New Dail / New Taoiseach

Sam Russell · 25-02-2020 03:59PM

efanton wrote: »

so are you suggesting that retailer faced with this additional overhead would not insist their supplier change their practices, or seek a different supplier so that they would no have this additional overhead?

There was a time not so many years ago that when I purchased a large electronic product it would be packed in a polystyrene foam lined box. Now, the polystyrene is replaced by cardboard. The polystyrene is not recycled, but the cardboard is.

Why would that be?

efanton · 25-02-2020 04:08PM

I have to put my hand up here and admit what I have been saying is wrong.

Just talked to the publican that explained this to me and he admits he told me wrong.

the FIRST SUPPLIER pays and green levy.

He told me to use this link

https://www.revenue.ie/en/companies-and-charities/excise-and-licences/energy-taxes/solid-fuel-carbon-tax/taxable-solid-fuels-and-liability.aspx

Solid Fuel Carbon Tax liability
A liability to SFCT arises on the first supply of a quantity of solid fuel in Ireland by a supplier. The supplier is accountable for, and must pay the tax to Revenue.

What is First Supply?
First supply means a quantity of solid fuel supplied in Ireland that had not previously been supplied in Ireland.

What is Supply in Ireland?
For SFCT purposes, supply in Ireland means a supply from one supplier established in Ireland to another supplier established in Ireland, or from a supplier established in Ireland to a consumer in Ireland. This applies also in situations where suppliers supply solid fuel to themselves for their own use. See also treatment of supplies of solid fuel for manufacturing.

My apologies to all. it was not my intention to mislead anyone or create confusion. We were only discussing this a week or so ago so I thought what I was say was correct.

The tax is imposed on businesses and then passed on to consumer

charlie14 · 25-02-2020 04:40PM

efanton wrote: »

Who said anything about VAT.

Let me make it simple for you.
A wholesaler buy 10,000 packets of of what ever from a supplier.
He is offered one product that has recyclable packaging that does not incur a levy.
He is offered another product that does not have recyclable packaging. Because of this he now has to pay the green levy immediately if he chooses this product.
He sells it on to a retailer, and recoups his costs plus the cost of the levy, who then sell it to a consumer who pays for the levy included in the price.

The wholesaler now suddenly has to use a whole lot more of his operating capital if he wishes to buy the product that doesn't use recyclable packaging.
He simply is not going to do that, He will either buy the product that incurs no levy, or he will insist the other supplier switches to packaging that incurs no levy.

Problem solved. You the consumer are now buying a more environmentally friendly product and are likely to only see products with environmentally friendly packaging on the shelves. No one pays an environmental levy because all packaging is now more environmentally friendly.
Its a win/win situation.

What you are failing to see is that the consumer buying a product that is not listed as requiring a carbon tax does not have to pay this tax.
Same as a product that is 0% VAT rated.

If the consumer is buying a product that is liable for carbon tax, under your proposal, that product through all the links in the chain will have that cost passed down to the consumer, PLUS the admin costs from each link.

Same as VAT.
Charging the consumer only as the final link cuts out all the added admin costs and thus would work out cheaper.

Geuze · 25-02-2020 04:51PM

Scoundrel wrote: »

Tax the little people that's your solution to everything blueshirts on bikes is all the greens are.

All taxes are paid by people, who else is there to pay taxes?

Scoundrel · 25-02-2020 05:40PM

Geuze wrote: »

All taxes are paid by people, who else is there to pay taxes?

The many companies responsible for polluting the earth can a carbon tax not be added to their business/profits in Ireland? Why is it always the hard working ordinary citizen that has to pay? Under FF/FG we already pay a massive amount in taxes in return for terrible services and you want to trust these clowns with a carbon tax as well?

blanch152 · 25-02-2020 07:34PM

Scoundrel wrote: »

The many companies responsible for polluting the earth can a carbon tax not be added to their business/profits in Ireland? Why is it always the hard working ordinary citizen that has to pay? Under FF/FG we already pay a massive amount in taxes in return for terrible services and you want to trust these clowns with a carbon tax as well?

A company is owned by people somewhere down the line, whether it is after trusts or after pension funds or just ordinary shareholders. Those people will want to maintain their income, so they will pass on at least some of the carbon tax to the consumer.

If there were no people, there would be no companies.

charlie14 · 25-02-2020 07:39PM

Scoundrel wrote: »

The many companies responsible for polluting the earth can a carbon tax not be added to their business/profits in Ireland? Why is it always the hard working ordinary citizen that has to pay? Under FF/FG we already pay a massive amount in taxes in return for terrible services and you want to trust these clowns with a carbon tax as well?

It could, but they would just increase prices to compensate so the end user will end up paying anyway.
I would not trust any political party if a carbon tax was just going to be added to the general tax pot.

If we are going to have a carbon tax, then it should be ring fenced for specific purposes with a complete yearly account of how much was collected and where it was spent.

Last Stop · 25-02-2020 07:53PM

Can someone explain to me how SF propose to fund all their policies?
https://www.sinnfein.ie/files/2020/SF_GE2020_Manifesto.pdf

Their manifesto includes €22.1bn in additional expenditure over the next 5 years plus €2.4bn in tax cuts while only increasing tax take by €3.8bn.

Surely that leaves a budget deficit of €20.7bn over 5 years or €4.14bn per annum??

Even if they take the €14.3bn from apple, they’re still well short...

And yet they claim they will run a surplus of €3.4bn in 2025

Salary Negotiator · 25-02-2020 07:55PM

Something something costed something tax the rich

Fann Linn · 25-02-2020 07:57PM

Salary Negotiator wrote: »

Something something costed something tax the rich

So you can't answer the question asked.

Salary Negotiator · 25-02-2020 07:59PM

Fann Linn wrote: »

So you can't answer the question asked.

The demographics?

irishgrover · 25-02-2020 07:59PM

Fann Linn wrote: »

So you can't answer the question asked.

In fairness I don't think anyone can answer that particular question

Fann Linn · 25-02-2020 08:04PM

irishgrover wrote: »

In fairness I don't think anyone can answer that particular question

The op asks a fairly detailed relevant question. And next of all the 'after hours stock answer' is thrown up.

It would be nice to see some proper engagement on the topic.
And 'no' I don't know the answer either.

Last Stop · 25-02-2020 08:06PM

Just to add that these figures also don’t include projects currently under design/planning such as Metrolink, Busconnects, DART expansion, M20 or Galway bypass which could add another €9bn...

irishgrover · 25-02-2020 08:11PM

Fann Linn wrote: »

The op asks a fairly detailed relevant question. And next of all the 'after hours stock answer' is thrown up.

It would be nice to see some proper engagement on the topic.
And 'no' I don't know the answer either.

I fully agree. My answer was not flippant, or not meant to be anyway. I just have 0 confidence that it actually can be answered, in any kind of rational way, either politically or economically. But seriously, I did not mean to be "afterhoury"

piplip87 · 25-02-2020 08:14PM

Doubling the Vacent site tax will bring in 100M a year. Although it bring in 1 million now. So I'd suggest they invest in Maths teachers as a priority.

CiarraiAbu2 · 25-02-2020 08:16PM

Last Stop wrote: »

Just to add that these figures also don’t include projects currently under design/planning such as Metrolink, Busconnects, DART expansion, M20 or Galway bypass which could add another €9bn...

Don't forget the hospital.

Last Stop · 25-02-2020 08:18PM

CiarraiAbu2 wrote: »

Don't forget the hospital.

The Children’s hospital is already included as it is committed expenditure.

Salary Negotiator · 25-02-2020 08:21PM

piplip87 wrote: »

Doubling the Vacent site tax will bring in 100M a year. Although it bring in 1 million now. So I'd suggest they invest in Maths teachers as a priority.

And most of that will come from local authorities which will reduce their spending in other areas.

Or the LA’s will build on the vacant sites and the money won’t be raised at all.

_Brian · 25-02-2020 08:21PM

Last Stop wrote: »

Can someone explain to me how SF propose to fund all their policies?
https://www.sinnfein.ie/files/2020/SF_GE2020_Manifesto.pdf

Their manifesto includes €22.1bn in additional expenditure over the next 5 years plus €2.4bn in tax cuts while only increasing tax take by €3.8bn.

Surely that leaves a budget deficit of €20.7bn over 5 years or €4.14bn per annum??

Even if they take the €14.3bn from apple, they’re still well short...

And yet they claim they will run a surplus of €3.4bn in 2025

It doesn’t matter, seriously.

The vast cohort of their supporters have no interest in economics, or budgets. They have been promised more houses for free, and that’s the only thing that matters.

SF have no economic solution, they are a professional opposition party who are caught in the headlights now. Not sure what to do. They have a big problem going into government because as you have pointed out they will need to break the country to deliver what they have gotten the support to do.

I’d say they are dearly hoping that FF/FG/greens get their **** together and keep SF out of government. That’s their ideal position, it’s like the lad taking off his jackets a fight and shouting to his friends “hold me back or I’ll do something”. If they are held back from government they will constantly bluster about they nearly had a chance to fix Ireland but were prevented doing so by the parties who didn’t want change.
If they get into government in any sort of controlling position - god help us all !

CiarraiAbu2 · 25-02-2020 08:22PM

Last Stop wrote: »

The Children’s hospital is already included as it is committed expenditure.

True

Gunmonkey · 25-02-2020 08:24PM

Fann Linn wrote: »

The op asks a fairly detailed relevant question. And next of all the 'after hours stock answer' is thrown up.

It would be nice to see some proper engagement on the topic.
And 'no' I don't know the answer either.

Sadly its the best we have out of SF. They only mentioned tax cuts and spending increases in their manifesto, and during the election every time one of the head honchos were asked how they will pay for all the increased spending/tax cuts we got "Its been costed by the Dept of Finance" which means what?

-Did they take their new figures and slap it onto the 2019 budget and it balances out?
-Do we have to go ask the Dept of Finance for the other half of SF's manifesto, the half with the tax hikes and spending cuts?
-Is it a throw away phrase meaning they got the DoF to cost each increase individually and so thats how much each tax cut will remove/spending will cost? But all in a vacuum, not connected together into a budget?

Theres be rumours of a "Wealth" Tax and Vacant Site Tax, but so far Ive seen no confirmation from SF higher ups they will happen guaranteed or how much they will generate. Not the €7bn of tax cuts/increased spending I roughly counted up from their "costed" manifesto.

Last Stop · 25-02-2020 09:30PM

Gunmonkey wrote: »

Is it a throw away phrase meaning they got the DoF to cost each increase individually and so thats how much each tax cut will remove/spending will cost? But all in a vacuum, not connected together into a budget?

I suspect this is what happened. The DoF would need to provide figures on all these items as they are generally not publicly.
Adding them up however I assume is up to the individual parties as the DoF couldn’t be seen to be favouring one party over another etc.

Theres be rumours of a "Wealth" Tax and Vacant Site Tax, but so far Ive seen no confirmation from SF higher ups they will happen guaranteed or how much they will generate. Not the €7bn of tax cuts/increased spending I roughly counted up from their "costed" manifesto.

To be fair, the wealth tax and vacant site levy are in there generating a grand total of €196m between them. This of course is entirely lost (and more) by abolishing property tax at a cost of €485m. And yet in the debates Mary Lou just brushed this aside as if it was a non issue.

Johnboy1951 · 25-02-2020 10:35PM

Scoundrel wrote: »

The many companies responsible for polluting the earth can a carbon tax not be added to their business/profits in Ireland? Why is it always the hard working ordinary citizen that has to pay? Under FF/FG we already pay a massive amount in taxes in return for terrible services and you want to trust these clowns with a carbon tax as well?

The simplification is that companies will increase prices to maintain profits, so if you put more tax on profits, then the prices rise to compensate ....... and the consumer pays anyway.

Geuze · 25-02-2020 10:42PM

Scoundrel wrote: »

The many companies responsible for polluting the earth can a carbon tax not be added to their business/profits in Ireland? Why is it always the hard working ordinary citizen that has to pay? Under FF/FG we already pay a massive amount in taxes in return for terrible services and you want to trust these clowns with a carbon tax as well?

When companies pay taxes, then these people pay them:

the workers
the customers
the shareholders

This area of economics is known as the incidence of tax - who actually pays.

Let's say we increase tobacco duty - the entire incidence falls on the customer.

Let's say we increase VAT on hotels, like happened last year, 9% to 13.5%, some of that was passed on as higher prices, some as lower profits.

So the incidence was shared by the customers/staff/shareholders.

The corporation tax paid by firms falls onto three people: customers/staff/shareholders.

When somebody, like Brid Smith TD, says "let large firms pay more taxes", she is actually saying, "let the customers/staff/shareholders" of large firms pay more taxes".

Geuze · 25-02-2020 10:43PM

charlie14 wrote: »

If we are going to have a carbon tax, then it should be ring fenced for specific purposes with a complete yearly account of how much was collected and where it was spent.

It already exists.

It was increased from 20 euro per tonne to 26 per tonne in the last Budget.

Geuze · 25-02-2020 10:44PM

Scoundrel wrote: »

Under FF/FG we already pay a massive amount in taxes in return for terrible services and you want to trust these clowns with a carbon tax as well?

Note that overall taxes are not high in Ireland.

This issue is a settled issue.

Overall taxes are not high, compared to other EU countries.

Geuze · 25-02-2020 10:46PM

Scoundrel wrote: »

and you want to trust these clowns with a carbon tax as well?

It already exists.

https://www.revenue.ie/en/companies-and-charities/excise-and-licences/index.aspx

https://www.revenue.ie/en/companies-and-charities/excise-and-licences/energy-taxes/natural-gas-carbon-tax/index.aspx

https://www.revenue.ie/en/companies-and-charities/excise-and-licences/energy-taxes/solid-fuel-carbon-tax/index.aspx

Geuze · 25-02-2020 10:50PM

charlie14 wrote: »

If we are going to have a carbon tax, then it should be ring fenced for specific purposes with a complete yearly account of how much was collected and where it was spent.

It exists already.

The recent increase from 20 to 26 euro, that increase has been earmarked, I think.

Yes, see here:

http://budget.gov.ie/Budgets/2020/Documents/Budget/Financial%20Statement.pdf

charlie14 · 26-02-2020 12:07AM

Geuze wrote: »

It already exists.

It was increased from 20 euro per tonne to 26 per tonne in the last Budget.

Yeah, I knew that but should have made it clearer.

New Dail / New Taoiseach

Comments