever seems to be applied to taxes in this country: it's not progressive.

1.Disagree, simple solutions are the best, the more complex you make a thing the more loopholes/potential for disaster occurs. Look at any of the best engineering feats, law, whatever, none are convoluted or needlessly complex. Its only when special interest groups and politicians/bureaucracy get involved that things become "complex"

2.Agree.

FreudianSlippers

oscarBravo wrote: »

So, a 20% tax on minimum wage earners, and the same 20% tax on a billionaire? I can see that being universally popular.

Firstly, we don't really have a whole lot of billionaires in Ireland. I really resent this argument, as it is effectively a kind of slippery-slope argument used to scare people into punitively taxing those earning 6 figures - not billionaires.


Secondly, this is also not how a flat tax would operate. I'll just also say that I advocate a flat tax with a negative income tax, so that we could completely abolish the dole.

From wikipedia (actually a good summary tbh):

A flat rate income taxation with tax exemption implements a negative income tax as well as maintaining an actual tax rate progression at extremely low administrative cost. This is achieved by paying a tax on the tax exemption to all taxpayers, e.g. in monthly payments. The tax on the tax exemption is computed by applying the nominal flat tax rate to the exemption. The tax on the income is drawn directly from the source, e.g. from an employer. The tax on income is computed by applying the nominal flat tax rate to the income.

This simple method results in an effective progressive rate taxation (although the tax rate for the taxes drawn at the source is flat) which is positive once the income exceeds the tax exemption. If, however, the income is less than the tax exemption, the effective progressive rate actually becomes negative without any involvement by any tax authority. As for the positive progression, only very high incomes would lead to an actual tax rate which is close to the nominal flat tax rate.

The tax on tax exemption also can be understood as a tax credit, which is paid back once an income has reached the level of the tax exemption. This level marks the point where paid taxes and the tax credit are equal. Above that point the state earns taxes from the taxpayer. Below that point the state pays taxes to the taxpayer.

Example:

The income tax rate is 50%.
The tax exemption is $30000.
The subsidy rate is 50% and equal to the income tax rate.

Under this scheme:

A person earning $0 would receive $15,000 from the government.
A person earning $25,000 would receive $2,500 from the government.
A person earning $30,000 would neither receive any money nor pay any tax.
A person earning $50,000 would pay a tax of $10,000.
A person earning $100,000 would pay a tax of $35,000.

Flat tax implementations without the provision of a negative income tax actually need an additional effort in order to avoid negative taxation. For such a tax, the exemption only can be paid after knowing the earned income. Flat tax implementations with negative income tax allow to pay the tax on the tax exemption independent of the amount of the actual income.

K.Flyer

Ireland Inc. Needs a complete and total financial overhaul.
In my opinion, the country is like a poorly build house on sh!tty foundations, that has been extended and added to over the years by owners who are too pig headed to realise that it needs to be bulldozed and built again, but properly this time.
Our health service is laughable and a shameful reflection of absurd management to the point people are terrified to be ill in this country.
Our police service is demoralised and decimated to the point that the criminal world is running free reign with no solid judicial system to deter them.
I could go on about the education system and the care for the elderly, but you get the picture.
We need true reform, not pithy lip service.

FreudianSlippers

K.Flyer wrote: »

Ireland Inc. Needs a complete and total financial overhaul.
In my opinion, the country is like a poorly build house on sh!tty foundations, that has been extended and added to over the years by owners who are too pig headed to realise that it needs to be bulldozed and built again, but properly this time.
Our health service is laughable and a shameful reflection of absurd management to the point people are terrified to be ill in this country.
Our police service is demoralised and decimated to the point that the criminal world is running free reign with no solid judicial system to deter them.
I could go on about the education system and the care for the elderly, but you get the picture.
We need true reform, not pithy lip service.

I agree- I wish that we had collectively taken 2015 as a year of reflection on where we are and where we're going and conducted a root-and-branch overhaul of the mechanics of this country.

We have a broken system that stems from a broken tax system and barely functional government system.

JPNelsforearm

K.Flyer wrote: »

Ireland Inc. Needs a complete and total financial overhaul.
In my opinion, the country is like a poorly build house on sh!tty foundations, that has been extended and added to over the years by owners who are too pig headed to realise that it needs to be bulldozed and built again, but properly this time.
Our health service is laughable and a shameful reflection of absurd management to the point people are terrified to be ill in this country.
Our police service is demoralised and decimated to the point that the criminal world is running free reign with no solid judicial system to deter them.
I could go on about the education system and the care for the elderly, but you get the picture.
We need true reform, not pithy lip service.

and there is not a single reformist political party on the horizon............ More of the same and lots of it, for the foreseeable future.