How much is this all going to cost and who will pay for it ?

Eric Cartman

Graham wrote: »

Then the director pays full tax on the amount whenever they take it out of the company.

Your cunning plan has just cost an additional 12.5%

not necessarily , you can stack cash in a company (well as much as your turnover plus a little more) and when you retire you can sell/close the company and take the lot as a lump sum with a severely reduced tax bill from the 50% marginal. its pretty effective and a lot of people do this to give them a cheeky half million quid on top of the pension they've been piling into. Some others just stack cash and their retirement the company doesn't trade but continues to pay them out just over the marginal cap until the money is all gone.

threeball

na1 wrote: »

I did. You can expense many things that ordinary employee couldn't. Including house bills and travel expenses

If they werent business related you're breaking the law. I assume you can explain it all when you're audited. Btw if they dont like one thing they will audit you every year thereafter.

Eric Cartman

na1 wrote: »

I did. You can expense many things that ordinary employee couldn't. Including house bills and travel expenses

mate be super careful with the household bills, if you've a room dedicated as an office measure the square footage and take it as a percentage of the whole square footage of your house (including the garden shed or garage if it has power or water going to it) and thats the percentage you can claim. Revenue will come out with a measuring tape.

threeball

Eric Cartman wrote: »

not necessarily , you can stack cash in a company (well as much as your turnover plus a little more) and when you retire you can sell/close the company and take the lot as a lump sum with a severely reduced tax bill from the 50% marginal. its pretty effective and a lot of people do this to give them a cheeky half million quid on top of the pension they've been piling into. Some others just stack cash and their retirement the company doesn't trade but continues to pay them out just over the marginal cap until the money is all gone.

So they are paying tax at the income tax rate plus 12.5%. Whats the advantage? Why is this somehow cheating the system. Its a guarantee of pension rather than handing it to a fund who tell you it disappeared on bank shares that crashed in 20yrs time.

Eric Cartman

threeball wrote: »

So they are paying tax at the income tax rate plus 12.5%. Whats the advantage? Why is this somehow cheating the system. Its a guarantee of pension rather than handing it to a fund who tell you it disappeared on bank shares that crashed in 20yrs time.

basically yes you guarantee your pension and avoid the higher tax band by deferring it + some stuff with expenses, overall it works out as a saving.

threeball

Eric Cartman wrote: »

basically yes you guarantee your pension and avoid the higher tax band by deferring it + some stuff with expenses, overall it works out as a saving.

You're not saving anything. You're just taking the money earned over a longer period. Well deserved if youre daft enough to become self employed in the first place.

Eric Cartman

threeball wrote: »

You're not saving anything. You're just taking the money earned over a longer period. Well deserved if youre daft enough to become self employed in the first place.

I don't know any better at this point :pac: after 15 years I wouldn't even want to fathom what my CV would look like "I see your references are yourself and your only two forms of work experience are two different companies in which you just did whatever you thought could make money at the time"

coolshannagh28

KyussB wrote: »

The tax discussion is a waste of time - when you are entering deflation, you pull back taxes, not increase them - in order to help stimulate demand. You simultaneously pull back taxes and increase spending.

The best way to reverse the redistribution of wealth to the powerful minority, is simply to have a government that's willing to spend big enough to prop up GDP, and ensure the average joe still has work and good supports, in times of economic crisis.

That has been going on since 2007 successfully so far but I do fear that the money tree will wither and die .

tdf7187

IAMAMORON wrote: »

Hopefully Sinn Féin, they have promised to pay for everything else.

It wasnt SF that brought in the bankers and property developers bailout that is NAMA.

bosco12345

Hi all,
I have a query in regards the Covid-19 payment of 350 euro. I am currently a student and I have received the 350 weekly. However, I am wondering if I will be taxed on this at the end of the year? I've heard some people mention that do not spend this money as you will have to repay this money at some stage. Is that true? In my part time job I have only earned about 500 euro from the start of January and I was going to use this covid-19 money to repay my tuition fees.
Any response would be appreciated,
thanks

Eric Cartman

bosco12345 wrote: »

Hi all,
I have a query in regards the Covid-19 payment of 350 euro. I am currently a student and I have received the 350 weekly. However, I am wondering if I will be taxed on this at the end of the year? I've heard some people mention that do not spend this money as you will have to repay this money at some stage. Is that true? In my part time job I have only earned about 500 euro from the start of January and I was going to use this covid-19 money to repay my tuition fees.
Any response would be appreciated,
thanks

it'll be assessed for tax but If your entire pay for 2020 Is under 18k you won't be paying anything.

noodler

tdf7187 wrote: »

It wasnt SF that brought in the bankers and property developers bailout that is NAMA.

NAMA turning a profit for the taxpayer.

The primary fear upon inception was that we paid too much for the loans.

salonfire

tdf7187 wrote: »

It wasnt SF that brought in the bankers and property developers bailout that is NAMA.

No they'd have us scavenging the bins like they did in Greece!

Oh if only SF were in power, we wouldn't know ourselves!!

MyTax Ireland

bosco12345 wrote: »

Hi all,
I have a query in regards the Covid-19 payment of 350 euro. I am currently a student and I have received the 350 weekly. However, I am wondering if I will be taxed on this at the end of the year? I've heard some people mention that do not spend this money as you will have to repay this money at some stage. Is that true? In my part time job I have only earned about 500 euro from the start of January and I was going to use this covid-19 money to repay my tuition fees.
Any response would be appreciated,
thanks

You won't pay tax if your income for 2020 is less than €18k.

FYI - if you do pay tax, you might be entitle to tax back on those tuition fees.

bosco12345

MyTax Ireland wrote: »

You won't pay tax if your income for 2020 is less than €18k.

FYI - if you do pay tax, you might be entitle to tax back on those tuition fees.

Thanks for your reply. In regards my tuition fees it was my parents that payed for my tuition fees and I will be paying them back. So your saying my parents will be entitled to tax back on my tuition fees? They were 10500 for a masters degree, how much would you think they will get back?

jimmycrackcorm

bosco12345 wrote: »

Thanks for your reply. In regards my tuition fees it was my parents that payed for my tuition fees and I will be paying them back. So your saying my parents will be entitled to tax back on my tuition fees? They were 10500 for a masters degree, how much would you think they will get back?

They can claim back 20% on 7000 of those fees (the first 3000 is disregarded, usually the registration fee).

Balf

noodler wrote: »

NAMA turning a profit for the taxpayer.

The primary fear upon inception was that we paid too much for the loans.

Not really.

The primary fear was that NAMA would effectively mean the full debt would not be collected, with that write-off being covered by that taxpayer and hidden by spin, to the effect that if NAMA was making a profit there was nothing more to see.

And that's what happened.

pure.conya

salonfire wrote: »

No they'd have us scavenging the bins like they did in Greece!

Oh if only SF were in power, we wouldn't know ourselves!!

And if you want to hear EXACTLY how the greeks and Yanis Varoufakis were screwed over by the IMF/troika here you go

https://www.keeptalkinggreece.com/2020/02/14/varoufakis-to-release-eurogorup-recordings-euroleaks/

eleventh

^ link not working

is_that_so

pure.conya wrote: »

And if you want to hear EXACTLY how the greeks and Yanis Varoufakis were screwed over by the IMF/troika here you go

https://www.keeptalkinggreece.com/2020/02/14/varoufakis-to-release-eurogorup-recordings-euroleaks/

The Greeks shafted themselves by playing silly buggers every time a deadline came up, never mind the continued and brazen economy of truth over what they had been up to. Varoufakis spent his time faffing around with high stakes game theory to such an extent the Greeks were told to leave him at home for Eu meetings.

Pa ElGrande

ECB shakes off limits on new €750bn bond-buying plan

The European Central Bank has given itself an unprecedented level of flexibility in its plan to buy €750 billion in additional bonds to contain the financial fallout from the coronavirus pandemic, which analysts say could leave it open to legal challenges.

Almost all constraints that applied to the ECB’s previous asset-purchase programmes have been removed or significantly loosened, according to the legal decision detailing the ECB’s latest plan, which was published on Wednesday night in the official journal of the EU.

<snip>

Mr Ducrozet said “this also changes everything” because about three-quarters of Germany’s planned €150 billion of extra borrowing this year will be in the form of bills with a maturity below one year and these will now be eligible to be bought by the ECB.

source

Ireland a big winner from €2.5trn ECB bond-buying scheme
April 04 2019

In just over four years to the end of 2018, the ECB's Asset Purchase Programme bought over €2.5trn worth of securities, including more than €30bn of Irish government bonds.

Purchasing bonds on this enormous scale - quantitative easing - has been put in place by central banks across the world.

Their bond purchases cut supply on the secondary market, pushing up prices and reducing the yield.

source

The Irish Government Bond Market and Quantitative Easing
April 2019

In January 2015, the ECB’s Governing Council decided to introduce the Public Sector Purchase Programme (PSPP), commonly known as quantitative easing (QE), to its suite of existing private sector asset purchase programmes. Under the PSPP, the Eurosystem purchased euro area bonds, issued by central governments, on a large scale in pursuit of its price stability objective2. This built on the existing private sector purchase programmes, the Third Covered Bond Purchase Programme (CBPP3) and the Asset-Backed Securities Purchase Programme (ABSPP), which were initiated in October and November 2014 respectively. The Corporate Sector Purchase Programme (CSPP) was added later, in June 2016

source

How will we pay for this? Why, transfer all the debt to the ECB, default and let the ECB go bankrupt . . . Then we revert back to the Irish Punt.

KyussB

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

..
How will we pay for this? Why, transfer all the debt to the ECB, default and let the ECB go bankrupt . . . Then we revert back to the Irish Punt.

This is why you don't do Libertarianism/Austrian-Economics, kids - just say no...

Pa ElGrande

KyussB wrote: »

This is why you don't do Libertarianism/Austrian-Economics, kids - just say no...

The ECB is not a bottomless money pit, sooner or later it will have to be recapitalised by it's shareholders or restructured, and that sets up a political dogfight between Germany and the Netherlands on one side and the other countries of the Eurozone. Some of these countries politicians have an axe to grind since the 2008 crisis. So yes with its current structure the ECB can go bankrupt.

The virus has only caused death and illness, the various government leaderships panicked economic shutdown brings forward a crisis that has been brewing a long time. Before this even kicked off the ECB was the primary provider of short-term funding in Europe as lending between banks had mostly shutdown since the end of last Summer. Where are you going to get collateral to back loans when economic activity is shutdown? Another consequence the ECB has destroyed the bond market for European debt in an effort to keep interest rates down and Mario Draghi got out just in the nick of time, there is going to be a political fight over how to resolve the free rider problem. The net effect of such a political crisis may be a series of bank runs as people lose confidence in the banking system. It is not the virus that caused the problem, the Euro area crisis has been building for some time.

Graham

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

The ECB is not a bottomless money pit, sooner or later it will have to be recapitalised by it's shareholders or restructured

Why?

Danzy

Graham wrote: »

Why?

There is a problem when the central bank becomes the long term primary financer, which is what is happening now.

There is also only so much that more low rates and cheap loans can do after years of them, not that they aren't welcome.

They are just diminished in effect.

Danzy

KyussB wrote: »

This is why you don't do Libertarianism/Austrian-Economics, kids - just say no...

Libertarianism is great until you start to live life.

Graham

Danzy wrote: »

There is a problem when the central bank becomes the long term primary financer, which is what is happening now.

There is also only so much that more low rates and cheap loans can do after years of them, not that they aren't welcome.

They are just diminished in effect.

Nothing there explains why the ECB will need to be recapitalised.

Pa ElGrande

Graham wrote: »

Why?

Central Banks as Fiscal Players
Willem H. Buiter, November 2019

The 19 national central banks (NCBs) hold significant amounts of assets for their own risk rather than on a risk-sharing basis and for some of these NCBs a significant share of these assets is subject to material credit risk. Because NCBs have no control over their issuance of central bank money – this is a collective decision taken by the Governing Council of the European Central Bank (ECB) – a central bank can go bankrupt – become insolvent. Effectively, all euro-denominated assets and liabilities of an NCB (and all euro-denominated Eurozone sovereign debt instruments) are foreign-currency-denominated financial instruments, both from the perspective of the issuers (including sovereigns) and from the perspective of the holders, including the NCBs.

source

If they want to adhere to their own rules then of course they can go bankrupt but this will depend on the political consensus reached with the main player in Europe i.e. Germany. Willem Buiter further points out, risks are often not shared, with national central banks responsible for the bulk of any losses incurred on their holdings of their own government’s debt. A


Karl Whelan also pointed out a few years ago the central banks do their own thing, so while they might be technically insolvent if the political will exists a comprise will be found.

If a central bank purchases assets that then decline in value, it could end up having negative capital. When a commercial bank has negative capital, it is termed insolvent and either re-capitalised or shut down. The “insolvent” terminology is sometimes applied to a central bank in this situation but, as I discuss below, central banks are unique organizations and this phrase isn’t particularly appropriate.

source

Danzy

Graham wrote: »

Nothing there explains why the ECB will need to be recapitalised.

That's true

noodler

Balf wrote: »

Not really.

The primary fear was that NAMA would effectively mean the full debt would not be collected, with that write-off being covered by that taxpayer and hidden by spin, to the effect that if NAMA was making a profit there was nothing more to see.

And that's what happened.

NAMA has collected more for the loans than it has paid, hence the profit.

If you are talking about the book value of the loans then you are being silly. There is a reason discounts of 55% were applied.

Trust me, the fear was the State would never get back the money paid and it has.

On that narrow but important metric, NAMA has succeeded.