USC Abolition

tom1ie

Idbatterim wrote: »

Hundred s of thousands of hard working people here, if they don’t stand up and vote renua and allow the other parties to just blow all their money on welfare etc, they can blame themselves at this stage ... fair to say fg are already looking at rowing back on rewarding the taxpayer etc.

Are Renua not gone now, and to be honest all politicians are window dressing. It’s the senior civil servants that call the shots.

Idbatterim

tom1ie wrote: »

Are Renua not gone now, and to be honest all politicians are window dressing. It’s the senior civil servants that call the shots.

No. They run on a platform that fg claimed they did years ago. Visit their website renua.ie

oholly121

Keyzer wrote: »

I'm no sheep. I abhor USC.

I'm merely stating the obvious. It came into effect with no protests and little or no opposition from the public. Compare that to water charges which caused uproar.

Its never, ever going away.

No that's just not true water charges where protested where applicable form the start with community organized protests and non-payment by all walks of life

Id say if there was mass protest to something in this case USC it would become an issue - Again Irish Water is evidence of that

oholly121

jjmcclure wrote: »

Unfortunately those in Ireland who are even moderately successful will be expected to pay for those who have not been "as fortunate" (or bothered to get off their ass and work for it).


This group, I call them The Tax Donkeys, will continue to be penalised and pilloried for making over €100k, like they are Pablo Escobar or someone.


No government in Ireland will every tackle

- Taxing everyone in work in a fair fashion
- The grossly inefficient public service
- Taxing state benefits
- Benefit fraud and lifetime (even generational) benefit scroungers


Why? Because they would be voted out by "de mon in de streeat".


Sad but true

Most of the class that you describe above don't or never have voted?

So i cant say your comment is 100% true ?

jjmcclure

oholly121 wrote: »

Most of the class that you describe above don't or never have voted?

So i cant say your comment is 100% true ?

Sources for these facts above?


Civil servants have never voted?

oholly121

jjmcclure wrote: »

Sources for these facts above?


Civil servants have never voted?

Civil Servants Yes

Majority of working class people No

keane2097

Mother of god the cheerleading for Renua is bizarre. Does anyone remember their deranged law and order proposals before the last election?

I wouldn't trust them to run a mass collection.

VinLieger

Idbatterim wrote: »

No. They run on a platform that fg claimed they did years ago. Visit their website renua.ie

They have just 2 councilors, their leadership has fled and their 2017 agm was addressed by john waters.......... they are as legitimate an option for election as the lint in my pocket

Beric Dondarrion

Keyzer wrote: »

I'm no sheep. I abhor USC.

I'm merely stating the obvious. It came into effect with no protests and little or no opposition from the public. Compare that to water charges which caused uproar.

Its never, ever going away.

IMHO, it came in to effect with little or no opposition from the public because it was introduced at a at time when the country was on it's knees. There was a huge hole in the finances that needed to be plugged very quickly. Hence the lie that was sold that this was a "temporary measure".

Anyone who lost there job wouldn't protest a charge that they would not see affecting their seriously reduced income. Anyone else working through the recession was glad to be earning 80 to 85% of what they were prior to the recession kicking in and the majority were PAYE workers so the change was made for them. They weren't asked if they wanted to accept the USC, they couldn't protest or refuse to pay it (unlike the water charge fiasco - Please Give us your PPS number and money!!). No point in taking it up with your employer, they were just the messengers. Take it out at the ballot box.

Most of us took the then government at their word that as soon as the ship was steadied, the charge would be abolished (or absorbed in to the taxation system). Then Enda K. let the cat out of the bag and said that it was too efficient a tax to abolish completely and it brought in too much revenue to even consider getting rid of it straight away. No sh*t Sherlock. Now we are stuck with successive government's tinkering around the edges, a 0.5% cut here or there to rates which in the grand scheme of things make no tangible difference when other taxes/changes in the budget kick in.

L1011

Idbatterim wrote: »

No. They run on a platform that fg claimed they did years ago. Visit their website renua.ie

Ran. They ran on that platform two years ago and lost all their seats

They are now a single issue hard right Catholic party.

You appear to be the only person who hasn't noticed that

tom1ie

oholly121 wrote: »

Civil Servants Yes

Majority of working class people No

Majority of working class people have never voted? Are you sure about that statement. I’m calling bull**** on that one.

VinLieger

tom1ie wrote: »

Majority of working class people have never voted? Are you sure about that statement. I’m calling bull**** on that one.

They tend to be the least engaged and not just in Ireland. I wasnt able to find any demographics on the 2016 GE and a majority might be overstating it, but i wouldnt be surprised if working class people had the largest percentage of people who didnt vote

MayoSalmon

What is the definition of a working class person in 2018?

Geuze

Note that the USC replaces two previous taxes:

health levy
income levy


Also note that some earners pay less USC than they paid in health and income levies.

Geuze

My parents pay less than 10% direct tax on 49-50k income.

In return they get:

two med cards
two travel passes
free TV licence
35 pm off elec bill / 420 pa

Ireland has very low taxes for many people.

Geuze

MayoSalmon wrote: »

Any party which campaigns on the reduction of the current Personal Income tax levels and especially the abolition of USC will get my vote.

1m earners pay ZERO tax or USC.

VinLieger

Geuze wrote: »

1m earners pay ZERO tax or USC.

Thats incorrect they pay no income tax but they pay USC which is the key reason we need to keep it as it pulls all of them back into the tax base. There are still around 700k who earn less than 13k that will pay no usc

Amirani

Good summation in the Irish Times today on the narrowness of our tax net: https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/few-options-for-donohoe-on-three-in-10-earners-outside-tax-net-1.3545920

Revenue data shows that 956k units (single people and jointly assessed couples) will not be liable to pay any income tax this year, about 37% of the total. When USC is considered, 770k will pay no tax at all – about 29% of total earners.

The income tax burden on lower earners here is well below the average. The Irish tax system is, according to the OECD, the most progressive in the EU. The reliance on income tax as a source of revenue has risen significantly in recent years, and there is now a greater reliance on a smaller number of higher earners.

Political reality is that once you take people out of the net, it is very hard to put them back in, except in an emergency. Households outside the tax net are likely to stay there. Talk of phasing out the USC has been long forgotten, due to difficulty raising revenue in other areas.

It's crucial that we keep our tax net as wide as possible, both for economic and for social reasons. We already have the most progressive taxation system in the EU, so we don't need to be removing people from it - and if we want strong social services then we need a strong tax take. We also don't want to be reducing taxation at a time of such significant growth. USC is probably our best mechanism of doing this. It's name does cause consternation among some people, so maybe some sort of overhaul of the Income Tax/PRSI/USC branding would be a positive. Perhaps just Income Tax and a Social Services tax or something along those lines?

Hitman3000

Amirani wrote:

Revenue data shows that 956k units (single people and jointly assessed couples) will not be liable to pay any income tax this year, about 37% of the total. When USC is considered, 770k will pay no tax at all – about 29% of total earners.

I realise it is only words but to read that people are referred to as 'units' is somehow very bleak. Almost like ones sole purpose is to generate income for the state.

MayoSalmon

Well the state aka Government cannot produce any wealth themselves...they must take it from other sources. The source they particularly enjoy taking it from is your pocket. That is the reality of it so yes you may aswell be a unit in their eyes.

Allinall

Hitman3000 wrote: »

I realise it is only words but to read that people are referred to as 'units' is somehow very bleak. Almost like ones sole purpose is to generate income for the state.

You and I and everyone else make up the “state”.

You’re contributing to your own pot.

Geuze

Hitman3000 wrote: »

I realise it is only words but to read that people are referred to as 'units' is somehow very bleak. Almost like ones sole purpose is to generate income for the state.

There is a reason for this.

A married couple is treated as one tax-paying unit.

A single person is a unit.

So one tax unit does not equal one person.

Hitman3000

Geuze wrote:

So one tax unit does not equal one person.

Well done on your ability to miss the point of my comment.

The Bishop Basher

Allinall wrote: »

You and I and everyone else make up the “state”.

You’re contributing to your own pot.

Yes but who feeds off the pot ?

Generally it’s not those of us paying into it..

Rennaws

Rennaws wrote: »

Yes but who feeds off the pot ?

Generally it’s not those of us paying into it..

Do you use the roads? Drink water? Did you attend school or college? If your house is on fire in the morning will you ring the fire service? etc etc

lawred2

Rennaws wrote: »

Yes but who feeds off the pot ?

Generally it’s not those of us paying into it..

Well as a parent of three children I can't say that

Between child benefit, maternity benefit and now paternity benefit - we've received a lot back out of the system in direct payments.

But then there is the indirect stuff

Under 6 free GP care

All our kids delivered under the public hospital system

Our eldest starts primary school in September - cost to us? €0...

I think Ireland does a good job of looking after families and children.

And as long as the arse doesn't fall out of everything - myself and the missus have our full contributory pension to look forward to.

And around where we live is quite nice - well maintained by the council. Decent road infrastructure if a little heavily utilised.

Did I receive one cent as a twenty something single lad? Nope. But then I didn't need it.

The Bishop Basher

Topgear on Dave wrote: »

Do you use the roads? Drink water? Did you attend school or college? If your house is on fire in the morning will you ring the fire service? etc etc

Yes I I pay for all of them. Last time I called the fire service it was €700..

What’s your point ?

Hitman3000

Rennaws wrote:

What’s your point ?

It's kind of obvious, to break it down to a simple reply. You claim that those that pay in get nothing back. Your post above is at odds with that claim.

The Bishop Basher

lawred2 wrote: »

Well as a parent of three children I can't say that

Between child benefit, maternity benefit and now paternity benefit - we've received a lot back out of the system in direct payments.

But then there is the indirect stuff

Under 6 free GP care

All our kids delivered under the public hospital system

Our eldest starts primary school in September - cost to us? €0...

I think Ireland does a good job of looking after families and children.

And as long as the arse doesn't fall out of everything - myself and the missus have our full contributory pension to look forward to.

And around where we live is quite nice - well maintained by the council. Decent road infrastructure if a little heavily utilised.

Did I receive one cent as a twenty something single lad? Nope. But then I didn't need it.

Lucky you..

My kids are nearly grown so we didnt get a lot of that stuff. Free GP care would have nice. We had to pay every time. I contInue to pay separately for all the services both they and I receive..

Rennaws

Rennaws wrote: »

Yes I I pay for all of them. Last time I called the fire service it was €700..

What’s your point ?

That we all get something out of the pot at some point.

Do you think 700 quid covered the whole cost of the brigade?

FreudianSlippers

We need a complete re-write of the tax system tbh; I also believe giving people "cash benefits" is insane - it should be income tax based (i.e. tax refund based system)

The Bishop Basher

Hitman3000 wrote: »

It's kind of obvious, to break it down to a simple reply. You claim that those that pay in get nothing back. Your post above is at odds with that claim.

Which my post where I mention that I pay for all the services I receive separately ?

All those services that our taxes would pay for if we lived in other EU countries..

The Bishop Basher

Topgear on Dave wrote: »

Do you think 700 quid covered the whole cost of the brigade?

I don’t know and tbh I don’t care. You made the point that my taxes cover the service and I’m saying they don’t. As with every other service I have to pay separately.

Of course if I was on welfare of some sort it would be free..

That was my point..

There’s a minority of us carrying the majority financially and it’s unsustainable.

Hitman3000

Rennaws wrote:

Which my post where I mention that I pay for all the services I receive separately ?

You don't pay for them, you contibute. There is a difference.

lawred2

Rennaws wrote: »

Lucky you..

My kids are nearly grown so we didnt get a lot of that stuff. Free GP care would have nice. We had to pay every time. I contInue to pay separately for all the services both they and I receive..

Really?

your children didn't get free primary education? secondary school education? Did you choose to send your kids to fee paying schools?

you received no child benefit?

did you wife receive maternity benefit? Or was she not working?

paternity benefit is indeed new - I missed it for the first two.

where were your children born? in the old fully private maternity hospitals?

do you live in an area not maintained by a council?

the only thing you highlighted was under 6 GP care - what else were you never in receipt of?

The Bishop Basher

lawred2 wrote: »

your children didn't get free primary education? secondary school education? Did you choose to send your kids to fee paying schools?

No. We paid a not inconsiderable "voluntary contribution" on each child throughout both Primary and Secondary. Of course even the state subventions combined with the voluntary contributions didn't come close to covering the cost of running a school so all the parents chipped in over and over through fundraisers etc.

There was nothing free about their primary or secondary education.

lawred2 wrote: »

you received no child benefit?

That's one thing we did receive along with everyone else in the state including millionaires which is just nuts..

lawred2 wrote: »

did you wife receive maternity benefit? Or was she not working?

She wasn't working. We received nothing.

lawred2 wrote: »

paternity benefit is indeed new - I missed it for the first two.

Yep, didn't get that either. Paying for it though..

lawred2 wrote: »

where were your children born? in the old fully private maternity hospitals?

They were born in Holles Street. The birth of our kids was one of the few times i've witnessed the state function anyway efficiently and effectively.

lawred2 wrote: »

do you live in an area not maintained by a council?

What do you mean by maintained ?

A couple of years ago the council "maintained" the lane I live on by chopping down a bunch of trees without any consultation. They left a compete mess behind them with a dirt patch and ugly tree stumps.. They refused to tidy it up so I got together with one of our town councellors, tidy towns and a few locals. We went door to door and raised the money to buy native hedgerows, grass seed, bulbs etc. Then we did the work and tidies it up ourselves. It's starting to look great now but no thanks to the council.

I was told that these sorts of services were paid for out of general taxation up until the introduction of the family home charge at which point we were told that would cover the cost of maintaining the area.

So far over 90% of LPT raised in Wickow has been used to prop up Irish Water..

So no, the area is not maintained by the council. It's maintained by us.

lawred2 wrote: »

the only thing you highlighted was under 6 GP care

Didn't get that either.

keane2097

I also get nothing for my taxes except for the things I do get for my taxes.

jjmcclure

keane2097 wrote: »

I also get nothing for my taxes except for the things I do get for my taxes.

If you look at the overall tax you pay, and I pay a LOT! of income tax alone, there is very little "value for money". By the time you add up VAT, VRT, Road Tax etc it is an astonishing amount.


Fact is those who pay the most receive the least.

Regarding health service etc. The majority of "high" earners have private insurance which they also pay for, arguably reducing the burden on the public system.

Amirani

jjmcclure wrote: »

If you look at the overall tax you pay, and I pay a LOT! of income tax alone, there is very little "value for money". By the time you add up VAT, VRT, Road Tax etc it is an astonishing amount.

Fact is those who pay the most receive the least.

Regarding health service etc. The majority of "high" earners have private insurance which they also pay for, arguably reducing the burden on the public system.

Firstly, the times of life where you likely receive most benefit from tax contributions are as a child and in retirement. As a child particularly, you are massively costly to the state in terms of the amount of taxation used on you. Birth, education and a large number of other services that you avail of (whether in public or private system) cost lots of money. Even if you are paying for private maternity care or private education, these still benefit from large subsidies from the State and do benefit from the state funding the supporting infrastructure. Private hospitals and schools are able to offer services at a much lower cost because of services that are funded through general taxation.

If you remove the impact of the State, and create a private school/hospital. Then their cost base suddenly features: Staff lifetime education, staff salaries, electricity generation, electricity supply, road building, water sourcing, fire services, policing services etc. It's essentially impossible to isolate the cost of functioning without the benefits received from the State, and that's before you look at direct subsidies.

Let's say you remove the State, all the services they provide and all the economies of scale that they provide and leave living up to a private individual. Literally the only people who have any chance of surviving are billionaires - but these are pretty much only billionaires in the first place because of some benefit they received from the State.

Anyone that's currently alive that's claiming they haven't got any value for money because of the taxation they pay is just blatantly wrong.

jjmcclure

Amirani wrote: »

Firstly, the times of life where you likely receive most benefit from tax contributions are as a child and in retirement. As a child particularly, you are massively costly to the state in terms of the amount of taxation used on you. Birth, education and a large number of other services that you avail of (whether in public or private system) cost lots of money. Even if you are paying for private maternity care or private education, these still benefit from large subsidies from the State and do benefit from the state funding the supporting infrastructure. Private hospitals and schools are able to offer services at a much lower cost because of services that are funded through general taxation.

If you remove the impact of the State, and create a private school/hospital. Then their cost base suddenly features: Staff lifetime education, staff salaries, electricity generation, electricity supply, road building, water sourcing, fire services, policing services etc. It's essentially impossible to isolate the cost of functioning without the benefits received from the State, and that's before you look at direct subsidies.

Let's say you remove the State, all the services they provide and all the economies of scale that they provide and leave living up to a private individual. Literally the only people who have any chance of surviving are billionaires - but these are pretty much only billionaires in the first place because of some benefit they received from the State.

Anyone that's currently alive that's claiming they haven't got any value for money because of the taxation they pay is just blatantly wrong.

I think you are missing the point. I'm not arguing that I get "No Benefit", I do get some small benefit but it in no way matches my inputs to the tax system.


BTW are you a Civil Servant? this is a serious question, I'm not being funny

Pelvis

jjmcclure wrote: »

Fact is those who pay the most receive the least.

Well, no. Public services are accessible to everyone equally for the most part. That's the whole point.

How much you receive depends on how much you need, not how much you pay.

L1011

Rennaws wrote: »

Yes I I pay for all of them. Last time I called the fire service it was €700..

Which won't have even come close to the cost of provision of service.

Amirani

jjmcclure wrote: »

I think you are missing the point. I'm not arguing that I get "No Benefit", I do get some small benefit but it in no way matches my inputs to the tax system.


BTW are you a Civil Servant? this is a serious question, I'm not being funny

Funnily enough I'm not. Previously worked in Capital Markets for a medium-sized bank and currently working for one of the largest Global consultancy firms. So I'm pretty capitalist all things considered!

FreudianSlippers

I've noticed that people who don't totally understand state subsidization frequently use the word "subvention" to describe it...

"It's not free because I had to pay a fraction of the cost" as an argument against getting things for free is like a technicality that buy-one-get-one free is actually half-off both items; ok, what's your point?

The Bishop Basher

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I've noticed that people who don't totally understand state subsidization frequently use the word "subvention" to describe it...

I understand both. Is there some other secret meaning to these words that Im not aware of ?

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

"It's not free because I had to pay a fraction of the cost" as an argument against getting things for free is like a technicality that buy-one-get-one free is actually half-off both items; ok, what's your point?

No offence, but I haven't a clue what you're point is

Maybe if you re write it in intelligible English i'll be in a position to respond..

the_syco

If you get rid of the USC, will you be getting rid of the social welfare as well?

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

"It's not free because I had to pay a fraction of the cost" as an argument against getting things for free is like a technicality that buy-one-get-one free is actually half-off both items; ok, what's your point?

Perhaps point out to them that they money from which they pay the part from, is also free?

Sam Russell

doolox wrote: »

Or stated to be so as not to frighten the horses.

Income tax was a wartime measure in WW1 and has become a huge source of revenue for the government. The US federal income tax was started sometime after WW1 and was so novel that many gangsters tried to evade it, not so much to save money because they knew the utility and expedience of giving a cut to a fellow gangster organisation with great power, which is how they viewed governments, but to avoid admitting that they were making huge money through illegal acts. They got Al Capone in this manner but he was in a tight spot, declare all his earnings and pay the tax but then prove that he was a bootlegger and racketeer while doing so. Either course of action means Jail.

Not WW I but Napolionic wars. Introduced in 1798 by W. Pitt and repaled by Addington in 1802 but brought back in 1803. It has been a political promise to be abolished but never was, so still here today.

Idbatterim

L1011 wrote: »

Ran. They ran on that platform two years ago and lost all their seats

They are now a single issue hard right Catholic party.

You appear to be the only person who hasn't noticed that

Hard right lol. Fg must be hard left then supporting massive public service pay and pensions, massive welfare and extortionate income tax rates over a very low threshold?

L1011

Renua don't have economic policies of any description - their single issue is Catholic-viewpoint social issues - so you're still fighting the wrong thing.

Their 2016 GE policies are gone and never coming back. You need to realise that. Creighton will probably be back in FG to run for Europe next summer

FreudianSlippers

Rennaws wrote: »

I understand both. Is there some other secret meaning to these words that Im not aware of ?

No - I'm just making an observation. Those who seem to lack a fundamental understanding of government subsidy tend to use the word "subvention" whereas those that do tend to understand it use the word "subsidy".

I'm not making a claim that there is any manifest difference between the two words; it's just my observation as to the use of the word.

No offence, but I haven't a clue what you're point is

Maybe if you re write it in intelligible English i'll be in a position to respond..