When will the USC be abolished

pavb2

My understanding is that this was introduced as a response to the recession so if we are in recovery when will this be abolished or reduced. Or do the government think that unlike the water charges there is no resistance to the tax so let's say nothing and keep taking it.

Dr. Kenneth Noisewater

It's worth about 4 billion to the Dept of Finance per year.

So, that'd be never, then.

readyletsgo

It will never be abolished.
If it is, it will be added to something else.

hmmm

At the moment, government income is dependent on windfall corporation tax receipts which could disappear almost overnight. We'd be utterly stupid to get rid of USC.

PaddyWilliams

It's here for good I'd say. Will be incorporated into PAYE in time probably?

MeatTwoVeg

Hopefully never. One of the few income taxes that actually broaden the tax base as opposed to lumping everything on middle income earners.

keano25

Never. They're making too much off it.

Kind of like the speed vans.. they started off with certain zones and government made sure they told the public repeatedly where these zones were as if in the interest in fairness so that there would be no backlash... then after awhile they went and added extra zones and said noting to catch people out.. and before you know it they'll pass a law quietly that says the speed vans can park wherever they like... because at the end of the day it all comes down to money.

I am all for a tax that does't allow any one to escape, plus it would be of little benefit to lots of people it would return a small amount of money to them. The tax base has to very broadly based that is why I favour property tax for everyone, even though I don't like paying it no more that anyone else.

punisher5112

They will set up another few levies and tax hikes.

Usc they already back tracked on the deal of lowering NFL abolishing so just shows you you could never trust a politician.

punisher5112

mariaalice wrote: »

I am all for a tax that does't allow any one to escape, plus it would be of little benefit to lots of people it would return a small amount of money to them. The tax base has to very broadly based that is why I favour property tax for everyone, even though I don't like paying it no more that anyone else.

Huge taxes already paid to purchase in 1st place.

relax carry on

pavb2 wrote: »

My understanding is that this was introduced as a response to the recession so if we are in recovery when will this be abolished or reduced. Or do the government think that unlike the water charges there is no resistance to the tax so let's say nothing and keep taking it.

As others have said hopefully never. State finances need stability and structure. We were over reliant on unstable tax streams in the boom. Taxes such as the USC and LPT bring a bit of stability to the system. Our seemingly collective obsession with destabilising our tax system every year at budget time is painful to see. Our media feed on it and our politicians pander to it. The country requires X amount to function and takes in Y. Don't reduce the tax take without reducing spending to match.

For Forks Sake

"Removing people from the tax net" is one of the stupidest and irresponsible phrases ever uttered by any politician in this country (thanks McCreevy :rolleyes:). Everyone who works, no matter what their income, should make a contribution towards the running of the country (even a modest amount)

Wheety

The guards, nurses, teachers and however many other public service bodies will be looking for pay restoration/increases so the USC will stay. They can't afford to abolish it and give increases to thousands of staff.

Steve F

pavb2 wrote: »

My understanding is that this was introduced as a response to the recession so if we are in recovery when will this be abolished or reduced. Or do the government think that unlike the water charges there is no resistance to the tax so let's say nothing and keep taking it.

Only two things are certain in life....Death and taxes.Once you come to terms with that you'll live a lot happier.USC is here to stay in one form or another

newacc2015

PaddyWilliams wrote: »

It's here for good I'd say. Will be incorporated into PAYE in time probably?

No as it's treated differently to income tax. You can aggressively avoid income taxes, but you cant with USC. Tax relief should as section 23 and the new business expansion scheme only reduce your income tax liability and not your USC liability.

USC is an amazing tax from the Government's point of view as you can't avoid it

seamus

hmmm wrote: »

At the moment, government income is dependent on windfall corporation tax receipts which could disappear almost overnight. We'd be utterly stupid to get rid of USC.

Corporation tax pretty consistently makes up 10-11% of government income.
While we'd be in trouble without it, we're far from "dependent" on it - overall government income dropped by 25% between 2008 and 2009 and we've still managed to pull ourselves out of it.

We'd still be stupid to get rid of USC because it's about the fairest of all income taxes.

There would be far more to gain for the population as whole if USC is maintained, but the higher rate threshold was increased to €50k and the PAYE tax credit abolished. That widens the tax base of the lower rate and removes average income earners from the higher bracket.

jamesbere

Universal sexy charge

pavb2

My thoughts were that as the reasons for its introduction no longer exist then it should logically be removed. There does seem to be support for it here as a fair method of taxation so by luck more than judgement the government seems to have hit upon a good idea.

hmmm

seamus wrote: »

Corporation tax pretty consistently makes up 10-11% of government income.

Corporation tax receipts increased 50% last year to about 7 billion. The increase, which was largely unexpected, is roughly the amount we take in from USC funnily enough.

That's as variable as the property taxes which nearly sunk us last time.

Badly Drunk Boy

newacc2015 wrote: »

USC is an amazing tax from the Government's point of view as you can't avoid it

How much USC do you pay when you're on the dole?

seamus

hmmm wrote: »

Corporation tax receipts increased 50% last year to about 7 billion. The increase, which was largely unexpected, is roughly the amount we take in from USC funnily enough.

That's as variable as the property taxes which nearly sunk us last time.

A one-off unexpected increased does not mean that CT is variable.

In any case, it wasn't the loss of stamp duty that nearly sunk us last time. It certainly didn't help, but the big loss was the income taxes and the overall contraction of the economy.

The problem is including one-off or short-term jumps in tax income as permanent fixtures for the next budget. That's what we did for stamp duty, but if we continue betting on CT at 10-12% of all tax income, we know from 40 years of data that it's pretty solid.

PaddyWilliams

newacc2015 wrote: »

No as it's treated differently to income tax. You can aggressively avoid income taxes, but you cant with USC. Tax relief should as section 23 and the new business expansion scheme only reduce your income tax liability and not your USC liability.

USC is an amazing tax from the Government's point of view as you can't avoid it

Good points!

VinLieger

Hopefully it never gets abolished its the most progressive tax system we currently have. The only change that needs to be made is even further expanding the tax base and creating a 3rd middle band somewhere to finally give the squeezed middle the relief they desperately need after being tapped at every opportunity these past few years

PaddyWilliams

jamesbere wrote: »

Universal sexy charge

Indeed.. I pay top rate :pac:

Jesus.

Don't start this again. If someone wants to watch two fellas kick the sh1t out of each other then leave them be

Winterlong

Jesus. wrote: »

Don't start this again. If someone wants to watch two fellas kick the sh1t out of each other then leave them be

What?

PaddyWilliams

Winterlong wrote: »

What?

Can I add a 'Huh?' to that what!

It is also part of a changing culture in Ireland, there is still almost an attitude of someone else can pay for it ( not talking about the unemployed ).

Small business and rates and almost puzzlement that they have to pay it.

State pension, a house and paying for a nursing homes, again an attitude of sure all they have is the state pension again a sort of puzzlement about.

There are numerous examples of this in Irish society.

It is suppose to be related to being a post colonial society.

I do think that is changing though.

suicide_circus

It's amazing how the politicians supporting state and semi state workers claims for pay increases are the same ones pushing for the abolition of the USC. I mean, are they really that f*cking dumb? Well they also oppose the user pays principal for water provision which is the standard the world over so I guess the answer is yes, they are that f*cking dumb.

Trent Houseboat

PaddyWilliams wrote:

Can I add a 'Huh?' to that what!

Looks like a UFC joke.

MeatTwoVeg

I know a girl who would go on anti-austerity marches one week and the next week she'd be out marching against property and water taxes.
She didn't see any contradiction in wanting better services but less taxation.
In fairness, she is thick as **** though.

Hi Janet.

Lovely Bloke

MeatTwoVeg wrote: »

Janet.

lol

ChikiChiki

Is there anyone who would be in the middle class truly satisfied with the value we get from our taxes? I don't mind paying high taxes if we got good services in return but all we get is pure dog****.

ohnonotgmail

mariaalice wrote: »

I am all for a tax that does't allow any one to escape, plus it would be of little benefit to lots of people it would return a small amount of money to them. The tax base has to very broadly based that is why I favour property tax for everyone, even though I don't like paying it no more that anyone else.

well for ya if you think a couple of hundred quid a month is a "small amount"

ohnonotgmail

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

well for ya if you think a couple of hundred quid a month is a "small amount"

But you can't be naive enough to think the government could get rid of USC and not raise the forgone tax revenue some other way or were you hoping some how the replacement tax wouldn't apply to you.

There was an article in the Irish time a few weeks ago ( which I cant find now ) explaining how much abolishing usc would return to individuals and it is not the massive windfall you would expect.

hmmm

mariaalice wrote: »

or were you hoping some how the replacement tax wouldn't apply to you.

We'll tax the rich of course! i.e. anyone who earns more than me.

ohnonotgmail

mariaalice wrote: »

But you can't be naive enough to think the government could get rid of USC and not raise the forgone tax revenue some other way or were you hoping some how the replacement tax wouldn't apply to you.

There was an article in the Irish time a few weeks ago ( which I cant find now ) explaining how much abolishing usc would return to individuals and it is not the massive windfall you would expect.

as there is a breakdown of the USC on my payslip i know exactly how much it would be. it is not by an stretch of the imagination a "small amount"

MeatTwoVeg

ChikiChiki wrote:

Is there anyone who would be in the middle class truly satisfied with the value we get from our taxes? I don't mind paying high taxes if we got good services in return but all we get is pure dog****.

I would happily pay extra taxes if I knew the money would be invested properly. Health, education and infrastructure all require additional funding in my view.

The sad reality however, as we can see at the moment, is that any additional money is gobbled up by special interest groups like public servants and pensioners.

I don't trust any Irish government to face these groups down when they demand their 'share' of the additional funds.

Couple this with a belief on the soft and hard left that the tax base should be narrowed at every opportunity and it's a recipe for the ****e we have now.

seamus

MeatTwoVeg wrote: »

Couple this with a belief on the soft and hard left that the tax base should be narrowed at every opportunity and it's a recipe for the ****e we have now.

That's funny. The "left" tends towards socialism, where wealth is redistributed across the economy in order to improve services for everyone. This requires a wide tax base in order to correctly fund services and fairly collect tax.

The "right" favours a low-tax economy where all but the core services are funded through private means. This results in a very narrow tax base taking money from the places where it is most efficient to tax (i.e. high earners). In the "right" ideology, those on low incomes pay very little tax at all, but their actual burden is enormous because it requires that everyone pays the same amount for the same services, regardless of means.

Taking people out of the tax net is a populist move that both sides are equally guilty of being in favour of. It's effectively a vote-buying exercise.

lawred2

pavb2 wrote: »

My understanding is that this was introduced as a response to the recession so if we are in recovery when will this be abolished or reduced. Or do the government think that unlike the water charges there is no resistance to the tax so let's say nothing and keep taking it.

The USC is a great tax - it's just a pity that politicians keep eroding it at the lower levels for popularity reasons..

Even if it was 1% under 10k it would be worthwhile.

What's happening with USC is that it's being eroded lower down with the focus being on the usual suspects who already pay far too much of their income out in direct taxes.

Foxhound38

pavb2 wrote: »

My understanding is that this was introduced as a response to the recession so if we are in recovery when will this be abolished or reduced. Or do the government think that unlike the water charges there is no resistance to the tax so let's say nothing and keep taking it.

The difference is that unlike the water charge brigade, people who pay the vastly more unfair USC are predominantly too busy working to be getting in people's faces screaming "PEACEFUL PROTEST" etc.

Wonder why that would be the case, eh?

suicide_circus

ChikiChiki wrote: »

Is there anyone who would be in the middle class truly satisfied with the value we get from our taxes? I don't mind paying high taxes if we got good services in return but all we get is pure dog****.

The problem is there are simply too many people who pay little or nothing. That's at the bottom and the top. Hence the phrase squeezed middle. People and corporations paying f*ck all tax is not only bad for the balance sheet but it's also bad for the cohesion and inclusiveness of the society. The idea that we're all in this together. The scrapping of the USC will be seen as a monumental blunder in years to come.

CdeC

Keep the taxes improve services.
Better health system, public transport, public amenities etc.

Everyone should be entitled to a health check up maybe once a year or not as often depending on age. Bloods, heart, lungs the works. Paid for by the huge tax we pay. Have it done in local clinics.
Then a nice Nurse lets you have the good news.

"You're a fat mess and maybe throw the odd bit of broccoli into your diet."


But seriously. Maybe some preemptive tactics might help sort out some of the health service backlog.
Get people to be in more control of their health and not wait until they're sick.

PaddyWilliams

Was the USC not meant to be a temporary measure for the tougher times that should be gone now anyway?

hmmm

PaddyWilliams wrote: »

Was the USC not meant to be a temporary measure for the tougher times that should be gone now anyway?

And Income Tax was introduced to pay for the war of 1798

There is an (incorrect) assumption that the economy we had in 2007 was "normal", and over time we would return to this level of prosperity. It turns out that 2007 was absolutely abnormal, yet there seems to be this push by certain sectors to get back to standard of living they had at the time.

It's not normal for bus drivers in any country to be off purchasing apartments in Bulgaria. It's not normal for house prices to be rising by 20% a year. It's not normal for pay to be rising by 8% a year, when inflation is zero. Etc.

NewApproach

keano25 wrote: »

Never. They're making too much off it.

Kind of like the speed vans.. they started off with certain zones and government made sure they told the public repeatedly where these zones were as if in the interest in fairness so that there would be no backlash... then after awhile they went and added extra zones and said noting to catch people out.. and before you know it they'll pass a law quietly that says the speed vans can park wherever they like... because at the end of the day it all comes down to money.

What the **** are you talking about?