Renua

jjmcclure

Gringo180 wrote: »

So basically yous expect people worse off with no exposable income to pay the same rate of tax as somebody who would be on a 100k + salary a year, or even 200k+ salary a year?

Instead of looking at it from your point of view why dont you put yourselves in the minimum wage workers shoes and see how he is suppose to live off 265 euro a week after a 40 hour work week if this rate did come in. What money is left over after rent, esb, gas, waste, food, commuting to work etc.??

I personally just find that morally wrong and quite repulsive in fact.

It could be argued that the minimum wage worker receives significant benefits from todays system. I receive almost none of these benefits and ask little from the state.

Therefore yes. They shoul contribute a fair amount.

Chris_Heilong

At the moment Ireland is taxing 52% including social charges of peoples earnings if they are earning over 42000 euro a year, this is the highest tax bracket here, in the UK you would have to be making over 100k a year to be on the highest tax bracket, the Irish government is raking in the tax.

HivemindXX

Why stop at a flat tax? How is it fair that someone on 100k would pay 20k (for which they get almost nothing right Cartman?) when some slacker who only earns 20k (because they are too lazy to earn more, amiright?) only has to pay 4k?

A flat tax should mean a flat tax. My calculations indicate that everyone should just pay 10k no matter how much they earn. Any shortfall would be made up by eliminating waste and by how much our economy would improve as a result of this.

S.O

I waited to see what kinda policies Renua would develop before casting judgement, after this flat rate tax suggestion I won,t be giving them any vote nor preference whenever the election gets called, someone on €100.000 per year gets to pay the same rate of income tax as the minimum wage worker in the local supermarket, I wouldn,t and don,t support a party with a policy like that, and Lucinda saying on radio you can work more hours to be more productive just how many more hours beyond a 40 hour week would she like people to work ?

Rifter

Further from their economic policies being the foremost reason I won't be voting for any Renua candidate, the fact that Ms Creighton is centre right and Conservative, you can forget about issues like Gay Marriage and repeal of the 8th Amendment, I simply wont be voting for a Renua candidate!!

I would agree that our tax and social welfare system needs a massive overhaul off the top of my head,

*Changes in the tax brackets (properly costed, not a fook the poor and uneducated sweeping axe cut)
I don't agree that there should be a flat rate as it doesn't take into account the realities of the world we live in! If everyone had a Degree/Masters/PhD exactly how would the country run!
*Reform of Social Welfare payments, for instance child benefit
There should be a cut off to the amount of children it's paid out for AND an upper income threshold!
*I do like the motor tax/full tax proposal
*Reduction in vat on certain goods and services(Milk, eggs, bread etc etc)
*Increase in vat on certain goods and services (High end goods e.g. designer products/items)

jjmcclure

HivemindXX wrote: »

Why stop at a flat tax? How is it fair that someone on 100k would pay 20k (for which they get almost nothing right Cartman?) when some slacker who only earns 20k (because they are too lazy to earn more, amiright?) only has to pay 4k?

A flat tax should mean a flat tax. My calculations indicate that everyone should just pay 10k no matter how much they earn. Any shortfall would be made up by eliminating waste and by how much our economy would improve as a result of this.

If we look at a very simple example and for illustration use a 10% flat tax (overly simplistic I know)

Worker one earns €10k per year and pays €1k in tax
Worker two earns €100k per year and pays €10k in tax

So worker two pays TEN TIMES what worker one does. At what point do those moaning about people on over €100k feel that a system is fair? x20 times x 40 times?

jjmcclure

S.O wrote: »

I waited to see what kinda policies Renua would develop before casting judgement, after this flat rate tax suggestion I won,t be giving them any vote nor preference whenever the election gets called, someone on €100.000 per year gets to pay the same rate of income tax as the minimum wage worker in the local supermarket, I wouldn,t and don,t support a party with a policy like that, and Lucinda saying on radio you can work more hours to be more productive just how many more hours beyond a 40 hour week would she like people to work ?

Well try working the hours those of us who work in multinational companies work. Many of us are working 50 to 60 hours per week. In addition we are always expected to be available via phone and email. That's what is expected and in fact needed if you want to get ahead. OR try working the hours a small business owner works! 40 hours a week, get a grip mate its not 1950!!!

Gringo180

jjmcclure wrote: »

Well try working the hours those of us who work in multinational companies work. Many of us are working 50 to 60 hours per week. In addition we are always expected to be available via phone and email. That's what is expected and in fact needed if you want to get ahead. OR try working the hours a small business owner works! 40 hours a week, get a grip mate its not 1950!!!

Thats your choice to work those hours. Some people want to have a life outside of work and spend it with family and friends. Id rather work a 40 hour week and live a decent life than stress my body out doing ridiculous hours and taking most of my earnings to the grave. Working anything over 45 hours a week isnt healthy.

Besides some minimum wage jobs are more demanding on the body than somebody sitting in an office on there computer all day earning 100k+ a year.

gandalf

Gringo180 wrote: »

Thats your choice to work those hours. Some people want to have a life outside of work and spend it with family and friends. Id rather work a 40 hour week and live a decent life than stress my body out doing ridiculous hours and taking most of my earnings to the grave. Working anything over 45 hours a week isnt healthy.

It isn't healthy or productive either. People putting in long hours at the office are actually cheating their employers of productive work.

I absolutely agree with you on this. I tend to work around 5 extra hours per week in work because I come into the office early. It suits me I tend to get a lot more work done then. I absolutely try and get out of the office on time because I want to spend some quality time with my wife and young son.

I know what Lucinda is getting at but I think she has expressed it in a very clumsy fashion and is giving off a very arrogant off hand attitude that will lose Renua a number of their targeted voters.

I am still undecided whether I will give them a preference in the GE. Some of what they say is manna to my ears, other policies do not add up and in the background is the fear they will be dominated by a Conservative Catholic ethos that doesn't align with my liberal values. The other item is that I believe Lucinda could jump back into bed with FG when Enda finally gets ousted especially if her mate Leo becomes leader.

aaakev

gandalf wrote: »

in the background is the fear they will be dominated by a Conservative Catholic ethos that doesn't align with my liberal values.

For this reason alone they would not get my vote. Id be happy to vote for a party that has the same liberal values as myself and keep the current tax regime over conservatives offering low tax.

Idbatterim

Gringo180 wrote: »

So basically somebody that earns around 200k a year would pay the same rate of tax as somebody on minimum wage? What planet is Creighton living on?

No they would be paying in a massive multiple of what someone on 20k was on...

K-9

Idbatterim wrote: »

No they would be paying in a massive multiple of what someone on 20k was on...

He said same rate, not same amount.

Idbatterim

K-9 wrote: »

He said same rate, not same amount.

Yes absolutely they would pay the same rate. But if one person earns 10 times more, they will be paying in 10 times more, more than bloody "fair" to me. If people on this forum , dont see the damage a moronic rate like 51% does, then I won't bother trying to convince them. But just think forces second, it doesn't just effect those earners, it effects low or no income earners too. If the job creators or talent isn't here in Ireland, that is good for any of us how? Way too many contributing nothing indirect taxes , one of the results of the moronic marginal rate...

Quin_Dub

Conceptually the idea for a flat tax rate has merits..

But Ireland is too small I think to make it work.

We definitely need to address the tax rates and simplify the whole thing..

Perhaps something like 3 rates - 10%,20% and 30% with everyone from zero to €25k paying a flat 10% , €25k to €50k paying 20% and all income above that paying 30%.

That makes sure that all are contributing - The number of people "outside the tax net" is almost as big an issue as the 51% rate and its stupidly low entry point.

However it also means that those on lower incomes aren't getting hit unduly hard..

BoJack Horseman

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Perhaps something like 3 rates - 10%,20% and 30% with everyone from zero to €25k paying a flat 10% , €25k to €50k paying 20% and all income above that paying 30%.

It would probably mean a reduction in overall tax take.... but could be ameliorated by eliminating PAYE credits.

would also enhance the 'simplification' angle

BoJack would also like to see radical reform of social insurance taxation..... cos that's more of a mess than income tax.

jjmcclure

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Conceptually the idea for a flat tax rate has merits..

But Ireland is too small I think to make it work.

We definitely need to address the tax rates and simplify the whole thing..

Perhaps something like 3 rates - 10%,20% and 30% with everyone from zero to €25k paying a flat 10% , €25k to €50k paying 20% and all income above that paying 30%.

That makes sure that all are contributing - The number of people "outside the tax net" is almost as big an issue as the 51% rate and its stupidly low entry point.

However it also means that those on lower incomes aren't getting hit unduly hard..

Estonia's population is under 1.4 million and it works there.

jjmcclure

Gringo180 wrote: »

Thats your choice to work those hours. Some people want to have a life outside of work and spend it with family and friends. Id rather work a 40 hour week and live a decent life than stress my body out doing ridiculous hours and taking most of my earnings to the grave. Working anything over 45 hours a week isnt healthy.

Besides some minimum wage jobs are more demanding on the body than somebody sitting in an office on there computer all day earning 100k+ a year.

Correct! This is my choice. The difference is I don't expect you to pay for MY lifestyle choice like you expect me to pay for yours.

Gringo180

jjmcclure wrote: »

Estonia's population is under 1.4 million and it works there.

Estonia's average monthly wage is 600 euro compared to Irelands 1700 euro. The gap between high earners and low earners in Estonia is much smaller than it is in Ireland.

Zillah

Eric Cartman wrote: »

and a lot of us don't like living in a society where we get almost nothing in return for 51% of our money getting taken by the government and 24% of that money taken is given to One of the highest per capita welfare spends in the entire world and what do we have to show for it , genuine families struggling to put food on the table while in or in-between jobs having their money stolen from them by false disability claims, career single mothers treating kids like ATM's , drug addicts, alcoholics and pretend 'minority' groups using a quasi ethnicity to shield them from prosecution for their lives of chosen criminality.

At what point can anyone honestly look at a society where somebody who makes 100k a year doesn't even get to keep 60k of it in his pocket , yet somebody can get a free house and spend 200 quid a week drinking and smoking themselves to death and all of it is legal, and call that fair. This is not a fair society.

You sound like someone locked you in a cabin and screamed right wing cliches at you for a week.

Oh boo hoo, the poor people earning six figures are upset they pay more tax than the people who make their coffee and empty their bins :(:( How ever will this injustice be righted? I hear some people on the dole have televisions and refrigerators.

It is fair for people on high salaries to pay disproportionately larger income taxes because the minimum cost of living is fixed, so you get take home pay disproportionately higher than people on lower salaries compared to how much you need to spend to have a good quality of life. A tax hike for a poor person means they lose most or all of their disposable income; a tax hike for a rich person means their disposable income takes a small hair cut.

You want more in your pocket, I get it, it's very human; but if you put any effort into looking at the big picture you'll understand why a progressive system is more fair.

And all of that aside, even if we agreed for the sake of argument that people on the dole are all drug-addicted scroungers, and the people on minimum wage are unmotivated losers who should just work harder - what do you think is the pragmatic way to run things? Cut off the dole and leave their children trapped in poverty, to create a bigger cycle of addiction and homelessness? What's your vision of the future - do you really think forcing the unemployed to live from meal to meal is going to make society better? Do you really think working people on the minimum wage to the bone is going to improve life for anyone?

Or is it, that you just don't care? You want more in your pocket and poor people can just be a slave race for all you care? I think that probably is it for a lot of people, in which case you and Renua and go shag the horse you rode in on.

Gringo180

jjmcclure wrote: »

Correct! This is my choice. The difference is I don't expect you to pay for MY lifestyle choice like you expect me to pay for yours.

I earn a decent wage. I dont mind being taxed over 40% because I know I have more disposable income than somebody on minimum wage. People are too greedy these days and want to hoard there money instead of spending it in the economy like the minimum wage worker or the person on social welfare.

If this was to come in nobody will work for the minimum wage it will create huge unemployment.

jjmcclure

Gringo180 wrote: »

Estonia's average monthly wage is 600 euro compared to Irelands 1700 euro. The gap between high earners and low earners in Estonia is much smaller than it is in Ireland.

Junior IT workers in Estonia are paid 3 times the average wage.

Senior Managers are paid €6500 to €7500 per month gross. Directors even more.

It could be argued the gap in Estonia is wider.

S.O

jjmcclure wrote: »

Well try working the hours those of us who work in multinational companies work. Many of us are working 50 to 60 hours per week. In addition we are always expected to be available via phone and email. That's what is expected and in fact needed if you want to get ahead. OR try working the hours a small business owner works! 40 hours a week, get a grip mate its not 1950!!!

If you want to work your life away doing 50 to 60 hours a week that is your choice, a lot of others would much prefer to work a moderate 40 hour week so they can have time for a personal life outside of work, Im a believer in the motto you should work to live not live to work, its funny you bring up a small business owner- a guy who owns and runs a bar in town who works 6 nights a week, lets just call him ( John ) John could well afford to have extra part time bar staff on some nights of the week so he wouldn,t be working 6 nights of the week but he chooses not to , Id guess John could be classed as a workaholic , well his workaholic lifestyle has cost him in some areas of his personal life, his long term partner left him over the way he chooses to put work ahead of everything else, when John is older he might think different and look back and say to himself I worked most of my life away, the way Lucinda said you can always work more hours on radio came across as someone looks at things wearing rose tinted glasses living a sheltered life.

jjmcclure

S.O wrote: »

If you want to work your life away doing 50 to 60 hours a week that is your choice, a lot of others would much prefer to work a moderate 40 hour week so they can have time for a personal life outside of work, Im a believer in the motto you should work to live not live to work, its funny you bring up a small business owner- a guy who owns and runs a bar in town who works 6 nights a week, lets just call him ( John ) John could well afford to have extra part time bar staff on some nights of the week so he wouldn,t be working 6 nights of the week but he chooses not to , Id guess John could be classed as a workaholic , well his workaholic lifestyle has cost him in some areas of his personal life, his long term partner left him over the way he chooses to put work ahead of everything else, when John is older he might think different and look back and say to himself I worked most of my life away, the way Lucinda said you can always work more hours on radio came across as someone looks at things wearing rose tinted glasses living a sheltered life.

See my previous post about me not asking you to pay for my lifestyle choice etc...

As for John, good work ethic.. putting in the hours to make his business a success and not banking on someone else to do it for him! That's the spirit.

Idbatterim

If you want to work your life away doing 50 to 60 hours a week that is your choice,

yeah it is a choice, would the state not be better off making it more worth your while to take on extra hours? Giving those parasites over 50% of YOUR income, is a joke, why would you bother? Would say E40 in the hundred, not be enough? Its lose / lose, a lot of people wont bother and our spend spend spend government, have less money available than they could have...

S.O

Idbatterim wrote: »

yeah it is a choice, would the state not be better off making it more worth your while to take on extra hours? Giving those parasites over 50% of YOUR income, is a joke, why would you bother? Would say E40 in the hundred, not be enough? Its lose / lose, a lot of people wont bother and our spend spend spend government, have less money available than they could have...

As I said in my post its about mottos, which Motto do you beleive in - ( A ) you should work to live ? or ( B ) you should live to work ?

Idbatterim

As I said in my post its about mottos, which Motto do you beleive in - ( A ) you should work to live ? or ( B ) you should live to work ?

I believe in working to live BUT the marginal rate is off the wall and anti enterprise and employment.

jjmcclure

S.O wrote: »

As I said in my post its about mottos, which Motto do you beleive in - ( A ) you should work to live ? or ( B ) you should live to work ?

You should have the choice to decide. I work to live, live at a certain standard. But if you decide to do 40 hours, take it easy etc. That's up to you. I shouldn't pay for your decisions. I don't want you to pay for mine.

Eric Cartman

HivemindXX wrote: »

Why stop at a flat tax? How is it fair that someone on 100k would pay 20k (for which they get almost nothing right Cartman?) when some slacker who only earns 20k (because they are too lazy to earn more, amiright?) only has to pay 4k?

A flat tax should mean a flat tax. My calculations indicate that everyone should just pay 10k no matter how much they earn. Any shortfall would be made up by eliminating waste and by how much our economy would improve as a result of this.

to be fair id be pretty happy with just 10k per person hah ,but obviously anyone can see how that is unworkable.

Zillah wrote: »

You sound like someone locked you in a cabin and screamed right wing cliches at you for a week.

Oh boo hoo, the poor people earning six figures are upset they pay more tax than the people who make their coffee and empty their bins :(:( How ever will this injustice be righted? I hear some people on the dole have televisions and refrigerators.

It is fair for people on high salaries to pay disproportionately larger income taxes because the minimum cost of living is fixed, so you get take home pay disproportionately higher than people on lower salaries compared to how much you need to spend to have a good quality of life. A tax hike for a poor person means they lose most or all of their disposable income; a tax hike for a rich person means their disposable income takes a small hair cut.

You want more in your pocket, I get it, it's very human; but if you put any effort into looking at the big picture you'll understand why a progressive system is more fair.

And all of that aside, even if we agreed for the sake of argument that people on the dole are all drug-addicted scroungers, and the people on minimum wage are unmotivated losers who should just work harder - what do you think is the pragmatic way to run things? Cut off the dole and leave their children trapped in poverty, to create a bigger cycle of addiction and homelessness? What's your vision of the future - do you really think forcing the unemployed to live from meal to meal is going to make society better? Do you really think working people on the minimum wage to the bone is going to improve life for anyone?

Or is it, that you just don't care? You want more in your pocket and poor people can just be a slave race for all you care? I think that probably is it for a lot of people, in which case you and Renua and go shag the horse you rode in on.

I expect everyone to work for what they have. Social welfare is a necessary evil but that doesn't mean it should be as it is now. How about we start making social welfare what its supposed to be : a tool for providing food, clothes, shelter and support for people in need, instead of a 'do whatever you like with our money' free-for-all that just gets abused.

everyone has to pay tax, you need a tax to make an economy run, but saying that taking 20% off somebody on less than 40k is fair , yet taking less than 50% off every cent over that is terrible makes no sense.

what is everyones damn problem with people succeeding, why is it that treating everyone equally or just simply not raping the rich financially is 'evil' or 'right wing'

Zillah

Eric Cartman wrote: »

I expect everyone to work for what they have. Social welfare is a necessary evil but that doesn't mean it should be as it is now. How about we start making social welfare what its supposed to be : a tool for providing food, clothes, shelter and support for people in need, instead of a 'do whatever you like with our money' free-for-all that just gets abused.

The vast majority of people on social welfare are not there long term, would love to work, are trying to find work, and contrary to a bizarrely popular belief, do not have large amounts of spare money.

what is everyones damn problem with people succeeding, why is it that treating everyone equally or just simply not raping the rich financially is 'evil' or 'right wing'

There's nothing wrong with succeeding. It's just that if you are financially successful you are in a position to be able to pay more tax than all of the people who are not as successful.

It's also a question of sheer practicality. We can't have a society of nothing but doctors, lawyers, CEOs and architects. Someone needs to serve you your coffee and someone needs to collect your bins, and we're only willing to pay them so much, and expecting them to pay the same tax as someone on, say, six figures+ is cruel and impossible. They already struggle to pay their way, putting a large tax burden on them makes it so that they're practically feudal serfs. Making you pay a larger tax burden it just a bit annoying for you.

Have you ever been poor?
Have you ever worked a nasty service job?

You seem to have a massive lack of empathy. Your crying about the successful being punished has far less effect on me than the poor waiter getting abused by people daily, or the mother having to explain to her children why their christmas presents are so much worse than your children's.

And on the topic of treating people equally: it's all a matter of perspective. If putting a tax on someone earning minimum wage means they lose 75% of their disposable income, treating you equally would be putting a tax on you that makes you lose 75% of your disposable income. I don't want to do that, but it illustrates my point that some of you guys seem to be ignoring the relationship between take home pay and the cost of living.

Eric Cartman

Zillah wrote: »

The vast majority of people on social welfare are not there long term, would love to work, are trying to find work, and contrary to a bizarrely popular belief, do not have large amounts of spare money.



There's nothing wrong with succeeding. It's just that if you are financially successful you are in a position to be able to pay more tax than all of the people who are not as successful.

It's also a question of sheer practicality. We can't have a society of nothing but doctors, lawyers, CEOs and architects. Someone needs to serve you your coffee and someone needs to collect your bins, and we're only willing to pay them so much, and expecting them to pay the same tax as someone on, say, six figures+ is cruel and impossible. They already struggle to pay their way, putting a large tax burden on them makes it so that they're practically feudal serfs. Making you pay a larger tax burden it just a bit annoying for you.

Have you ever been poor?
Have you ever worked a nasty service job?

You seem to have a massive lack of empathy. Your crying about the successful being punished has far less effect on me than the poor waiter getting abused by people daily, or the mother having to explain to her children why their christmas presents are so much worse than your children's.

And on the topic of treating people equally: it's all a matter of perspective. If putting a tax on someone earning minimum wage means they lose 75% of their disposable income, treating you equally would be putting a tax on you that makes you lose 75% of your disposable income. I don't want to do that, but it illustrates my point that some of you guys seem to be ignoring the relationship between take home pay and the cost of living.

this is a matter or perspective, you look at it as the poor getting a discounted tax rate because they can't afford the one the rich 'deserve' to be paying.

I look at it as the rich getting the same tax rate as the poor because they don't deserve to be punished.

If we cut spending we could survive on a lower tax take , cutting taxes makes employing people cheaper which creates more jobs which solves the unemployment problem by itself. I want taxes cut for everyone , unburdening the rich and poor alike, letting the rich keep more money does not mean the poor have to suffer. We also have to remember the fringe benefits that the tax paying working class/ lower middle get that are not accessible to the rich , like medical cards in certain cases, college grants, means tested benefits, public hospitals, public schools etc…