Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Calls to slash the top rate of tax for Irish workers by a huge 7%

13»

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,482 ✭✭✭Hollister11


    Stheno wrote: »
    So low earners are classed on people on almost 50k?

    Yet high earners are classed as the self employed who pay a marginal rate of 55% once they hit 100k?

    2 people earning 50 between is low. Whatever way it's split 25K:25K, 30K:25K.

    A good wage for one person, low for a couple.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,593 ✭✭✭Wheeliebin30


    Stheno wrote: »
    So low earners are classed on people on almost 50k?

    Yet high earners are classed as the self employed who pay a marginal rate of 55% once they hit 100k?

    .I think some people believe self employed pay no tax.


  • Registered Users Posts: 793 ✭✭✭jcon1913


    Grueber (1995):



    Dube (2010)
    [/

    Gruber refers to payroll taxes not Employers PRSI.

    Dube concludes "Minimum wage policies are not an antipoverty panacea. They do however tend to raise wages for America's lowest paid workers making an adequate minimum wage an important pillar of a national antipoverty agenda. "

    on the other hand in a study by David Card and Alan Krueger the authors concluded "contrary to the central production of the textbook model of the minimum wage but consistent with a number of recent stories based on cross sectional timeseries comparison sense of affected and on affected markets we find no evidence that the rise in New Jerseys minimum wage reduced employment in fast food restaurants in the state. "

    I can't post links as I am on my mobile phone


  • Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 51,687 Mod ✭✭✭✭Stheno


    2 people earning 50 between is low. Whatever way it's split 25K:25K, 30K:25K.

    A good wage for one person, low for a couple.

    A single person on 32k takes home 26,730 per annum, or 2,228 per month

    http://services.deloitte.ie/tc/Results.aspx

    A single person on 50k per annum takes home 3,022.00 per month, or 36,270.00

    A single person earning 75k per annum brings home €48,871.00 per annum or per month €4,073.00

    So someone earning 2.5 times the average wage brings in less than 46% more than the person on the average 32k wage

    Earning more here means paying more here to reduce the tax burden on the lower paid.


  • Registered Users Posts: 33,370 ✭✭✭✭listermint


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    I think you under estimate the things that Multinationals actually enjoy about Ireland, Yes tax rates, and certainly yes educated workforce (that cant be overstated and i think often is understated i.e ridiculed by some to make a point) but the things that are very often overlooked is ease of doing business, Social attitudes, Genuinely just the way many irish people present themselves with an easy attitude with straight talking and open sensibility.

    In fact its one of the many reasons we have done so well internationally when we do go abroad for such a small country.

    And people genuinely like it here, That is very powerful and people dont seem to say that often. We hear this constant jibe about low rates being the only thing holding business here. Its a fallacy, it is one of various attributes - but not the top of the list nor bottom.

    Its a good place, it has good people, good business can be done here and we can offer people visas relatively easy if other skills are required. ALOT of value in all of that and tbf the IDA are great at selling all of that.





    Waves mini green flag.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    Old Bill wrote: »
    Sinn Fein would only Tax people on over 100k.
    Not according to their vague policy - it would seem they advocate (with the exception of USC) keeping all other taxes the same, but increasing taxes on people making over €100k... which is not only insane, but doesn't raise anywhere near enough money to even cover abolition of USC, let alone their mooted spending bonanza.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 299 ✭✭Old Bill


    Not according to their vague policy - it would seem they advocate (with the exception of USC) keeping all other taxes the same, but increasing taxes on people making over €100k... which is not only insane, but doesn't raise anywhere near enough money to even cover abolition of USC, let alone their mooted spending bonanza.

    It would raise alot of money because the likes of Bono are paying little or no tax.


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,992 ✭✭✭✭Geuze


    Stheno wrote: »
    So someone earning 2.5 times the average wage brings in less than 46% more than the person on the average 32k wage

    http://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/er/elca/earningsandlabourcostsannualdata2015/

    Average earnings 2015 = 36,519

    Average earnings for full-time workers 2015 = 45,075


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,992 ✭✭✭✭Geuze


    Not according to their vague policy - it would seem they advocate (with the exception of USC) keeping all other taxes the same, but increasing taxes on people making over €100k... which is not only insane, but doesn't raise anywhere near enough money to even cover abolition of USC, let alone their mooted spending bonanza.


    Be very clear that SF plan large income tax increases on many workers earning over 35k approx.

    SF are up front about this. They don't hide it.

    It is to be expected from a socialist party, obviously.

    They plan to cut the tax relief on pension conts to 20%.

    About half the workers in Irl are in a pension scheme.

    This is a large income tax increases, but without increasing rates, or reducing bands/credits.

    So it is populist.


  • Registered Users Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    Old Bill wrote: »
    It would raise alot of money because the likes of Bono are paying little or no tax.
    This old chestnut doesn't mathematically add up and belongs firmly in the Cafe with the other unsupported claims.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 2,583 ✭✭✭Suryavarman


    jcon1913 wrote: »
    Grueber (1995):



    Dube (2010)
    [/

    Gruber refers to payroll taxes not Employers PRSI.

    Dube concludes "Minimum wage policies are not an antipoverty panacea. They do however tend to raise wages for America's lowest paid workers making an adequate minimum wage an important pillar of a national antipoverty agenda. "

    on the other hand in a study by David Card and Alan Krueger the authors concluded "contrary to the central production of the textbook model of the minimum wage but consistent with a number of recent stories based on cross sectional timeseries comparison sense of affected and on affected markets we find no evidence that the rise in New Jerseys minimum wage reduced employment in fast food restaurants in the state. "

    I can't post links as I am on my mobile phone

    If you're going to quote me then do it properly. It's quite easy to do.

    Also, if you're going to respond to me then I might also ask that you say something that challenges what I say instead of wasting my time and Boards' server space.

    There is no difference between employer's PRSI and payroll taxes. Or can you tell me how changing the name of something makes work differently?

    The Card and Krueger study has nothing to do with what I said as I'm not advocating the abolition of the minimum wage.


  • Registered Users Posts: 793 ✭✭✭jcon1913


    If you're going to quote me then do it properly. It's quite easy to do.

    Also, if you're going to respond to me then I might also ask that you say something that challenges what I say instead of wasting my time and Boards' server space.

    There is no difference between employer's PRSI and payroll taxes. Or can you tell me how changing the name of something makes work differently?

    The Card and Krueger study has nothing to do with what I said as I'm not advocating the abolition of the minimum wage.

    I am saying raise the minimum wage. You are quoting a study thats says the minimum wage should ideally be 50% of the average wage. Another poster has come up with a figure for average wage of €45,000 in Ireland in 2015. Half that is €22,500 give or take. The current minimum wage is €9.15 x 37.5 hours x 52 weeks = €17,842. So broadly speaking you agree with me, for which I thank you. I am advocating raising the minimum wage.

    You do know that Employers PRSI is paid by Employers? What if that tax increase was used to reduce the tax burden on workers?

    And I dont accept the 'cause and effect' of raising one cost has to lower some other cost. If you took that logic to its ectreme then all workers in heavily taxed countries should have lower real earnings. Like Sweden. But they have high real incomes in Sweden.


  • Registered Users Posts: 23,179 ✭✭✭✭ted1


    Stheno wrote: »
    Who do you think should pay more to offset the liss to the exchequer

    This thread is probably better suited the politics btw i cam move it if you want

    Vulture funds, and other large companies that pay little to no Tax on Irush earnings


Advertisement