Is anyone paying tax?

Antares35

Antares35 wrote: »

I worked with someone who once told me she was booking Lanzarote for Christmas because she "hadn't used up her sick leave" that year. It was approximately ten years ago that conversation took place. Same person also in receipt of a "productivity allowance" notwithstanding she'd have been more productive staying at home. Basically, she got an extra 15percent because she joined the gravy train pre 94 or something. I've no doubt that many of the late comers to the PS are underpaid and unfairly tarred with the same brush, but some of the fúckin Jurassic deadwood in there with their entitlement mentality are a joke, and we won't even be rid of their burdensome legacy til they kick the bucket, because they have their gold plated DB pensions to be paid.

In over 20 years in the civil service, and I've never heard of a "productivity allowance" or anyone getting an 15% extra for being Pre-95 (as I am).

In fact, if anything it was those that joined after 1995 have the better deal, as their payscales are higher then pre-95.

I've also never heard of anyone "using up their sick leave" as sick leave does not refresh itself at the end of every year. Sick leave is counted over a rolling period. That hasn't changed.

So yeah, whatever. More myths.

Antares35

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Yes, there is a simple solution.

Deduction of child maintenance at source, no excuses of "I can't afford it" accepted, and vigourously enforced.

No child maintenance paid, no driving licence, or sit in a jail cell until you figure out a way to pay it. It works in US.

I wonder how many guys would be as reckless about spreading their seed if they were actually made take responsiblity for it? A man actually said on another thread "why should a man be responsible when welfare will pay for it?"

That's the attitude you should take issue with, not the woman trying to raise a baby on a pittance of a welfare payment.

Child maintenance can be and is means tested and wages garnished ("deducted at source") by the courts.

Pataman

Pataman wrote: »

Wow. I thought this topic was tax avoidance! Talk about going off topic

It went off topic because as usual, someone had to turn it into:

"why should I pay tax when the money just goes to pay for Becky and her six kids" and some public service bashing.

Antares35

Antares35 wrote: »

Child maintenance can be and is means tested and wages garnished ("deducted at source") by the courts.

Not in this country its not.

Not unless there is a established history of defaulting on payments, followed by a failure to enforce, followed by a failure to pay arrears, followed by an application for an attachment of earnings order, (for which you must know where the defaulter works) and if granted (which is rare) the order is made on the employer of the defaulter to deduct at source and transfer to the courts. Not the defaultee themself.

If the defaultee changes jobs, the order doesn't follow, and the whole process has to start again. There is no automatic garnishing of salary by the courts.

Maintenance is also means tested based on "affordability" not actual costs.

PCeeeee

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Maintenance is also means tested based on "affordability" not actual costs.

So maintainace should where necessary exceed the ability to pay?

A sensible solution.

PCeeeee

PCeeeee wrote: »

So maintainace should where necessary exceed the ability to pay?

A sensible solution.

That's not what I said. But supporting your children should come before certain other expenses, especially lifestyle choices.

I've seen affidavits of means where repayment of loans for holidays or for brand new cars were used as the reason for applying to the courts for a reduction in child maintenance.

feargale

Idbatterim wrote: »

Giving it to working people or for the wasters in government to squander on themselves or wasters, tough choice... I pay everything cash, tips , mechanics hairdressers etc, trades people etc...

If eveyone took that view there would be no government. So, nothing for nothing. Can we take it that you will be declining the free Covid vaccine?

TuringBot47

Deleted User wrote: »

It went off topic because as usual, someone had to turn it into:

"why should I pay tax when the money just goes to pay for Becky and her six kids" and some public service bashing.

Which is still a fair question.
Deserves a thread on it's own, but the age of uncontrolled population growth can't last forever. Paying the Pennys pyjama brigade to raise a pack of feral kids isn't a good use of my hard earned money.
Seems like only salaried PAYE workers are making positive contributions.

This thread is about the tax thieves.
The car garages operating down a lane saying they don't take cards, the local barbers who only take cash, and hairdressers who work in their houses for cash, the child minders who take cash in hand, the plumbers who only take cash etc, etc, etc....

TuringBot47

TuringBot47 wrote: »

Which is still a fair question.
Deserves a thread on it's own, but the age of uncontrolled population growth can't last forever. Paying the Pennys pyjama brigade to raise a pack of feral kids isn't a good use of my hard earned money.
Seems like only salaried PAYE workers are making positive contributions.

This thread is about the tax thieves.
The car garages operating down a lane saying they don't take cards, the local barbers who only take cash, and hairdressers who work in their houses for cash, the child minders who take cash in hand, the plumbers who only take cash etc, etc, etc....

Well then, all I ask is the next time you read or hear somone bashing single mothers *(who are welfare dependant) you remember that any father who is not contributing to the support of those kids is also a thief of your tax.

klose

I've always wondered about people doing cash in hand jobs and only declaring X amount to the revenue. Probably great for the time being but in trouble when looking for a mortgage/big loan?

TuringBot47

Deleted User wrote: »

Well then, all I ask is the next time you read or hear somone bashing single mothers you remember that any father who is not contributing to the support of those kids is also a thief of your tax.

Don't worry, I have the same level of respect for both sides who are unable to pay for their own children and cannot understand basic family planning/contraception.

Mules

I don't think the courts tell the full story about maintenance. Most of the women I know who are on lone parents payment have a partner living in the house. You can't get lone parents if you let the social welfare know that. It's worth a lot, especially if you have a lot of kids because the payments increase with each dependent. Anyway, what ever the rights and wrongs of it, the system, as it stands enables fraud.

riclad

there are lone parents who live with their family, some are living in hotels .i do not think the system we have is perfect ,but it works .many electricians do work that requires them to get a cert from the esb,
so the revenue can track most of the work they do.
taxi drivers have meters in the car ,it records all miles driven with a passenger .i think most people pay tax.All self employed people have to make a tax return.
Say you make a tax return, it would look odd if your mortgage payments are 15k ,per year ,but you only earn 20k.
To say no one pays tax is to presume everyone wants to be dishonest

Dual wheels

moycullen14 wrote: »

Over the last 12 months, I've had a fair bit of work done on the house involving various trades: plumber, carpenter, painter, etc.

Each and every one insisted on being paid in cash. no invoice, nothing. whatever about the morality of it, the annual income tax returns for these people must make interesting reading. How much is actually being declared for tax? Or is it something else that I'm missing.

This isn't a rant or begrudgery, I'm just intrigued about how widespread it is.

Don’t be ruining it for the punters, I couldn’t give a continental what tax they pay all I want is the cheapest price possible everything else is their own business

Dual wheels

Mules wrote: »

I don't think the courts tell the full story about maintenance. Most of the women I know who are on lone parents payment have a partner living in the house. You can't get lone parents if you let the social welfare know that. It's worth a lot, especially if you have a lot of kids because the payments increase with each dependent. Anyway, what ever the rights and wrongs of it, the system, as it stands enables fraud.

I actually don’t know any lone mother who lives alone but they all claim, it should be called ‘the mother shacked up with fella who may or may not be the father of one of your children but definitely isn’t the father of the other seven grant’

Ginger83

I employed a building contractor for work a while ago and a council grant was paying for it.

When the job was done I asked for a vat invoice to reclaim the vat and they tried to convince me that I didn't pay vat and it was a cash job.

Does anyone know of Councils doing cash work?

mulbot

klose wrote: »

I've always wondered about people doing cash in hand jobs and only declaring X amount to the revenue. Probably great for the time being but in trouble when looking for a mortgage/big loan?

Just show enough for what you need.

wonski

klose wrote: »

I've always wondered about people doing cash in hand jobs and only declaring X amount to the revenue. Probably great for the time being but in trouble when looking for a mortgage/big loan?

Why would you need a loan if you don't pay tax

The Belly

Allinall wrote: »

Knowingly facilitating tax evasion is as bad as tax evasion itself.

In a perfect world, that's true but the playing field is not level. So it's no surprise.

Mules

Mules wrote: »

I don't think the courts tell the full story about maintenance. Most of the women I know who are on lone parents payment have a partner living in the house. You can't get lone parents if you let the social welfare know that. It's worth a lot, especially if you have a lot of kids because the payments increase with each dependent. Anyway, what ever the rights and wrongs of it, the system, as it stands enables fraud.

If thats the case, then its not a "lone parent" defrauding social welfare - its a couple defrauding social welfare.

Again, an example were both are responsible, but the blame is usually only laid on one half of the couple?

If you live with someone who is defrauding, then you are as complicit as they are.

Mules

Deleted User wrote: »

If thats the case, then its not a "lone parent" defrauding social welfare - its a couple defrauding social welfare.

Again, an example were both are responsible, but the blame is only laid on one?

If you live with someone who is defrauding, then you are as complicit as they are.

I'm pretty sure that legally speaking the claimant is the only one at fault. The couldnt be going after everyone who knows about someone committing fraud. The gards would have to arrest half the country

dxhound2005

Mules wrote: »

I don't think the courts tell the full story about maintenance. Most of the women I know who are on lone parents payment have a partner living in the house. You can't get lone parents if you let the social welfare know that. It's worth a lot, especially if you have a lot of kids because the payments increase with each dependent. Anyway, what ever the rights and wrongs of it, the system, as it stands enables fraud.

Fraud which you can report anonymously. You have lots of information, so no excuses.

https://www.welfare.ie/en/Pages/secure/ReportFraud.aspx

Stihl waters

A very confusing thread, is it about single mothers or painters not paying tax

Mules

dxhound2005 wrote: »

Fraud which you can report anonymously. You have lots of information, so no excuses.

https://www.welfare.ie/en/Pages/secure/ReportFraud.aspx

Ah here, this isn't the Soviet union. I'm not going to go around informing on people.

dxhound2005

Mules wrote: »

Ah here, this isn't the Soviet union. I'm not going to go around informing on people.

None of those women will know it was you.

Mules

dxhound2005 wrote: »

None of those women will know it was you.

I don't care! I'm still not doing it

Mules

Mules wrote: »

I'm pretty sure that legally speaking the claimant is the only one at fault. The couldnt be going after everyone who knows about someone committing fraud. The gards would have to arrest half the country

I said complicit, not legally.

While the second half of the couple may not be held to account by DEASP, that doesn't mean they haven't participated in the fraud.

But thats part of the problem in this country, isn't it? Everyone looking for a loophole why they shouldn't be held accountable.

dxhound2005

Mules wrote: »

I don't care! I'm still not doing it

You would be stopping a lot of fraud.

Kimbot

MOD right folks, enough of the back and forth on single mothers/fathers,if you wish to discuss it then create a new thread for it, if one doesn't already exist.

So with that said, back on topic please.

Mules

dxhound2005 wrote: »

You would be stopping a lot of fraud.

Perhaps but the 'don't rat' thing is well ingrained in me