Budget 2002

Cork

What do yet all think about the forthcoming budget?

I think Charlie McCreevy may be right to begin taxing our bloosstock industry and our artiests. For far too long – certain people have not been paying tax. Some of this was allowed by our state.

People should pay tax on their income. I don’t care – if we are talking about an artiest or horse person.

I also think that private money needs to be attracted to build hospitals, schools, broadband, roads, etc.

If is amazing that Ireland will probably have a national stadium – privately built. There has been 12 expressions of interest. Yet – the state could not built it.

When you look at state companies who get big subventions. They still seem to make losses. Yet – they seem content to chalk it down to providing public service.

I think Mr. McCreevy needs to flog these companies as soon as he can. Why does the state need a bus company, a pop radio station etc.

People who were on the Cork – Dublin train last Friday morning need no reminder of the service that is provided.

Charlie McCreevy needs to make sure monies are wisely spent. Yes – our health system needs investment – but investment needs to be spent well. Do people get the same level of care in small country hospitals? Are there specialists available at these hospitals? In all fairness – Some hospitals need to be shut down and others expanded.

Are our politicins willing to bite the bullet. Are the Irish public willing to pay taxes to provide subsidys to Inefficent public services?

*warning..possible rant ahead*

Well in fairness Cork, the first thing people should do when looking for some of the above things is vote for the parties that will bring them about.
And if that means not voting Fianna Fáil so be it.
you may say hundreds of times that they are the best of a bad bunch, but some start at voting else wherte has to be made.
Even if the local independent wants what you want, but in your eyes hasn't a hope of being elected, he/she surely wouldn't get elected if everyone had that attitude.

Clearly at the last election with the amount of independents elected there was a great void out there and that wasn't going to be filled by enda Kenny or John Bruton.
Speaking of FG,they have a campaign to bring back the first time buyers grant:rolleyes: Do they really think that thats going to happen? you get quickly conceived boring campaigns like that when you're at desperation point in the polls.
I know it was welcome money to new home owners but it was only robbing peter to pay paul as the builders all cleverly factored it into their prices.

I'm pretty sure Mary Harney is all for privatisation and sell offs, but the economic climate in shareworld doesn't suit that at the moment.

Regarding the ineffecient health service, well it's our political parties that have it in the mess it's in, making it heavy on the clerical side and light on the medical staff side.
And then theres all the jobs for the boys health boards that we do not need, nice for the politicians and their friends from all parties and none that sit on them.... did you see what expenses are being scrounged out of the system there in recent papers, at the cost of people dying on trollies:mad:

what you should really ask is , are the Irish people willing to vote for people who will impliment changes to end ineffeciencies or not??
And i'm afraid that meand leaving FF and the rest of the established parties down at the bottom of the list.

Regarding the seven hour trip from Cork to dublin the other day, I'm pretty sure that if people were given the sack for allowing that disgrace to happen, then trains would be given an oil change more often.
*probable rant over*
mm

sceptre

Originally posted by Cork
If is amazing that Ireland will probably have a national stadium – privately built. There has been 12 expressions of interest. Yet – the state could not built it.

Not amazing at all. The state doesn't have the cash to throw at it at the moment without borrowing a wad of cash. The money isn't in the bank.

If private investors are willing to build it and make a profit out of it that's entirely different. It won't cost the state much more money. Even if the builders avail of tax breaks there isn't any money actually leaving the state reserves to build it.

Perfectly simple really. Ten year old with a bank account could understand it.

Victor

This December will of course be Budget 2003.

mike65

It'll be a boring budget, no taxes cut, bands not widened, some tax breaks removed, a steep rise in the old favourites. Hey just like the old days. Maybe a "shock" announcement regarding the special Saving accounts and/or the pension fund.

Remember to fill your tank before 6 pm budget day.

Mike.

Cork

are the Irish people willing to vote for people who will impliment changes to end ineffeciencies or not??

I think that is about time - the artiests exemption thing went. I feel that the horse industry should be treated the same as every other industry.

To be fair Charlie McCreevy has radicalised our tax system, brought in incentives to start a pension & to save.

The first time buyers grant was not serving a purpose. It was a subsidy going to the builder. All first time buyers were getting it - so new homes had this subsidy included in their prices.

Originally posted by Cork
To be fair Charlie McCreevy has radicalised our tax system, brought in incentives to start a pension & to save.

*cough*
Improved private and public pensions yes, but any fool could have done that.
His decision to gamble the money put by for the state pension fund could have gone either way, and bad luck decimated the fund.Why didn't he put it on deposit with one of the banks,I'm sure they would have given him 5%.
It could have been better used to increase nurses wages and that of junior doctors to attract more of them into the system.

Indeed some investment could have been made on halving the huge clerical side to the health service.
The fact that no real effort is being made to do something radical with the health service even now means that , come the next election there will be plenty to moan about.

Oh no, when you look at the big picture,the tabloid journalism that is the Sunday World isn't far from the truth in the line they are taking on this government at the moment.
If it weren't for the fact that theres no opposition, I'd be saying be afraid FF, be afraid!
mm

Bateman

I think its a little naieve to talk about McGreedy "having the right" to tax the bloodstock and stud industries, but we will see, I may be wrong. FF have shown themselvs unwilling to tax those interests in which their own interests lie, and I just don't foresee a radical change in that policy.

Cork

FF have shown themselvs unwilling to tax those interests in which their own interests lie

Could you elaborate more here.

Everybody has a duty to pay tax. Artiests Exemption and the horse industry are some execpions.

What other sectors are not paying tax?

bonkey

Originally posted by Cork
Everybody has a duty to pay tax.

Assuming you're talking about income tax, you're so far off the mark with that statement that its laughable. If you're not talking about income tax, then I have no idea what general bracket you're referring to, because I know of no-one in this nation who can avoid paying (for example) VAT on personal purchases.

So - addressing income tax :

1) You must have an income before you can pay it in the first place. This automatically rules out a huge percentage of the population (underage, unemployed, retired, etc.)

2) It is not your duty ro pay income tax. It is the government's right to choose to impose income tax on you, at which point it becomes your duty to pay it. Should the government decide you are exempt, then you have no duty to pay it.

3) There is no point in the government insisting that workers in a certain field or industry pay the same as everyone else if such a cost would make said industry/field untenable. It is better to have someone working and not paying income tax than it is to have them on the dole.

OK - points 1 and 2 are slightly facetious, but point 3 is the key. The government, by and large, have exempted areas for good reason. When we think horses, most people think of the tiny handful of ruch, successful stables which are creaming it in. These were not the people the laws were put in place for, no more than artists exemptions being in place to let U2 make a mint. The exemptions are there to protect industries which our government wishes to preserve for cultural or simple economic reasons.

I love the fact that we have posters like Cork bemoaning that our government hasnt been doing enough to protect our fishing industry...but when it comes to protecting our horse-industry (for example), its a case of "take it off them, they dont deserve it. If they cant survive on their own, they shouldnt be in business". We might as well say that we should get rid of fishing and farming subsidies too. After all - if these guys cant make a living on their own, they dont deserve it any more than the horse-rearers and artists do.

But somehow, these are honourable professions which deserve it, cause they're full of small farmers and small fishers. Artists, on the other hand, are only a collection of multi-millionaire U2s and Boyzones, and them horse-folk are only a set of multi-millionaires as well. They're only getting exemptions cause they're well in with the politicians or something.

A bit of consistency in logic wouldnt go astray from time to time around here...

jc

Raskolnikov

Originally posted by Cork

If is amazing that Ireland will probably have a national stadium - privately built. There has been 12 expressions of interest. Yet - the state could not built it.

When you look at state companies who get big subventions. They still seem to make losses. Yet - they seem content to chalk it down to providing public service.

I think Mr. McCreevy needs to flog these companies as soon as he can. Why does the state need a bus company, a pop radio station etc.

People who were on the Cork - Dublin train last Friday morning need no reminder of the service that is provided.

The problem with a national stadium is that everyone agrees that it needs to be built but when it comes to actually paying for it no one is interested. Unfortunetly it seems that the public are completely oblvivious to the benefits of such a project, even if the government did foot the bill. A stadium would allow us to host Euro 2006 (or whenever it's on) and other events, the revenue generated from these events alone to the economy would be considerable not to mention the benefit to the construction industry etc.

Concerning the the privatisation of government owned assets? This is a policy that is supported in most part by the government hence Telecomm Eireann, Irish Sugar etc were sold off. Selling these state owned assets does provide revenue and eliminate the burden of any loss these assets do make. However once these assets are sold there are a number of problems. Privatised companies responsibilty shifts from providing a service to maximising profits and keeping the shareholders happy. This usually means job cuts, loss of services etc. You need only look at how the rail industry was deregulated and privatised too see how disasterous privatisation can be.

tHE vAGGABOND

National staduim thing is funny, its exactly like the toll bridge on the M50. Government did not want to build it, some random company does and makes their money back in a couple of years and then goes on to print money for the next 10 years and the public and local elected pe0ns go mad that its too expensive and the government should have built it..

Someone will build a stadium and in a couple of years we will hear the same people who complained that we should not build it moaning that tickets are too expensive and we should have built it ourselves

bonkey

Originally posted by tHE vAGGABOND
Someone will build a stadium and in a couple of years we will hear the same people who complained that we should not build it moaning that tickets are too expensive and we should have built it ourselves

Yeah - this is what cracks me up.

On one hand, we get "what the hell is the government wasting precious money on a vanity project like the Bertie Bowl? Put it into healthcare, I say".

On the other hand, we get "why didnt the government build X - any idiot could see it was a financially viable proposition, and by handing it to private investors, they have ultimately lost out".

Assuming the BertieBowl is indeed a viable financial proposition, does this mean the government should invest in it? Not necessarily. They have a limited amount of cash to play with, and every cent spent on a national stadium is a cent they have to take from some other budget.

Would you be happy if you were told "I'm sorry sir, you cant have a hospital bed because the BertieBowl was a financially sound investment, so you lost out" ? No? Well, exactly where will the money to finance the Bertie Bowl come from? Or put a different way....if we can get the cash, is there not a more pressing need to spend it in other areas? Do we really need a national stadium right now?

No matter what the govt does, people will complain. They'll complain if the money is spent on a stadium because it could have been better spent elsewhere. They'll complain if it isnt spent on a stadium because we either will still lack a modern national stadium, or we'll be complaining about the ticket prices we're paying to some private company for having "stolen" what should have been a state resource.

jc

Cork

Our fishing industry is a vital industry. It provides jobs. It provides food. Fishermen pay tax.

But somehow, these are honourable professions which deserve it, cause they're full of small farmers and small fishers. Artists, on the other hand, are only a collection of multi-millionaire U2s and Boyzones, and them horse-folk are only a set of multi-millionaires as well. They're only getting exemptions cause they're well in with the politicians or something.

Farmers and Fishermen are glad to pay tax.

They don't hop on a plane to become tax exiles.

What have artiests aganist paying tax?

tHE vAGGABOND

artists dont pay tax in ireland, thats why

Goodshape

Anyone know if the doll is going up again this year? I heard something about €150, which is a €32 increase.. sounds a bit too good to be true... so it probobly isn't :rolleyes:

Victor

Originally posted by Goodshape
Anyone know if the dol[e] is going up again this year? I heard something about €150, which is a €32 increase.. sounds a bit too good to be true... so it probobly isn't :rolleyes:

That is the target for the next 3-5 years, with it being individualised.

sceptre

Originally posted by Cork
Farmers and Fishermen are glad to pay tax.

<<cough>> <<splutter>>

Please send me directions to your planet so I can pay it a visit.


The point that people are making is that the various examptions are granted to specific sectors where the government feel that they give something to Ireland, cultural, financial or otherwise where making such an exemption benefits the country.

The exemptions are in exactly the same position as various (effectively) grants given to farmers and fishermen under the common agricultural policy and common fisheries policy. These payments aren't there from the point of view of food production - they're there because the EU feels it's good that people live and work on the land rather than turning over EU agriculture and food production to giant corporations as has happened in the US.

The difference between payments to farmers and tax exemptions for the horse industry is only in application - one is a tax reduction, the other is a direct payment. They're based on the same principle of society/ecomony benefit with the same basic aim - to preserve a particular industry or way of life by making it more economically beneficial for people to invest or work in particular sectors.

So if you're going to come up with some bland "I think they should pay their full fair share and live off an entirely non-State aided taxed income" without giving concrete analysis of why abandoning the exemptions will either benefit the country or not disadvantage the country (this applies to both artists and bloodstock exemptions before you start ignoring half the discussion you started just because you can't back it up) you haven't made much of a case. If you can come up with a real reason, I'd personally like to hear it and have a decent discussion rather than this general objection to and moaning about someone getting something that you feel doesn't directly benefit your own pocket.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Goodshape

Originally posted by Victor

Originally posted by Goodshape
Anyone know if the dol[e]

....'doll'.. that made me laugh actually

3-5 years anyway :eek: ...hopefully by that time it won't effect me either way.

Cork

The exemptions are in exactly the same position as various (effectively) grants given to farmers and fishermen under the common agricultural policy and common fisheries policy.

The food industry is vital to Ireland. How else will rural Ireland survive? Who will provide food? I think that Their is a big differance bewteen providing breaks for artiests and those for farmers and fishermen.

When "My Left Foot" won the oscers - was not the film board abolished?

Irish Governments have been genorous with regards to the Arts - Look at the funding of the Abbey Teatre?

But - I think Farmers, Fishermen or Artiests should all pay tax on their income.

Why do artiests seem to have trouble with this?

They expect plumbers, farmers, fishermen, cleaners etc to pay tax and they should not?

Is this not a bit much in 2002?

bonkey

Originally posted by Cork
The food industry is vital to Ireland. How else will rural Ireland survive? Who will provide food? I think that Their is a big differance bewteen providing breaks for artiests and those for farmers and fishermen.

No, there isnt.

If you stopped subsidising farmers and fishermen, the net result would either be the disappearance of a native industry where it is cheaper to import equivalent goods, or a "conglomeration effect", where hundreds of small farms would disappear, to be replaced bu a small number of highly-modernised, efficient, super-farms.....

The simple fact is that subsidisation keeps a tradition alive, avoids us facing large-scale cultural changes due to economic pressures, and keeps a bunch of farmers off the dole.

The same logic is applied to artists. While they get little to no subsidisation, they are given ta breaks. This makes it easier for most of them to survive, maintaining a long-held tradition, avoiding large-scale cultural changes due to economic pressures, and keeps a bunch of artists off the dole.

The only difference is that one group receive a subsidisation, and the other a tax-break. You want to argue that they should each receive the same type of handout, thats fine, but you still havent offered a shred of evidence as to why one group is different to the other. Just as we can (and do) import many works/forms of art, we can (and do) import our foodstuffs.

Just as we have artists like U2 who get disproportionate amounts of "free money" due to our government not having a cap on its tax-free earnings, we have a few large farms which receive disproportionate amounts of subsidisation, due to the fact that subsidisation does not generally take your base efficiency into effect. The more efficient you are, the more you make from subsidisation...and this favours the larger farmers, not the smaller.

So somewhat like the music industry, the subsidisation allows a large number of small-scale, unprofitable members to survive, and allows the small number of large-scale profitable members to reap in massive additional benefits.

Yet you continue to argue that one is "fair", and the other is a problem....for no arguable reason.

But - I think Farmers, Fishermen or Artiests should all pay tax on their income.

OK, sure. Give artists a subsidisation like farmers and fishermen get, and they'll be more than happy to pay tax like farmers and fishermen do.

Alternately, make the artists pay tax at the same time as you stop subsidising farmers and fishermen.

jc

Victor

Originally posted by bonkey
If you stopped subsidising farmers and fishermen, the net result would either be the disappearance of a native industry where it is cheaper to import equivalent goods, or a "conglomeration effect", where hundreds of small farms would disappear, to be replaced bu a small number of highly-modernised, efficient, super-farms.....

One of the CAP reforms is to limit subsidies to about €250,000 per farm(er?) and to move subsidies from production to "countryside management". This would favour family and medium sized commercial farms and discourage the "super farms" and over-intensive production.

bonkey

Originally posted by Victor
One of the CAP reforms is to limit subsidies to about €250,000 per farm(er?) and to move subsidies from production to "countryside management". This would favour family and medium sized commercial farms and discourage the "super farms" and over-intensive production.

And I would favour a similar limit on artist's tax-breaks.

jc

Cork

So, You mean the state should hand subsidys over to Enya, Sinead O Copper, U2 etc?

I think that the state already provides is pretty generous with providing monies through the national lottery to our artiests.

The National Gallery & Abbey Treatre get a lot.

I think that our art people have no cause to complain.

But - Farmers and Fishermen never say they object paying tax.

It think - it is arrogant for a sector that is already receiving so such in government funding to look for tax breaks.

It would be more in their line to make films that people want to see, Write books that people want to read etc.

The line of commercial flops that our film industry has endured - How much state money went into these films?

When "My Left Foot" won oscers - was not the film board abolished?

I think our arts should have more mass appeal. I think that the tax payer sould get a better deal from this sector.

tHE vAGGABOND

If you stopped subsidising farmers and fishermen

I HATE subsidising farmers and fishermen. Why should they get free money, and not have to modernise and look at modern business practices. In the US the word around farming has been "get big or get out" for 30 years. Yet here we have Bob from ballygobackwards with 40 acres getting a fortune for doing feck all.

Anyway, the golden cow has been slaughtered. The free money is going to stop from the EU. CAP is getting reworked, and we are going to get drip fed for a number of years and then *poor* it will be gone to all extent. The countries joining the EU from the east are all amazingly poor, and all very dependant on agriculture.

Now the question is that if we will give money down the plug hole, like Irish Steel, and just pump millions for the sake of it!

Victor

Originally posted by bonkey
And I would favour a similar limit on artist's tax-breaks.

Originally posted by Cork
So, You mean the state should hand subsidys over to Enya, Sinead O Copper, U2 etc?

Cork, if bonkey is saying existing tax-breaks should be limited why are you saying he is in favoutr of subsidies?

bonkey

It beats having to offer a rational argument as to why there's a difference between the two?

Cork is happy enough that an efficient, profitable large-scale farm or fishing vessel receive subsidisation that it doesnt need, but is outraged that the same logic be applied to successful artists. This is clearly what he's driving at with his continuation of mentioning the big-names in Irish "art". <sarcasm>After all, these are obviously the people the law was introduced for.</sarcasm>

He is outraged that non-successful artists get free money, but argues that its ok to give free money to non-successful farmers and fishers, because somehow they're different.

All I want to know is what the "somehow" is.

Cork argues that our arts should be more commercial. Fine - I level the exact same accusation at our farmers and fishers : If you, as a farmer or fisher, are not able to make money on your own, get out. We can buy our food from somewhere else until someone capable of profitable efficiency takes over your resources.

But - Farmers and Fishermen never say they object paying tax.

No, they dont - you're right. Of course, they vehemently oppose a single cent of their subsidisation being dropped. I havent heard a single farmer or fisher say "well, yeah, thats fair" when they are told that their subsidisation is being reduced. No - we get weeping, and wring of hands, gnashing of teeth, and so on and so forth.

So - farmers oppose losing their free money, and artists oppose losing their free money. I'm still not seeing a single shred of a difference here Cork. You havent offered a single reason why the two cases are different - why one group deserves financial handouts and the other doesnt. All I am asking for is that distinction. If I may quote myself from just a few posts back....

You want to argue that they should each receive the same type of handout, thats fine, but you still havent offered a shred of evidence as to why one group is different to the other.

Originally posted by tHE vAGGABOND
I HATE subsidising farmers and fishermen. Why should they get free money, and not have to modernise and look at modern business practices. In the US the word around farming has been "get big or get out" for 30 years. Yet here we have Bob from ballygobackwards with 40 acres getting a fortune for doing feck all.

Well , the rules of the cattle premia system mean, the more land you have, the more premia, you can claim, so Bob with his forty acres wouldn't be getting a whole lot at all.

Yes the whole countryside and maintainence of family farms and the whole support mechanism for the rural way of life needs to be re-worked.
Ireland has one of the best climates for producing food, so much so that we export most of it.
It's not logical then for politicians or farmers here to argue that the subsidies need to be there to provide food for our tables.
They are there to keep otherwise unviable farms producing that food and to ensure a locally produced trace-able supply.
That could be done from several factory farms, leaving hundreds of thousands of acres of farm land idle, turning it into a wasteland.

Anyway, the golden cow has been slaughtered. The free money is going to stop from the EU. CAP is getting reworked, and we are going to get drip fed for a number of years and then *poor* it will be gone to all extent. The countries joining the EU from the east are all amazingly poor, and all very dependant on agriculture.

Actually the current proposals are for to pay farmers for doing nothing. They will be paid subsidies based on an average of the previous few years payments to them, without having to keep any cattle or grow any corn etc.
Not a good idea in my opinion as , it would be leaving producion to the few commercial farmers that would bother and ultimately lead to shortages or dependence on imports which if from outside the E.U might not be trace-able.

And to drag...this slightly back into topic, like all business's farmers would need tax clearance certificates, before they could claim premia/grants over a certain level.
mm

Cork

Well - I think we have a choice with regards farming - either we choose to keep people in agriculture or have big factory farms.

I think that we need to keep people on the land. What other jobs can you get in rural Ireland?

But we need to ensure big mega farms do not get as favourable treatment as the average sized farmer.

Just as we need to ensure - the artiests exemption needs to have limits.

Fair is Fair.

bonkey

Now this makes me laugh. I'm beginning to think that Cork is actually from a small-to-mid-sized farming background....

Cork... see if you can spot any similarities in the following paragraphs :

Well - I think we have a choice with regards farming - either we choose to keep people in agriculture or have big factory farms.

I think we have a choice with regards art - either we choose to keep people in the arts, or we have only "manufactured" art.

I think that we need to keep people on the land. What other jobs can you get in rural Ireland?

I think that we need to keep people in the arts. What other jobs can an artist get?

But we need to ensure big mega farms do not get as favourable treatment as the average sized farmer.

But we need to ensure that big mega-successful artists do not get as favourable treatment as the average artist.

Spotted the similarities there I hope

Now, in fairness, you have finally started admitting that artists should have a cap on their benefits (rather than no benefits) which is in effect what I've been saying since the start :

Artists are no different to any other group who receive special treatment from the government.

You're very quick to insist that group A or B lose their benefits (bloodstock, artists) but spent the past few days insisting that its important that groups C and D keep them.

All I've been disagreeing with since day 1 is that you have no basis (other than, perhaps, a vested interest?) in claiming one should be favoured but should not.

I would point out, finally, that there is actually benefit in attracting massively successful artists to Ireland. They spend their masses of money here, and often-times run businesses related to their art - all of which is helping the economy. Taxing them, however, would simply encourage them to leave and manage their lives in an alternate arrangement which will avoid them from paying tax. In either case, the government doesnt get tax from them...but in one case (the current one), it gets a hell of a lot of ancillary benefit from them.

For this reason, we could argue that it is actually to our benefit to allow artists to earn as much as they want tax-free, because ultimately its not costing us anything.

THink about it...a U2 living in Ireland not paying tax generates as much direct tax-revenue for the government as a U2 not living in Ireland.

If you check, you'll find that Ireland has only had a significant number of successful artists (in various fields) living here since the tax-break was introduced. So its kinda hard to argue that we're losing anything from their presence....

jc

Cork

I would point out, finally, that there is actually benefit in attracting massively successful artists to Ireland. They spend their masses of money here,

This is the oldest chesnut in the book - why should I pay tax - Don't I pay VAT on everything I buy.

THink about it...a U2 living in Ireland not paying tax generates as much direct tax-revenue for the government as a U2 not living in Ireland.

I think that If U2 leave Ireland - that is their choice. Some of us - don't have the choice of becoming tax exiles.

you have finally started admitting that artists should have a cap on their benefits (rather than no benefits) which is in effect what I've been saying since the start :

I think their should be a cap on both Grants to Mega Farms & Mega Artiests.

But - this tax exemption is not really a mechanisim for artiests with an income - not all artiests or farmers have this luxery.

This tax exemption has very little to do with funding the Arts in Ireland.

.

sceptre

Originally posted by Cork
This is the oldest chesnut in the book - why should I pay tax - Don't I pay VAT on everything I buy.

With all due respect, that can't be the oldest chestnut in the book. We've only had VAT in this country for less than 30 years. That makes it at most a 30 year old chestnut.

This tax exemption has very little to do with funding the Arts in Ireland.

It has everything to do with funding artists in Ireland. Last I heard, artists were making most of the art.

I see you've essentially conceded that at least some artists are entitled to some funding or exemptions.

Cork

Well - I have heard the I pay VAT on what I buy - Why do I have to pay tax arguement many times.

you've essentially conceded that at least some artists are entitled to some funding or exemptions

Well - I have mellowed a little. I think they needs to be limits. I know that CJH had the foresight to bring in the measure. It has helped many artiests.


If you spent 10 years working on a novel and earned nothing and then you had a book that sold 40000 - Why should you have a large tax bill in the year of publication.

But there needs to be limits on these exemptions - as they were intoduced when art was not really happeing in Ireland.

I think there needs the system needs to be changed to facilitate this.

bonkey

Despite you now more or less agreeing with the stance I was initially taking, I'm vaguely disturbed that you claim to do so because this was a measure brought in by Haughey, and he being the epitomy of FF means that it must have been a smart thing.

Incidentally - I was wondering how long it would take you to realise that you were vehemently arguing against a policy created and supported by your beloved party.....

jc

Cork

I know that CJH had the foresight to bring in the measure.

This policy has indeed served Ireland well. We don't have a big population & this relief has ecouraged our arts.

But - It is now over 30 years old & it must be reviewed.

I think - we need to exempt income under a perscribed limit. This would say well less than €1 million thus still encouraging arts while raising revenue for our exchequer.


CJH also brough in the House / stallion tax exemption - this too needs review. It has served Ireland well but we need to take stock and see if it can be changed in order to raise some tax monies for badly needed services.

Victor

Originally posted by Cork
I think - we need to exempt income under a perscribed limit. This would say well less than €1 million thus still encouraging arts while raising revenue for our exchequer.

I can understand such a system for the "struggling artist" and I would have the limit under €50,000.

Dustaz

Originally posted by Cork
- as they were intoduced when art was not really happeing in Ireland.
.

Good old CJ! He brought Art to Ireland!! THank God!

(yes quiet at the back there yeats, shaw, stoker, behan, friel, wilde, bourroghs, dunne, lynott, and all you other people...)

Cork

Originally posted by Dustaz
Good old CJ! He brought Art to Ireland!! THank God!

(yes quiet at the back there yeats, shaw, stoker, behan, friel, wilde, bourroghs, dunne, lynott, and all you other people...)

This exemption would have covered much of the work of Lynott & Friel?

I can understand such a system for the "struggling artist" and I would have the limit under €50,000

Well - I agree. Even a limit of 50k would encourage the arts.

Victor

So much for removing the tax on work, this is from today's SBP. I think it is outragious that someone on €30,000 pays about 30% tax, but someone (lots of people) on €300,000 pays none.

As one of the officials of the Bar Council of Ireland (in a discussion on Barrister's fees), put it recently he "had" to put €39,000 into his pension last year. Nice to have that €39,000 in the first place.

While i am glad a lot of the shelters are gone, "wheeler-dealer" types are still paying a maximum of 20% on their capital gains.

Quarter of highest earners paid no income tax in 2002 [note Newspaper edition says 2000]
By Ed Micheau

A quarter of the state's highest earners pay no tax at all, while most use schemes, exemptions and partnerships to reduce their contributions to under 10 per cent.

A study by the Revenue Commissioners of the 1999-2000 tax period shows 63 per cent of the Republic's top 117 earners had an effective tax rate of less than 10 per cent.

The main tax incentives were multi-storey car parks, hotels and other property-based capital allowances. Other tax reliefs, such as heritage homes, film relief and loan interest cost the exchequer a further €6 million.

The study also showed that none of the top 117 earners had an effective tax rate in excess of 30 per cent, indicating that the country's top tax advisers were doing a good job.

The tax yield of the average taxpayer has hovered just under 30 per cent in recent years.

However, top earners who did not avail of the property-based tax allowances fared comparatively badly -- 231 of the country's top 400 earners had an effective tax rate of between 30-44 per cent, while 52 top earners handed over 45 per cent of their earnings to the taxman.

"A repeat of this study in two or three years will give a better indication of what reliefs are being used to reduce the effective rate by the very wealthy," said the report.

In his recent budget, Minister for Finance Charlie McCreevy announced the end of nine capital allowance incentive schemes from December 31, 2004 including multi-storey car parks and other property reliefs.

My maths was never very good , but is that report not saying that roughly two thirds of the top 400 earners are paying more than the average taxpayer?
But that two thirds of the top 117 earners pay less than 10%...

Just goes to show you can argue anything with statistics, and still come out saying something unimportant.
Presumably if you expand the numbers surveyed and look at the top 1000 earners,the extra 600 or so are paying their fair share.

As one of the officials of the Bar Council of Ireland (in a discussion on Barrister's fees), put it recently he "had" to put €39,000 into his pension last year. Nice to have that €39,000 in the first place.

My only comment on that would be fair play to them, if they are able to do that, they studied damn hard to be in a position to earn such fees.
If I had the patience and the brains to be a barister, darn it I'd be up there staking a claim to that money as well.
When that person does, come to draw their private pension, on retirement, they will have to pay tax on it, so it's only delaying the inevitable.
mm

Victor

Sorry, my point is that money gets to grow until he retires and is only then taxed. This creates a vast cash-flow issue for government (albeit one that they approved).