Budget 2017

LegallyAbroad

mariaalice wrote: »

The well off or not is an utterly pointless argument, having said that I come down heavenly on the side that Ireland is a wealthy country and the vast majority are doing fine.

The reason it is a pointless argument is that it too bound up in how people view their situation and not objective reality.

For example I know someone who gets very wound up by the fact they cant take their children on a sun holiday despite both of them working this person is not a moaner but genuinely feels their children are not getting what their children s friends have. It is something about human nature they don't see the comfortable life they have they concentrate on what they cant have.

Thrift and budgeting is normal part of life.

Nevertheless, it's worth pointing out to people that the taxes they pay are what allows them to live in the global 1% and the last 500 years' 0.000000000000000000000001%.

legocrazy505

LegallyAbroad wrote: »

Nevertheless, it's worth pointing out to people that the taxes they pay are what allows them to live in the global 1% and the last 500 years' 0.000000000000000000000001%.

Nobody is saying taxes should magically vanish but if we want high taxes that go to social protection and vital services then the cost of living has to come down. You can't expect people to go along with high taxes when prices of things like insurance continue to rise.

TheDoc

Iseedeadpixels wrote: »

Smokers whinging about paying tax on something that will eventually kill or hinder them in older age is pathetic.

Smoking is legal, and it's a choice that conscious people make.

Until smoking is deemed illegal, its just cheap filling the coffers targeting smokers budget on budget.

It's crazy, something that is bad for me, I choose to do. Crazy isn't it.

But as an adult, making a choice, its literally a two finger salute for anyone who doesn't like it

TheDoc

Iseedeadpixels wrote: »

The majority of addicts saying they have mental health issues are bull****ting so they can get away with their lifestyle, its now the "in thing" for excuses.

you know that is also a generalisation I hear used against people who take long leaves of absence from work.

As a poster who has admitted issues with mental health, how would you react to someone saying that's a bollox "excuse" if you needed to take a leave of absence

TheDoc

BoatMad wrote: »

Why should they get anything , they benefit from Usc reductions , first time buyers help ,

So they " get " something.

Mind you budgets are not about what you " get "

Common myth and political narrative that the lower class or poorest carried the country through the recession. Totally and factually incorrect.

The bottom 50percent of income tax payers, account for only 4 percent of overall income tax take.

The top 20% of income tax players, account for 75%. The middle and high earners kept things going and carried everyone else, as usual.

But god forbid there be a party or representation for the middle - high earners in this country.

Seeing the social welfare increases are nothing but a massive **** you to middle income people in this country who grind out month to month, earning too much to avail of any benefits or assistance, earning too little to ease the pressure and be comfortable.

LegallyAbroad

LegallyAbroad wrote: »

You are really aren't. Makes sense that you're annoyed, though, if you think you're paying that much.

Your constant pushing of this point is getting very tiresome. A lot of people pay 50% or more on a significant portion of their wages that is the point people are making. Once you are earing the very low figure of 33800 every euro you earn you will see less than 50 cent of it. Where is the fairness in that? Of course people will count this as losing 50% of their wages as they are probably working half the week where 50% of what they earn is handed over.

Just reading the paper today and seeing it all broken down into the different groups and unsurprisingly of all the different cases the long term unemployed family are gaining the most out of this budget. On what planet is that right.

The Bishop Basher

LegallyAbroad wrote: »

Makes sense that you're annoyed, though, if you think you're paying that much.

When you combine every other tax, charge and levy with income tax, prsi, family home tax, motor tax, fuel tax, inheritance tax, USC etc etc etc. we are paying well over 50% of our wages out in tax. Not that I get annoyed about the concept of paying it. I'm happy to contribute towards a better society for all..

I get annoyed by the way in which this government wastes the money they take from me. I get annoyed that i'm paying to keep some lifer on the dole for all his days. I get annoyed that the same lifer just got a pay rise off my back for doing absolutely nothing. I get annoyed that despite paying so much tax, the people who genuinely need help and assistance from the state, can't actually get it when they need it. Why ? Because the money is wasted elsewhere on spongers and lifers and as a direct result of incompetence and mismanagement.

We are governed by a bunch of amateurs and it shows. It's a super country for the wealthy and connected. For everyone else it's a case of muddle through as best you can and as we've seen mentioned here, just be thankful you're not living on some rubbish pile in some shanty town in Africa. **** that. I wouldn't run a business that way and i don't waste my own hard earned cash in the manner in which this government choose to waste it. I expect better.

jimgoose

Swanner wrote: »

When you combine every other tax, charge and levy with income tax, prsi, family home tax, motor tax, fuel tax, inheritance tax, USC etc etc etc. we are paying well over 50% of our wages out in tax...

I do tend to draw a distinction between salary deductions - PAYE, PRSI, USC - and other discretionary taxes like VAT, LPT and various motoring taxes and duties. You could argue that all of those, bar LPT, are up to you as they depend on what you purchase, drive, etc. In terms of actual tax paid on pay-day, in my own case it is 32.6%.

TheDoc

Moshe Red Slipper wrote: »

Just reading the paper today and seeing it all broken down into the different groups and unsurprisingly of all the different cases the long term unemployed family are gaining the most out of this budget. On what planet is that right.

Where our political systems score easy points for politicians giving the lower class somewhere to point the finger for their woes, to absolve them of all ownership or responsibility.

It would be political suicide here for any politician or party to advocate issues on behalf of the higher earners, and the actual middle earners are also a group frequently neglected and ignored.

That these two groups comprise the core base of our revenue generation, and basic economy functions, is one of the main principles which is broken in our politicial and economical system.

Every year we move closer and closer to disincentivising initiative and work, and incentivising less production and work ethic, rewarding benefit entitlement.

LegallyAbroad

legocrazy505 wrote: »

Nobody is saying taxes should magically vanish but if we want high taxes that go to social protection and vital services then the cost of living has to come down. You can't expect people to go along with high taxes when prices of things like insurance continue to rise.

How do you think the government should do that?

TheDoc

Swanner wrote: »

I get annoyed by the way in which this government wastes the money they take from me. I get annoyed that i'm paying to keep some lifer on the dole for all his days. I get annoyed that the same lifer just got a pay rise off my back for doing absolutely nothing. I get annoyed that despite paying so much tax, the people who genuinely need help and assistance from the state, can't actually get it when they need it. Why ? Because the money is wasted elsewhere on spongers and lifers and as a direct result of incompetence and mismanagement.

What might make you feel better and others with the same thoughts(and I don't think there is a PAYE paying worker that disagrees with you) Varadker was on radio this morning and when pushed by Kenny outlined he will be utilising the penalties that reduce and block social welfare for those who do not engage with education, upskilling or employment opportunities. And basically outlined he will be taking a firm and proper tackle against this minority of social welfare recipients.

Although that's Varadker, who is good at talking a good game.

It's also worth remembering in all of this, and I try convey this point frequently as a middle income earner, but who had a partner who struggled with employment and was in receipt of social welfare, the demands, parameters and criteria that can be sometimes forced by Social Welfare workers can be absolutely outragous, degrading and insulting. Depending on who your case worker is, they either work hard to try find you a career appropriate thing, or your just a name on their list they need to strike off.

I had a six month spell on welfare in my early 20's, when IT roles in my area weren't all over the place. They got their hooks in my quickly, assumingly seeing someone young and I was subjected to some of the most insulting and degrading stuff I've ever experienced relating to work. I was actively looking for work, attending interviews, and while I thought it annoying enough I had to keep providing these as evidence, I was constantly levelled with threats of my welfare being removed unless I took some of the jobs being lined up for me. Jobs in sanitation, general administration, and one case of secretary and filing for a small company. All of these nowhere near my commuting options.

So while yes of course there is spongers and scroungers, don't forget the Welfare department can make it excruciatingly difficult and stressful for decent people in a short term blip in their careers, just to make up some numbers and percentages.

LegallyAbroad

Moshe Red Slipper wrote: »

Your constant pushing of this point is getting very tiresome. A lot of people pay 50% or more on a significant portion of their wages that is the point people are making. Once you are earing the very low figure of 33800 every euro you earn you will see less than 50 cent of it. Where is the fairness in that? Of course people will count this as losing 50% of their wages as they are probably working half the week where 50% of what they earn is handed over.

Just reading the paper today and seeing it all broken down into the different groups and unsurprisingly of all the different cases the long term unemployed family are gaining the most out of this budget. On what planet is that right.

If that's the point they're making, that's what they should say, not something else.

You'd swear the long-term unemployed were living it up. I pay the 50% rate on more of my income than the vast majority of people. That's fair, though, I earn more than the vast majority of people.

There's a weird cognitive dissonance on here were people are saying that:

1) they're paying 50% on most of their income and
2) they're in the 'squeezed middle'.

Only one of those things can be true. If you're paying 50% on most of your income you're in the top 5-10% of earners and if you're in the squeezed middle you're paying 50% on not that much of your income at all.

LegallyAbroad

TheDoc wrote: »

Common myth and political narrative that the lower class or poorest carried the country through the recession. Totally and factually incorrect.

The bottom 50percent of income tax payers, account for only 4 percent of overall income tax take.

The top 20% of income tax players, account for 75%. The middle and high earners kept things going and carried everyone else, as usual.

But god forbid there be a party or representation for the middle - high earners in this country.

Seeing the social welfare increases are nothing but a massive **** you to middle income people in this country who grind out month to month, earning too much to avail of any benefits or assistance, earning too little to ease the pressure and be comfortable.

If the bottom 50 are paying less than 4%, those in middle i.e. those between, say 40-60, aren't paying that much tax.

LegallyAbroad

Swanner wrote: »

When you combine every other tax, charge and levy with income tax, prsi, family home tax, motor tax, fuel tax, inheritance tax, USC etc etc etc. we are paying well over 50% of our wages out in tax. Not that I get annoyed about the concept of paying it. I'm happy to contribute towards a better society for all..

I get annoyed by the way in which this government wastes the money they take from me. I get annoyed that i'm paying to keep some lifer on the dole for all his days. I get annoyed that the same lifer just got a pay rise off my back for doing absolutely nothing. I get annoyed that despite paying so much tax, the people who genuinely need help and assistance from the state, can't actually get it when they need it. Why ? Because the money is wasted elsewhere on spongers and lifers and as a direct result of incompetence and mismanagement.

We are governed by a bunch of amateurs and it shows. It's a super country for the wealthy and connected. For everyone else it's a case of muddle through as best you can and as we've seen mentioned here, just be thankful you're not living on some rubbish pile in some shanty town in Africa. **** that. I wouldn't run a business that way and i don't waste my own hard earned cash in the manner in which this government choose to waste it. I expect better.

If you're paying 50% on income and paying inheritance tax (exactly how much have you inherited, if it's from a parent, that's some whack) you're already very wealthy.

Cina

Moshe Red Slipper wrote: »

Your constant pushing of this point is getting very tiresome. A lot of people pay 50% or more on a significant portion of their wages that is the point people are making. Once you are earing the very low figure of 33800 every euro you earn you will see less than 50 cent of it. Where is the fairness in that? Of course people will count this as losing 50% of their wages as they are probably working half the week where 50% of what they earn is handed over.

Just reading the paper today and seeing it all broken down into the different groups and unsurprisingly of all the different cases the long term unemployed family are gaining the most out of this budget. On what planet is that right.

as I said before, if you're earning enough to get taxed 49% on a portion of your wages (above 33,800), then you're doing pretty damn well for yourself, and if you are a normal person with no special debts or people to support and you're stuck for cash or struggling to make ends meet you need to seriously rethink your finances.

TheDoc

LegallyAbroad wrote: »

How do you think the government should do that?

Well considering it's government legislation that requires all drivers to have insurance, and this insurance is provided by totally private entities in a closed monopoly, it might not be a bad idea for the Government to introduce a bit of regulation to break up what is so obviously a cartel.

Insurers are so bold now, that many of them just overnight strike out offering cars 10+yr old from policies, and others adding a significant levy onto them. This from data that has not been independently scrutinised and appears from all angles to be internal data. And at the same time, making a mockery, and irrelevance, of the NCt programme, another government initiative and legal requirement to drive.

The Government may well look into some legislation relating to injury claims. That I don't know, for say whiplash, that there god forbid, be an actual medical exam take place to verify the claimed injury, instead of insurers just paying out and slapping premiums on the rest, for in many cases what is just pure fraud.

And to get really creative, how many people pay car insurance every year, but have never had to make a claim? How many people are driving 5 years, 10 years, 20 years, 30 years, and have never made a claim. They pay this "figure" but it provides nothing to them other then a box ticked to allow them to drive.

So maybe if the Government want to get creative, why not setup their own state funded and organised insurance company. Government is one of the biggest companies in any country, so why not setup their own company, be conservative at first, but provide competitive, attractive policy cover to citizens. They'd have capital to back it, and no one would mind if they were selective at first in terms of clients. Just adding another option. And maybe that might force the cartel to re-think their strategy.

But that's too left field, for a government that can never plan more than three years in advance, and a country where calls for a Department of Investment fell on deaf ears during the boomtimes or any time we get some extra cashflow.

And that's just insurance by the way. There is a platitude of solutions for every problem. The issue here, and probably like most places, is there isn't the joined up thinking to achieve it, there isn't the political will for oppositions to conceed to good ideas, and governments are only interested in the short term gains they can claim credit for as opposed to the long term planning that will reap rewards when someone else is in office.

LegallyAbroad

TheDoc wrote: »

Well considering it's government legislation that requires all drivers to have insurance, and this insurance is provided by totally private entities in a closed monopoly, it might not be a bad idea for the Government to introduce a bit of regulation to break up what is so obviously a cartel.

Insurers are so bold now, that many of them just overnight strike out offering cars 10+yr old from policies, and others adding a significant levy onto them. This from data that has not been independently scrutinised and appears from all angles to be internal data. And at the same time, making a mockery, and irrelevance, of the NCt programme, another government initiative and legal requirement to drive.

The Government may well look into some legislation relating to injury claims. That I don't know, for say whiplash, that there god forbid, be an actual medical exam take place to verify the claimed injury, instead of insurers just paying out and slapping premiums on the rest, for in many cases what is just pure fraud.

And to get really creative, how many people pay car insurance every year, but have never had to make a claim? How many people are driving 5 years, 10 years, 20 years, 30 years, and have never made a claim. They pay this "figure" but it provides nothing to them other then a box ticked to allow them to drive.

So maybe if the Government want to get creative, why not setup their own state funded and organised insurance company. Government is one of the biggest companies in any country, so why not setup their own company, be conservative at first, but provide competitive, attractive policy cover to citizens. They'd have capital to back it, and no one would mind if they were selective at first in terms of clients. Just adding another option. And maybe that might force the cartel to re-think their strategy.

But that's too left field, for a government that can never plan more than three years in advance, and a country where calls for a Department of Investment fell on deaf ears during the boomtimes or any time we get some extra cashflow.

And that's just insurance by the way. There is a platitude of solutions for every problem. The issue here, and probably like most places, is there isn't the joined up thinking to achieve it, there isn't the political will for oppositions to conceed to good ideas, and governments are only interested in the short term gains they can claim credit for as opposed to the long term planning that will reap rewards when someone else is in office.

That sounds like a Government VHI for cars. If you think the insurance companies are operating a cartel you should make a complaint to the Competition Authority.

By the way, the vast majority of whiplash claim are assessed by a doctor already, if not all.

TheDoc

LegallyAbroad wrote: »

If the bottom 50 are paying less than 4%, those in middle i.e. those between, say 40-60, aren't paying that much tax.

That's full percentages. You can get the actual number breakdowns from Revenue through some various reports.

But when looking at total representation in our tax base, the bottom half are predominantly comprised of lower incomes, and from the low 50% mark you begin to the see the introduction of middle incomes.

Those in the middle do pay plenty. They pay a lot. But the high earners in our country pay a nortical **** tonne of income tax. But it's political suicide for anyone to champion the high earners, even though their contribution to our revenue streams is critical, and they pay a serious wedge of tax.

where it can come into sharper focus is when you look at the times income vs time tax contribution.

So where we have say as an example employee A earning €20,000 and employee B earning €40,000, while employee B is earning two times more, their tax contribution is likely to be 4 times or 5 times more then employee A.

As per the Irish Tax Institute’s report last month, which is a pretty decent independent view on our tax system, that largely gets ignored (why i dont know) in the wider debate, outlined that our tax system is overly progressive to the point of damaging, and out tax system has no direction or appearance of being constructed intentionally, and instead has allowed become a mish mash of various regimes ideas and political point scoring

PARlance

Swanner wrote: »

We are governed by a bunch of amateurs and it shows. It's a super country for the wealthy and connected. For everyone else it's a case of muddle through as best you can and as we've seen mentioned here, just be thankful you're not living on some rubbish pile in some shanty town in Africa. **** that. I wouldn't run a business that way and i don't waste my own hard earned cash in the manner in which this government choose to waste it. I expect better.

The difference is that if you were running your business you wouldn't be up for re-election.

Most of this thread is bickering about a fiver here and there, smokers vs non-smokers. There was a "fiscal space" and it could have been used much better than it was, on much more deserving or critical areas than giving most people a fiver a week. This thread has very little talk about that. People give out about politicians looking after themselves and in the same breath complain how they haven't been looked after.

We get the government we deserve.

TheDoc

LegallyAbroad wrote: »

That sounds like a Government VHI for cars.

By the way, the vast majority of whiplash claim are assessed by a doctor already, if not all.

From information I've heard on radio and read in papers, it's the opposite. The vast majority are not independently assessed. There is a reason whiplash is a pretty big topic and something that needs to be dealt with. It's disgracefully open for abuse and fraud.

And I know first hand from a relative who was subject to excruciating fraud from another party in a crash, the medical requirements and procedure is extremely lax. And that is not using one case to generalise, during the court case for this fraud, there was witness testimony that was shocking in its revelations of the slack process and abuse that can be performed and easily.

LegallyAbroad

TheDoc wrote: »

That's full percentages. You can get the actual number breakdowns from Revenue through some various reports.

But when looking at total representation in our tax base, the bottom half are predominantly comprised of lower incomes, and from the low 50% mark you begin to the see the introduction of middle incomes.

Those in the middle do pay plenty. They pay a lot. But the high earners in our country pay a nortical **** tonne of income tax. But it's political suicide for anyone to champion the high earners, even though their contribution to our revenue streams is critical, and they pay a serious wedge of tax.

where it can come into sharper focus is when you look at the times income vs time tax contribution.

So where we have say as an example employee A earning €20,000 and employee B earning €40,000, while employee B is earning two times more, their tax contribution is likely to be 4 times or 5 times more then employee A.

As per the Irish Tax Institute’s report last month, which is a pretty decent independent view on our tax system, that largely gets ignored (why i dont know) in the wider debate, outlined that our tax system is overly progressive to the point of damaging, and out tax system has no direction or appearance of being constructed intentionally, and instead has allowed become a mish mash of various regimes ideas and political point scoring

The average payee earning €37,500 still only pays 17.9% income/usc/PRSI.

It's the guys on €45k + bracket that really start paying heavy tax (30%+). But the €45k + aren't the middle in a country where median earnings are €32kish.

I agree with you, by the way, but we should stop pretending it's the 'squeezed middle' who are the ones under a heavy tax burden, when it's actually the top third of society.

Kal El

MeatTwoVeg wrote: »

It wasn't the pensioners or unemployed who pulled this country out of recession, but by God, they'll be the first to reap the benefits.

It wasnt them that put it there either

LegallyAbroad

TheDoc wrote: »

From information I've heard on radio and read in papers, it's the opposite. The vast majority are not independently assessed. There is a reason whiplash is a pretty big topic and something that needs to be dealt with. It's disgracefully open for abuse and fraud.

And I know first hand from a relative who was subject to excruciating fraud from another party in a crash, the medical requirements and procedure is extremely lax. And that is not using one case to generalise, during the court case for this fraud, there was witness testimony that was shocking in its revelations of the slack process and abuse that can be performed and easily.

If it went to court it was 100% assessed by at least 2 doctors.

TheDoc

PARlance wrote: »

The difference is that if you were running your business you wouldn't be up for re-election.

Most of this thread is bickering about a fiver here and there, smokers vs non-smokers. There was a "fiscal space" and it could have been used much better than it was, on much more deserving or critical areas than giving most people a fiver a week. This thread has very little talk about that. People give out about poloitcians looking after themselves and in the same breath complain how they haven't been looked after.

We get the government we deserve.

When has a budget not been like this? And this budget especially. With FG requiring the support they do, and the amount of popularism currently sitting in the Dail, it was absolutely no surprise to me, and shouldnt be to anyone, that this budget was a mess.

All the interest groups getting a little so that it can be said " you got something" but nothing of note, weak spending increases nearly everywhere, serious questions of how the numbers are actually stacking up ,and another budget roles by where real issues could have been addressed and real policy put in place, just gets lost again on a budget that in a few weeks time no one will remember, and **** all will feel any impact on them month to month.

An opportunity was here for all involved to show that while there is a fractured Government, maybe a new setting could emerge where people work together to form coherant and prudent policy and decisions. There was some comments from people in government about how there was surprise at how negotiations went, and how some groups really worked well together.

Unfortunately all that happened was compromise, to ensure everyone got their bit and gets their little bit of credit. I can't remember a budget that had this many politicians claiming this much credit for stuff.

end of the road

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

It was pointed out earlier that Ireland is the 6th most expensive country in the EU to live yet our social welfare is the highest. Your argument doesn't add up.

it does as some of our costs are higher then other more expensive countries costs.

TheDoc

LegallyAbroad wrote: »

If it went to court it was 100% assessed by at least 2 doctors.

Well yes, it was brought to court on the basis of fraud, so the individual who had claimed was subjected to a court ordered assessment (and their family) and the entire thing was ruled in my relatives favour and the individual deemed to have commited fraud.

Last I heard the insurance company in question is taking them to the absolute cleaners, but nothing really happening for my relative who was subject to a premium hike so large they had to go through St Vincent De Paul's insurance, which I was told is the only resort for committed drink driving offenders to get back into driving, for absolute years, causing crushing financial difficulty and stress, as driving was a critical component to their business.

And in all of this, you simply could not believe the "ah that would be a waste of time" from my relatives own insurance company when she was constantly in touch requesting this be investigated thoroughly as the claims were complete bogus. And when they eventually conceded, they are the ones taking the fraudsters to task. You couldn't make it up.

Relative currently looking into legal options against the insurer, on the ground of complete misrepresentation under her contract with them. Hope she wins that too and maybe insurance companies will be a bit more vigorous with their payouts.

But tieing back into the budget, car insurance costs are at such a rate now, it's a genuine issue that is rightfully being discussed at national level. Any little "giveaway" that came from the government will be absorbed, and then some, for anyone who drives a car.

Would be surprised if my policy didn't see atleast a €300 hike this year, based on nothing other then the scandalous market and its operation.

LegallyAbroad

end of the road wrote: »

it does as some of our costs are higher then other more expensive countries costs.

And even more of our costs are lower than the more expensive countries costs.

Kal El

chasm wrote: »

I do know people getting that much, and it is possible. It's not like i claimed every person on SW gets those payments, as i stated in my previous post i know people at the other end of the SW spectrum who struggle to make ends meet and barely scrape by from week to week. 29,000 is by no means the norm but SOME do get it.

Husband on DA, claiming for spouse and 3 kids (402.20p/w), Spouse claiming half rate CA(102 p/w) for one child in receipt of DCA(309.50p/m) - that's just over 29,000 before rent supplement, child benefit and respite grant. Of course there is a medical card and household benefits package with that too.

This just doesnt happen. You never explained how they live the good life. Taking thats what 30 thousand a year for 5 people compared to the guy you said got 28 thousand. Do the math, 28 is way higher than 6, but hey continue to rabble. Honestly some people havent a clue

Iseedeadpixels

TheDoc wrote: »

you know that is also a generalisation I hear used against people who take long leaves of absence from work.

As a poster who has admitted issues with mental health, how would you react to someone saying that's a bollox "excuse" if you needed to take a leave of absence

Take no notice of it tbh, I couldn't care less what people think of me.

Cina

end of the road wrote: »

it does as some of our costs are higher then other more expensive countries costs.

That makes no sense. You can't argue against us being the 6th most expensive country by saying "but some of our costs are higher". It doesn't matter that some of our costs are higher, our overall costs are lower because those 5 countries are proven to have a higher cost of living than us. You can't rewrite Maths.