Budget 2016

Geuze

KenHy wrote: »

Is that the levy on pension funds though? so no impact on take home pay?

Or is it the public service one?

Pension levy = tax on pension funds

PRD = extra tax paid by PS / extra cont towards their pension.


No mention of PRD in the Budget.

Villa05

Coat22 wrote:

Slowly but surely the country is turning into some sort of socialist dreamland where everyone who's gotten off their ar$e and is earning more than €70k a year (the cheek of them) has their income equalised by some sort of Robin Hood politics.

What exactly is your issue with this budget. My reading of it is that you get the maximum tax, USC gain available.

I'm sure you have worked hard to achieve a high salary, but I'm pretty sure most people on salaries over 70k have received excellent support from the state and availed of state infrastructure to help them reach this salary level.

I don't even earn half of 70k and I would have preferred no changes in tax, instead a focus on reducing our massive debt and measures that help reduce crippling costs in the areas of health, childcare and housing.

Giving more to wealthier members of our society only fuels inflation and we have experience of where that road leads to.

ongarite

Bob24 wrote: »

Probably an extreme example but look at France for example: the socialist party there has been gradually increasing the threshold to start paying income tax, to a point where over 50% of households won't pay a single euro this year. And of course who's been hammered with tax hikes year after year to pay for this: the middle and upper middle class who have seen increases on all the intermediate tax brackets.

All those middle and high earners are heading off to London where they are taxed into oblivion leaving France with a large hole in its total tax take. Over 400,000 in the last 3 years.

c montgomery

I'm much better off after the budget, about 1300 euro.
I would however prefer if there were no tax reductions and instead the government built a new prison and invested in the garda.
Maybe then people could sleep more soundly in their beds at night and the streets would be a safer place to walk.
I'm sick of hearing of assaults etc.. carried out by people with 10+ convictions

Geuze

Villa05 wrote: »

Giving more to wealthier members of our society only fuels inflation and we have experience of where that road leads to.

Not so much fuel inflation as buy votes.

Kristopherus

Geuze wrote: »

Pension levy = tax on pension funds

PRD = extra tax paid by PS / extra cont towards their pension.


No mention of PRD in the Budget.

Rubbish. The PRD inflicted on P.S was a tax on them to contribute to the black hole that was Anglo Irish. Absolutely nothing to do with their own pension.

Geuze

Kristopherus wrote: »

Rubbish. The PRD inflicted on P.S was a tax on them to contribute to the black hole that was Anglo Irish. Absolutely nothing to do with their own pension.

Yes, it does not increase pension benefits.

You could call it an increased contribution towards their pension.

Or you could call it a pay cut.

Or I suppose you could call it a PS-specific tax.

Geuze

Kristopherus wrote: »

. The PRD inflicted on P.S was a tax on them to contribute to the black hole that was Anglo Irish. Absolutely nothing to do with their own pension.

Please note that the 30-35bn injected into Anglo / IBRC was borrowed.

So the PRD paid each month does not go directly to recapitalising Anglo /IBRC.

Although, indirectly, yes, part of all new taxes goes to pay the interest bill on the banking crisis.

Bob24

ongarite wrote: »

All those middle and high earners are heading off to London where they are taxed into oblivion leaving France with a large hole in its total tax take. Over 400,000 in the last 3 years.

Yes this has been completely counter productive. Hence my point saying Ireland is not the hard core left wing paradise someone had mentioned - I'm not seeing the same thing happening here.

Nichard Dixon

Geuze wrote: »

Yes, it does not increase pension benefits.

You could call it an increased contribution towards their pension.

Or you could call it a pay cut.

Or I suppose you could call it a PS-specific tax.

As it has nothing to do with pensions, and is applied to non pensionable earnings, just call it a pay cut.

ezra_pound

Just to clarify, as some people seem confused:

The 12012 usc band has not changed!

Coat22

Villa05 wrote: »

What exactly is your issue with this budget. My reading of it is that you get the maximum tax, USC gain available.

I'm sure you have worked hard to achieve a high salary, but I'm pretty sure most people on salaries over 70k have received excellent support from the state and availed of state infrastructure to help them reach this salary level.

I don't even earn half of 70k and I would have preferred no changes in tax, instead a focus on reducing our massive debt and measures that help reduce crippling costs in the areas of health, childcare and housing.

Giving more to wealthier members of our society only fuels inflation and we have experience of where that road leads to.

My problem is this - and Noonan quoted it in the Dail yesterday - in his example a Guard and a nurse, one earning €55k and one earning €50k would be €1950 a year better off. If the same Garda became commissioner and earned €105k and his wife stayed home to raise the family he would be only €900 a year better off (he didn't quote the second bit :-))


So as an individual I do get the maximum available, but as a family we are further screwed. I also take issue with the capping of relieves in the last 2 budgets at €70k to allow more people not bother contribute at all to the tax take in this country. The higher paid were the first ones screwed in the emergency budgets of 08/09 and will be the last to benefit (if they ever do) from the normalisation of the economy.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Sigh. We're still in structural deficit without infrastructure spending being a large part of it...

Could we not have sat tight one more year? Buying elections is woeful stuff.

Professor John McHale (Chairman of the Fiscal Advisory Council) agrees apparently.

http://www.rte.ie/news/budget/2015/1014/734685-budget-fiscal/

Bob24

Deleted User wrote: »

Sigh. We're still in structural deficit without infrastructure spending being a large part of it...

Could we not have sat tight one more year? Buying elections is woeful stuff.

Professor John McHale (Chairman of the Fiscal Advisory Council) agrees apparently.

http://www.rte.ie/news/budget/2015/1014/734685-budget-fiscal/

It is the wrong thing to do when thinking of Ireland's national interest, but sadly it definitely is the right thing to do from a political point of view and anyone else in the government's seat would have done the same.

Only voters can be blamed for this :-/

As for breaking EU budget rules ... I think it's just media noise to attract attention. Lots of EU countries are blatantly breaking EU fiscal rules in ways which make Ireland look like an amazingly well managed country. If the EU was to make trouble for Ireland, it would have to invalidate the budgets of half its member states.

Thargor

Any correct calculator this morning?

Buford T. Justice XIX

Bob24 wrote: »

It is the wrong thing to do when thinking of Ireland's national interest, but sadly it definitely is the right thing to do from a political point of view and anyone else in the government's seat would have done the same.

Only voters can be blamed for this :-/

As for breaking EU budget rules ... I think it's just media noise to attract attention. Lots of EU countries are blatantly breaking EU fiscal rules in ways which make Ireland look like an amazingly well managed country. If the EU was to make trouble for Ireland, it would have to invalidate the budgets of half its member states.

While it's definitely an 'election' budget, I think an expansionary budget when there is still a budget deficit is probably the right thing to do.

When the budget is balanced next year(hopefully), more can be targeted for capital expenditure and still leave enough for some of the surplus to be returned to the taxpayer and hopefully some into a new Pension Reserve fund for that rainy day.

mjv2ydratu679c

Buford T. Justice V wrote: »

While it's definitely an 'election' budget, I think an expansionary budget when there is still a budget deficit is probably the right thing to do.

When the budget is balanced next year(hopefully), more can be targeted for capital expenditure and still leave enough for some of the surplus to be returned to the taxpayer and hopefully some into a new Pension Reserve fund for that rainy day.

Eh maybe pay off some of our ginormous debt pile before interest rates return to their historical higher levels.

Coat22

Buford T. Justice V wrote: »

While it's definitely an 'election' budget, I think an expansionary budget when there is still a budget deficit is probably the right thing to do.

When the budget is balanced next year(hopefully), more can be targeted for capital expenditure and still leave enough for some of the surplus to be returned to the taxpayer and hopefully some into a new Pension Reserve fund for that rainy day.

I would have loved to have seen us run a surplus or balance the books this year and reduce the debt rather than being expansionary but the reality is an election is around the corner and "Da People" need to be coaxed into common sense of returning FG.

With a bit of luck we can see such a budget next year, rather than throwing all the surplus away so that people who pay feck all tax can pay even less or none at all.

zl1whqvjs75cdy

The way I look at it is that this budget buys the election. Next year's budget (if it is FG/Lab) will be far more important as it will tell us if we are returning to FF giveaways, or sticking with financial caution and careful economics.

keane2097

I think all the calculators are correct and that people mistook the fact that people who earn €13000 or less (up from ~12k) will no longer pay USC as the same thing as saying that everyone else's lower band is going up to 13k as well.

Apogee

KenHy wrote: »

Journal.ie one is giving a significant ammount back on pension levy for public sector - don't see any changes to that reported elsewhere so does anyone know what that's about?

LRC wrote:

The PRD is the ‘Pension Related Deduction’, or pension levy. The lower threshold for PRD is currently €15,000 – below this income level there is no liability for PRD. Income between €15,000 and €20,000 is currently liable to PRD at 2.5%. On 1 January 2016 the exemption threshold for payment of Pension Related Deduction (PRD) will increase from €15,000 per annum to €24,750 per annum and on 1 September it will increase further to €28,750. This means for all public servants that remuneration below €28,750 will no longer be liable to PRD, while the increase in the threshold to €28,750 is worth €1,000 euro reduction in PRD to each public servant (who currently pays PRD in excess of this amount) on a full year basis with the low paid benefiting to a greater extent through the tax code.

For those on less than €28,750 the impact on each individual will vary depending on their total remuneration and their current liability for PRD.

http://per.gov.ie/wp-content/uploads/FAQs-Public-Service-Stability-Agreement-2013-to-2018-HRA-and-LRA-July-2015.docx

Villa05

Coat22 wrote:

My problem is this - and Noonan quoted it in the Dail yesterday - in his example a Guard and a nurse, one earning €55k and one earning €50k would be €1950 a year better off. If the same Garda became commissioner and earned €105k and his wife stayed home to raise the family he would be only €900 a year better off (he didn't quote the second bit :-))

That has been in the system for over a decade and effects all income groups. It was brought in by Charlie mcreevy to encourage more stay at home mum's and pa's into the workforce. All it did was add more fuel to the property bubble fire.
It was a nasty trick, I agree
No sympathy here for a family on 105k. They got the maximum benefit from this budget.

Coat22 wrote:

So as an individual I do get the maximum available, but as a family we are further screwed. I also take issue with the capping of relieves in the last 2 budgets at €70k to allow more people not bother contribute at all to the tax take in this country. The higher paid were the first ones screwed in the emergency budgets of 08/09 and will be the last to benefit (if they ever do) from the normalisation of the economy.

All FG budgets have been regressive in nature. The lower paid have had more% taken from them in the cuts and receive less than the higher paid when something was given back. Your argument is false

Capping at 70k is perfectly reasonable. To be in a position of not contributing, you must earn less than 13k.

1 as a taxpayer I would prefer to give those people a break than those on 105k

2 Low income workers are the silent hero's of this economy. They allow us to stay competitive and I'm sure there are plenty on 70k plus who would exploit there willingness to work for a wage insufficient for a minimum standard of living

3 Low income workers have to be commended for their willingness to forgo a generous social welfare system to better themselves in a job and take there chance in system that attacks them in areas of housing, childcare, healthcare

4 Should the low paid be asked to contribute to a system that is so wasteful as Government spending.

Coat22

Villa05 wrote: »

That has been in the system for over a decade and effects all income groups. It was brought in by Charlie mcreevy to encourage more stay at home mum's and pa's into the workforce. All it did was add more fuel to the property bubble fire.
It was a nasty trick, I agree
No sympathy here for a family on 105k. They got the maximum benefit from this budget.

If you'd read my earlier posts you'd realise I'd attributed this to McCreevy and his ill gotten policies.
The family on €105k ("The Coppers Couple") got the max because they were both working - my point is if only one of them was working and earning the €105k their benefit would be halfed and I don't think that's right. This principle works the same for a family on €70 or €80k, its the principle I think is wrong.

All FG budgets have been regressive in nature. The lower paid have had more% taken from them in the cuts and receive less than the higher paid when something was given back. Your argument is false .

So its %s when its cuts but € when its money been given back - I like what you did there.

Villa05 wrote: »

Capping at 70k is perfectly reasonable. To be in a position of not contributing, you must earn less than 13k.

1 as a taxpayer I would prefer to give those people a break than those on 105k

2 Low income workers are the silent hero's of this economy. They allow us to stay competitive and I'm sure there are plenty on 70k plus who would exploit there willingness to work for a wage insufficient for a minimum standard of living

3 Low income workers have to be commended for their willingness to forgo a generous social welfare system to better themselves in a job and take there chance in system that attacks them in areas of housing, childcare, healthcare

4 Should the low paid be asked to contribute to a system that is so wasteful as Government spending.

Low income workers are a factor of every economy. I'm sure we'd all like to be hospital consultants but alas that's not possible. I am not having a dig at low income workers, what I am saying is that high earners contributed much more in the emergency but are now being f*cked over on the way back up.

Take the removal of the PRSI ceiling -this was €48,800 in 2007 and removed sometime in 09/10. Thats an extra 4% tax on earning above €48,800. So someone on €100k is paying €2k more in PRSI alone than they were in 2007 before the penal 8% USC levy is even considered. So I don't see why higher earners should not be given something back, they've contributed much more to getting the public finances back on track and its reasonable that they should benefit on the way back up.

Villa05

@Coat22 All FG/LAB budgets were regressive which means wealthier households done better than poor households.

More savings were made from cuts to services than raising taxes. Therefore service users sacraficed more than taxpayer's in the austerity budgets

realitykeeper

In Ireland taxing work is unpopular and the reason may go back to the famous Charlie Haughey speech in the 1980s. Haughey had called for belt tightening and it was later found that he had been living the high life all along. Today, such a speech would understandably be met with cynicism and derision. The only way around that would be for Irish leaders to lead. Specifically, they should limit their own salaries to the minimum wage before asking the people to support the policies of austerity. I say this as an avid supporter of austere economics.

ezra_pound

Villa05 wrote: »

Irrelevant, the argument being made which is that all FG/LAB budgets were regressive which means wealthier households done better than poor households.

All your arguments are false based on that fact alone

You also forget that more savings were made from cuts to services than raising taxes making your arguments even more ridiculous

I'm sorry but this post makes no sense whatsoever.

Villa05

ezra_pound wrote:

I'm sorry but this post makes no sense whatsoever.

Tidied up post for you

Coat22

Villa05 wrote: »

@Coat22 All FG/LAB budgets were regressive which means wealthier households done better than poor households.

More savings were made from cuts to services than raising taxes. Therefore service users sacraficed more than taxpayer's in the austerity budgets

Not sure how paying an extra €15k or so in taxes mean I "done better" than someone who lost a few quid on child benefit or the "Christmas bonus". Which cuts to services in particular mean poorer households took more of a burden? The cuts in Gardaí, teachers, nurses etc effected everyone.

BTW you're the one arguing that the FG/Lab budgets were regressive, I would argue they were among the most progressive ever seen in the developed world.

Jawgap

Turns out that when the ministers say that they have all the answers, they are not speaking figuratively

RTE says ‘yes, minister’ as politicians run the show

Anyone listening to Today with Sean O’Rourke on RTE radio yesterday may have wondered why Michael Noonan and Brendan Howlin sounded so confident of their answers. Well, the reason, as I can exclusively reveal, is that they knew the questions beforehand, and their civil servants had already worked on the replies.

This is the type of behind-the-scenes information you can discover when you are accidentally ushered into the wrong room and nobody in that room realises you are a journalist. Despite the fact that you are carrying a shorthand notebook, holding a pen aloft and sporting the desperately hopeful expression of a person needing to wring one more story from a budget that has already been leaked, announced and analysed to within an inch of its fiscal life.

I was supposed to be in RTE to write a colour piece, but I ended up in what seemed like an episode of The Thick of It.

Having been guided into a room full of the national broadcaster’s staff and Department of Finance officials, I perched myself on an available sofa. I didn’t know this area was off-limits for hacks and I didn’t know I wasn’t meant to be there. The Department of Finance staff must have thought I was with RTE. RTE must have thought I was with the Department of Finance. Nobody asked me to leave and so I stayed.

Villa05

Jawgap wrote:

Turns out that when the ministers say that they have all the answers, they are not speaking figuratively

This happens on all tv programs. I think Vincent brown might be the exception