Income Tax decreases on the way?

antimatterx

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/state-s-tax-rates-a-major-disincentive-for-remote-workers-says-varakdar-1.4591155

So looks like Leo is trying to make Ireland stay competitive. I think it's good he's saying this, and it's not the first time he's mentioned tax decreases.

I think at a start the standard rate cut off point needs to move up towards the 50K mark. Then slowly reduce the other income taxes.

VinLieger

antimatterx wrote: »

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/state-s-tax-rates-a-major-disincentive-for-remote-workers-says-varakdar-1.4591155

So looks like Leo is trying to make Ireland stay competitive. I think it's good he's saying this, and it's not the first time he's mentioned tax decreases.

I think at a start the standard rate cut off point needs to move up towards the 50K mark. Then slowly reduce the other income taxes.

After a year plus of covid supports? Lol

RulesOfNature

Welcome to the spin.

Tax will only go up.

champchamp

USC needs to go as promised.

ThunbergsAreGo

I think we have heard this before from Leo, he has failed to do anything each time.

Need to keep the taxes up to keep the gravy train running choo choo

SF, FG, FF are indistinguishable

ulster

antimatterx wrote: »

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/state-s-tax-rates-a-major-disincentive-for-remote-workers-says-varakdar-1.4591155

So looks like Leo is trying to make Ireland stay competitive. I think it's good he's saying this, and it's not the first time he's mentioned tax decreases.

I think at a start the standard rate cut off point needs to move up towards the 50K mark. Then slowly reduce the other income taxes.

Leo's a tosser. Can't believe that prick still holds office.

Darc19

A mid rate combined with a higher high rate would be an ideal solution.

Single person

0% to 18k
20% to 36k
32% to circa €54k
44% on balance

washman3

antimatterx wrote: »

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/state-s-tax-rates-a-major-disincentive-for-remote-workers-says-varakdar-1.4591155

So looks like Leo is trying to make Ireland stay competitive. I think it's good he's saying this, and it's not the first time he's mentioned tax decreases.

I think at a start the standard rate cut off point needs to move up towards the 50K mark. Then slowly reduce the other income taxes.

The most disturbing thing about this is there are actually people out there that believe this load of waffle.!! incredible.


P.S. is it any coincidence that FG dropped 4% in the latest opinion pole.???

ThunbergsAreGo

washman3 wrote: »

The most disturbing thing about this is there are actually people out there that believe this load of waffle.!! incredible.


P.S. is it any coincidence that FG dropped 4% in the latest opinion pole.???

Ah here some think SF want to solve the housing crises....

SeaFields

Excellent. He has finally decided to look after the people that get up in the morning...oh wait... That was supposed to be done years ago.

jammiedodgers

lawred2

antimatterx wrote: »

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/state-s-tax-rates-a-major-disincentive-for-remote-workers-says-varakdar-1.4591155

So looks like Leo is trying to make Ireland stay competitive. I think it's good he's saying this, and it's not the first time he's mentioned tax decreases.

I think at a start the standard rate cut off point needs to move up towards the 50K mark. Then slowly reduce the other income taxes.

Pfffft

He's uttered the same countless times before.

lawred2

champchamp wrote: »

USC needs to go as promised.

Hahahaha

More likely to be folded into income tax to make way for another charge

washman3

ThunbergsAreGo wrote: »

Ah here some think SF want to solve the housing crises....

By giving free foreva homes to all their voters....:):)

coastwatch

antimatterx wrote: »

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/state-s-tax-rates-a-major-disincentive-for-remote-workers-says-varakdar-1.4591155

So looks like Leo is trying to make Ireland stay competitive. I think it's good he's saying this, and it's not the first time he's mentioned tax decreases.

I think at a start the standard rate cut off point needs to move up towards the 50K mark. Then slowly reduce the other income taxes.

Leo is spot on. He knows more than most, the importance of income tax to irish economy.
Where do people think all the money comes from?

FromADistance

antimatterx wrote: »

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/state-s-tax-rates-a-major-disincentive-for-remote-workers-says-varakdar-1.4591155

So looks like Leo is trying to make Ireland stay competitive. I think it's good he's saying this, and it's not the first time he's mentioned tax decreases.

I think at a start the standard rate cut off point needs to move up towards the 50K mark. Then slowly reduce the other income taxes.

Leo the populist strikes again... I say this as someone who lives in his constituency, and voted for him in the last election; he is utterly useless as a local representative. His team on the ground are also fairly useless. There won't be any tax decreases coming anytime soon... let's not delude ourselves about that.

coastwatch

FromADistance wrote: »

Leo the populist strikes again... I say this as someone who lives in his constituency, and voted for him in the last election; he is utterly useless as a local representative. His team on the ground are also fairly useless. There won't be any tax decreases coming anytime soon... let's not delude ourselves about that.

He wasn't suggesting reductions in income tax for people living here.
More likely suggesting lower taxes for remote workers of companies located here.

tjhook

coastwatch wrote: »

He wasn't suggesting reductions in income tax for people living here.
More likely suggesting lower taxes for remote workers of companies located here.

It could easily be something like this... The government recognised some time ago that our tax rates on higher earners aren't competitive with other countries. We had difficulty attracting foreign executives. So they reduced income tax.... for foreign executives moving here. The rest of us can stick with the unattractive high tax rates.

However, I thought the challenge for Ireland with remote workers is that if they're based in another country, they pay taxes there rather than here. So the Irish rate makes no difference to them.

No, I think this is just a sound-bite. Have to say something to appeal to their traditional voter base, even if there's no intent to follow through on it.

FromADistance

coastwatch wrote: »

He wasn't suggesting reductions in income tax for people living here.
More likely suggesting lower taxes for remote workers of companies located here.

I could do my job remotely from anywhere with good broadband but I also have a mortgage that I need to service. Someone will have to pay for Leo's populism. Leo is cute enough when it comes to topics of the day... he's nothing but a naked populist.

Seth Brundle

FromADistance wrote: »

he's nothing but a naked populist.

Name one Irish politician that isnt :rolleyes:

Jinglejangle69

ulster wrote: »

Leo's a tosser. Can't believe that prick still holds office.

He has though.

What about yourself?

JimmyCorkhill

If tax goes up, I sincerely hope the dole/welfare goes down.

Antares35

JimmyCorkhill wrote: »

If tax goes up, I sincerely hope the dole/welfare goes down.

Cutting spending won't even occur to them as an option.

Jinglejangle69

Antares35 wrote: »

Cutting spending won't even occur to them as an option.

It should though as they get zero votes from that cohort.

You can't be everyones friend.

JimmyCorkhill

Antares35 wrote: »

Cutting spending won't even occur to them as an option.

Probably not, just another case of screw those who want to work and make not working more attractive to those who want to avoid a hard days labour.

Fann Linn

Leotheliar promised to remove USC. Can't be trusted.

W1ll1s

The Secret IRS Files: Trove of Never-Before-Seen Records Reveal How the Wealthiest Avoid Income Tax

https://www.propublica.org/article/the-secret-irs-files-trove-of-never-before-seen-records-reveal-how-the-wealthiest-avoid-income-tax

ThunbergsAreGo

JimmyCorkhill wrote: »

Probably not, just another case of screw those who want to work and make not working more attractive to those who want to avoid a hard days labour.

Increasing welfare is mentioned there sure.

Make work less attractive, the mantra of Irish politics

_Kaiser_

You can be sure that anything they give back will be more than made up by what they take through things like the upcoming hikes to property tax, increased carbon charges, and no doubt several more yet to come.

Rainmann

We should have more bands, the highest rate comes in way too early, 35k or something. Also, USC is painful. I will believe it when I see it, he has been saying this for ages.

kravmaga

antimatterx wrote: »

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/state-s-tax-rates-a-major-disincentive-for-remote-workers-says-varakdar-1.4591155

So looks like Leo is trying to make Ireland stay competitive. I think it's good he's saying this, and it's not the first time he's mentioned tax decreases.

I think at a start the standard rate cut off point needs to move up towards the 50K mark. Then slowly reduce the other income taxes.

This is spin doctor guru rubbish, there is not way income tax is going to decrease, if anything its going to increase. We have borrowed billions since covid 19 visited us in March 2020

Revenue need more money in the state coffers not less. Revenue are looking at everything LPT is being adjusted, CAT , Inheritance and Gift tax is all under the microscope.

Also I suspect USC is here to stay

tjhook

Rainmann wrote: »

Also, USC is painful. I will believe it when I see it, he has been saying this for ages.

I used to feel like that. But now I think USC is one of the fairer taxes. Almost everybody pays it. Those at the top can't easily avoid it, and even those with modest pay contribute something.

If they got rid of USC and rolled it onto PAYE instead, we'd only have the usual cohort of middle earners contributing meaningfully, so the rate would need to be higher.

ineedeuro

Everyone should have to pay tax. It is alarming with all the people unemployed during covid the income tax never reduced. This confirms huge parts of the country are actually contributing nothing. The same people who are probably complaining about not getting a free this and a free that.

We should have no wage on a 0% tax rate.

champchamp

champchamp wrote: »

USC needs to go as promised.

Yeah right, USC plus COVID levy more like

ineedeuro

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

You can be sure that anything they give back will be more than made up by what they take through things like the upcoming hikes to property tax, increased carbon charges, and no doubt several more yet to come.

I have no idea why anyone in this day & age expect's any government to suddenly cut the tax intake. They can't.

THis would suggest a rebalance of tax, which based on covid shows the current system is completely unfair

Geuze

ineedeuro wrote: »

Everyone should have to pay tax. It is alarming with all the people unemployed the income tax never reduced. This confirms huge parts of the country are actually contributing nothing. The same people who are probably complaining about not getting a free this and a free that.

We should have no wage on a 0% tax rate.

That is a reasonable point.

Are you saying that any income, no matter how low, should face some tax?

At the moment, here are the starting points:

(1) income tax starts at 16,500 for a typical single person
(2) the PRSI exemption is 352 pw / 18,304 pa
(4) USC starts at 13,000


I suggest abolishing the PRSI exemption, and re-introducing the PRSI-free allowance at 100 per week.

This means starting paying PRSI at 100 per week.

That means all low paid earners under 18k would pay PRSI on anything over 100 per week.

Geuze

Overall income tax revenue can't be reduced, if anything it needs to rise.

Of course the 2021 and 2022 recovery, with more people back in work, will naturally lead to more income tax paid.


What can happen is the very high marginal tax rates faced by average earners could be changed.

ineedeuro

Geuze wrote: »

That is a reasonable point.

Are you saying that any income, no matter how low, should face some tax?

At the moment, here are the starting points:

(1) income tax starts at 16,500 for a typical single person
(2) the PRSI exemption is 352 pw / 18,304 pa
(4) USC starts at 13,000


I suggest abolishing the PRSI exemption, and re-introducing the PRSI-free allowance at 100 per week.

This means starting paying PRSI at 100 per week.

That means all low paid earners under 18k would pay PRSI on anything over 100 per week.

It’s the same group of people constantly getting hit, for everything and yet they are the people who are given no help

I don’t see why everyone should give something, I don’t know enough to work out what that is but it should be something

lawred2

tjhook wrote: »

I used to feel like that. But now I think USC is one of the fairer taxes. Almost everybody pays it. Those at the top can't easily avoid it, and even those with modest pay contribute something.

If they got rid of USC and rolled it onto PAYE instead, we'd only have the usual cohort of middle earners contributing meaningfully, so the rate would need to be higher.

USC has already been hollowed out at the bottom

If we middle class paid less taxes, who would fund the welfare class?

We have to support those who refuse to work, and pay for their many, many children that they don't look after.

That's the Irish way.

Jinglejangle69

[Deleted User] wrote: »

If we middle class paid less taxes, who would fund the welfare class?

We have to support those who refuse to work, and pay for their many, many children that they don't look after.

That's the Irish way.

And their 1400 a month HAP cause they would be "homeless"

ineedeuro

Deleted User wrote: »

If we middle class paid less taxes, who would fund the welfare class?

We have to support those who refuse to work, and pay for their many, many children that they don't look after.

That's the Irish way.

I would love to see a complete overhaul of the system. Covid should make everyone look at the current system.
Very few people who work get a "Christmas bonus" I don't see why this is required? the argument to say oh its pushed back into the economy is terrible. Why not give the money back to the tax payer so they can use the money themselves? it will end up back in the economy as well.

The children allowance system is no longer fit for purpose, people should have children if they can afford them, not use them as a means to get additional money. Again the argument to say "oh we need more kids to re-populate Ireland" is not true, people who have two jobs etc can't afford more children because of the taxes they are paying.

Will it happen? no but we can dream

ineedeuro

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

And their 1400 a month HAP cause they would be "homeless"

HAP should be scrapped

Irish Praetorian

Time for my regular reminder on the issue; whatever complaints you have about Social Welfare spending, remember the biggest part of that is Pensions. And that is a part of the budget which is growing at a rapid pace, 50% (from 6 billion to 9 billion annually) over the last ten years. Conversely, spending on working age income supports (primarily JSA and JSB) has gone from nearly 7 billion to a little over 3 billion from 2011 to 2019.

Meanwhile with the tightening up of things like payments to one-parent families, the spending on children has remained more or less the same. More's the pity, because this is one area where I really don't think the government should be too tight on the purse strings.

Irish Praetorian

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

Conversely, spending on working age income supports (primarily JSA and JSB) has gone from nearly 7 billion to a little over 3 billion from 2011 to 2019.

There is a very obvious reason for this change.

Also, you chose a ten year period for pensions, but stopped at 2019 for JSA. Convenient.

Irish Praetorian

Deleted User wrote: »

There is a very obvious reason for this change.

Yes the lingering effects of the great recession, that is certainly very fair. However, I think my central point remains; we spend about as much on Jobseekers payments as we do on child benefits, and there may not be so much space to cut there. At least not without getting inventive.

EDIT: I see you added the second part

Also, you chose a ten year period for pensions, but stopped at 2019 for JSA. Convenient.

Yes it's almost as if we had a worldwide pandemic and an enormous PUP system to calculate which I didn't want to contaminate the overall trends with.

ineedeuro

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

Time for my regular reminder on the issue; whatever complaints you have about Social Welfare spending, remember the biggest part of that is Pensions. And that is a part of the budget which is growing at a rapid pace, 50% (from 6 billion to 9 billion annually) over the last ten years. Conversely, spending on working age income supports (primarily JSA and JSB) has gone from nearly 7 billion to a little over 3 billion from 2011 to 2019.

Meanwhile with the tightening up of things like payments to one-parent families, the spending on children has remained more or less the same. More's the pity, because this is one area where I really don't think the government should be too tight on the purse strings.

The problem I see with the current system, people who are working, holding down two jobs etc can’t afford children, yet the people who have no work cAn. How exactly is that sensible?

What exactly will happen in the future if this trend continues? Never mind pension, who is going to pay for anything?

Irish Praetorian

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

Yes the lingering effects of the great recession, that is certainly very fair. However, I think my central point remains; we spend about as much on Jobseekers payments as we do on child benefits, and there may not be so much space to cut there. At least not without getting inventive.

EDIT: I see you added the second part



Yes it's almost as if we had a worldwide pandemic and an enormous PUP system to calculate which I didn't want to contaminate the overall trends with.

It's almost as if JSA is cyclical. Weird. So comparing it to the pension is pointless.

Irish Praetorian

ineedeuro wrote: »

The problem I see with the current system, people who are working, holding down two jobs etc can’t afford children, yet the people who have no work cAn. How exactly is that sensible?

What exactly will happen in the future if this trend continues? Never mind pension, who is going to pay for anything?

That would be where my thinking lies and where I think the change ought to be made. If there are people in need of relief it is the class of dual income individuals, hemmed in by mortgage payments and having to seriously re-consider raising a family due to the expense. That is where we should focus things like child benefit - not as cash payments for those not paying tax, but as tax credits which can be of particular benefit to those families who are already making sizeable contributions to the government coffer.

We really need to make sure that the fundamental drive of humans, to work, settle down, have a family, etc, remains within the reach of those who work hard and pay hard, and doesn't end up outsourced to those with little/no income who are dependent on the state.

Irish Praetorian

Deleted User wrote: »

It's almost as if JSA is cyclical. Weird. So comparing it to the pension is pointless.

No there is quite a big point to comparing it with the Jobseeker payments - scale. One grows and shows no sign of abating, the other might well wax and wane. Ultimately, I don't think we'll be worrying so much about the Jobseekers bill in ten years time as much as we might be worrying about the pension bill.

javaboy

Geuze wrote: »

Of course the 2021 and 2022 recovery, with more people back in work, will naturally lead to more income tax paid.

As has been said already, income tax receipts apparently didn’t fall all that much. The jobs lost and hopefully regained soon were not generally highly paid or taxed.