Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

ESRI says we need more "progressive" taxes lol

Options
24567…21

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    timmyntc wrote: »
    Get the benefits of society without paying your fair share.

    Also its not very safe from an economic point of view - ideally you have as wide a tax base as possible so that you are less susceptible to economic shocks

    They are working for less than a livable wage.

    They are contributing more than their fair share.


  • Options
    #33
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Not paying tax is basically like being a child getting pocket money. Everyone should have to pay income tax, even if it's only a small amount on a low income.

    If people were being paid more than pocket money they'd be in a position to pay more in tax.


  • Options
    #34
    Mr. teddywinkles
    Registered Users Posts: 1,962 ✭✭✭Mr. teddywinkles


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    WOKE BRIGADE ROBBING MUH TAXES!



    Precisely.

    Thats precisely the problem the higher earners are asked to carry all the burden again and again and again. Think a massive audit of all departments might be the best option here. Cut the fat. Maybe lads instead of attacking each other. Look at the wasteful government. Spending wily nilly on any ****e


  • Options
    #35
    timmyntc
    Registered Users Posts: 6,820 ✭✭✭timmyntc


    Deleted User wrote: »
    They are working for less than a livable wage.

    They are contributing more than their fair share.

    No they arent - they arent contributing at all because they dont pay income tax!


  • Options
    #36
    crossman47
    Registered Users Posts: 1,496 ✭✭✭crossman47


    The elephant in the room is that our wealth and property taxes are very low. The property tax has not been touched since it came in. Our so called socialists oppose property and water charges (about the only socialist party anywhere to do so). Capital gain tax is lower than income tax. People want the amount of inheritance that will not be taxed to be raised (from c. 300K in the case of a son or daughter).


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    crossman47
    Registered Users Posts: 1,496 ✭✭✭crossman47


    timmyntc wrote: »
    No they arent - they arent contributing at all because they dont pay income tax!

    They buy stuff so they pay taxes.


  • Options
    #38
    timmyntc
    Registered Users Posts: 6,820 ✭✭✭timmyntc


    crossman47 wrote: »
    They buy stuff so they pay taxes.

    Yes, note that I said income taxes.
    Tourists also buy stuff and pay taxes - so what?


  • Options
    #39
    Geuze
    Registered Users Posts: 13,093 ✭✭✭✭Geuze


    suicide_circus wrote: »
    Absolutely. But a large cohort of low paid workers paying NO income tax is wrong.

    Yes, my parents pay 8% - 10% on 50k approx.

    It is too low, given that they get:
    • two medical cards
    • two FTP
    • free TV licence
    • 35 pm off elec / 420 pa


  • Options
    #40
    B2021M
    Registered Users Posts: 515 ✭✭✭B2021M


    I think most people in Ireland dont understand that the private sector supports the public sector. It is never explained or discussed by media.

    The attitude appears to be that welfare levels and public sector salaries/pensions must be at a certain level and then private sector workers have to pay whatever level of tax is required to support that.


  • Options
    #41
    crossman47
    Registered Users Posts: 1,496 ✭✭✭crossman47


    timmyntc wrote: »
    Yes, note that I said income taxes.
    Tourists also buy stuff and pay taxes - so what?

    You said they weren't contributing at all since they don't pay income tax. They do by paying indirect tax. In fact, the share of their small income that goes back to government may well be greater then that of someone paying income tax, especially if they smoke.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    Leroy42
    Registered Users Posts: 15,484 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    B2021M wrote: »
    I think most people in Ireland dont understand that the private sector supports the public sector. It is never explained or discussed by media.

    The attitude appears to be that welfare levels and public sector salaries/pensions must be at a certain level and then private sector workers have to pay whatever level of tax is required to support that.

    The public sector also supports the private sector. Who builds the roads, the water mains, the police, the education systems?

    The taxes from private enterprise funds the public sector who enable the private sector to generate funds.


  • Options
    #43
    suicide_circus
    Registered Users Posts: 19,802 ✭✭✭✭suicide_circus


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Why?

    Because everyone earning should contribute towards your own social insurance. This is a left wing position as old as the hills. Left wing politics in Ireland is big on people not contributing, be it water tax, property tax, free public transport. Contributing gives people a stake in society.


  • Options
    #44
    B2021M
    Registered Users Posts: 515 ✭✭✭B2021M


    Allinall wrote: »
    "Progressive" in a taxation sense means that those that earn more pay more.

    Surely this is a good thing to be aiming for?

    Why is this a good thing? Should everyone not pay the same percentage? Especially with all the focus on 'equality' these days.


  • Options
    #45
    crossman47
    Registered Users Posts: 1,496 ✭✭✭crossman47


    B2021M wrote: »
    I think most people in Ireland dont understand that the private sector supports the public sector. It is never explained or discussed by media.

    The attitude appears to be that welfare levels and public sector salaries/pensions must be at a certain level and then private sector workers have to pay whatever level of tax is required to support that.

    And private sector workers don't understand that they pay taxes for the services provided to them by government (education, health, pensions, etc, etc)


  • Options
    #46
    AlfaZen
    Registered Users Posts: 423 ✭✭AlfaZen


    I think we should be looking at a Marginal Flat Tax in order to widen the Tax base and have a fairer system.

    Minimum wage is €10.20 per hour which is about €20k per year give or take.

    So everyone gets up to €20k a year tax free. All remaining income is taxed at a single flat rate e.g. somewhere between 20% and 25%.

    With this approach everyone contributes equally, there is less admin required and it does not penalise overtime as the current system does.


  • Options
    #47
    B2021M
    Registered Users Posts: 515 ✭✭✭B2021M


    Leroy42 wrote: »
    The public sector also supports the private sector. Who builds the roads, the water mains, the police, the education systems?

    The taxes from private enterprise funds the public sector who enable the private sector to generate funds.

    Most of this could be done privately and funded by the consumer. Of course we need some public sector but it is far too big.


  • Options
    #48
    B2021M
    Registered Users Posts: 515 ✭✭✭B2021M


    AlfaZen wrote: »
    I think we should be looking at a Marginal Flat Tax in order to widen the Tax base and have a fairer system.

    Minimum wage is €10.20 per hour which is about €20k per year give or take.

    So everyone gets up to €20k a year tax free. All remaining income is taxed at a single flat rate e.g. somewhere between 20% and 25%.

    With this approach everyone contributes equally, there is less admin required and it does not penalise overtime as the current system does.

    Completely agree. This is the fairest system.


  • Options
    #49
    timmyntc
    Registered Users Posts: 6,820 ✭✭✭timmyntc


    crossman47 wrote: »
    You said they weren't contributing at all since they don't pay income tax. They do by paying indirect tax. In fact, the share of their small income that goes back to government may well be greater then that of someone paying income tax, especially if they smoke.

    You cant measure someones contributions via consumption taxes because they vary so much from person to person. Its also an awful way to base state finances on.

    And I very much doubt that someone paying 0% income tax pays more of their salary to the govt in consumption taxes alone than someone paying higher rate does in income + consumption taxes combined.


  • Options
    #50
    Leroy42
    Registered Users Posts: 15,484 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    B2021M wrote: »
    Most of this could be done privately and funded by the consumer. Of course we need some public sector but it is far too big.

    Yeah, because the M50 in private hands was a great success!

    Or house building, and rental left entirely down to the private sector has worked a treat. And the Health service. Check out the US if you want to see a private health system in operation.

    Far too big, based on what? Too many people working in it, too much money spent on it? What should we be spending? How many people should be working?


  • Options
    #51
    B2021M
    Registered Users Posts: 515 ✭✭✭B2021M


    crossman47 wrote: »
    You said they weren't contributing at all since they don't pay income tax. They do by paying indirect tax. In fact, the share of their small income that goes back to government may well be greater then that of someone paying income tax, especially if they smoke.

    Everyone pays indirect taxes. Smoking is a personal choice.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    B2021M wrote: »
    Most of this could be done privately and funded by the consumer. Of course we need some public sector but it is far too big.

    Lol.....and how much would it cost if the schools were all private?

    How many tolls would you pass through if the motorways were privatised?

    We had war on the streets in the past few years when people were asked to pay for water, what do you think would happen if it was completely privatised?

    You sound like you don't know what you're talking about because you haven't thought it through.


  • Options
    #53
    Allinall
    Registered Users Posts: 6,551 ✭✭✭Allinall


    B2021M wrote: »
    Why is this a good thing? Should everyone not pay the same percentage? Especially with all the focus on 'equality' these days.

    No.

    I think that someone earning €250,000 p.a. should pay a higher percentage of their income in tax that someone earning €25,000.

    They can afford it more.


  • Options
    #54
    Chips Lovell
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,268 Mod ✭✭✭✭Chips Lovell


    B2021M wrote: »
    Why is this a good thing? Should everyone not pay the same percentage? Especially with all the focus on 'equality' these days.

    Increasing income inequality corresponds directly to increasing risk of political and economic instability. From a societal perspective, a redistributive system is beneficial for everyone.


  • Options
    #55
    timmyntc
    Registered Users Posts: 6,820 ✭✭✭timmyntc


    Leroy42 wrote: »
    The public sector also supports the private sector. Who builds the roads, the water mains, the police, the education systems?

    The taxes from private enterprise funds the public sector who enable the private sector to generate funds.

    Yes and its private sector taxes that pay for this in the first place!
    If there were no private sector, there would be no money to build the roads, the water mains, fund the police and education systems.

    The public sector exists to collect & spend taxes in the best way - but they fundamentally need the private sector to exist. The size of the public sector should be dictated by the size of the private sector - you cant set an arbitrary number for public sector spending and then work backwards in terms of "how much in taxes do i need to fund this" because you may not be able to get that amount of tax in the first place.


  • Options
    #56
    B2021M
    Registered Users Posts: 515 ✭✭✭B2021M


    Leroy42 wrote: »
    Yeah, because the M50 in private hands was a great success!

    Or house building, and rental left entirely down to the private sector has worked a treat. And the Health service. Check out the US if you want to see a private health system in operation.

    Far too big, based on what? Too many people working in it, too much money spent on it? What should we be spending? How many people should be working?

    As if the housing market has ever been a proper market. Constant government intervention and meddling.

    Yes far too many people working in it. We might find out how many people need to work in it if it was profit based and subject to some competition.


  • Options
    #57
    thebiggestjim
    Registered Users Posts: 345 ✭✭thebiggestjim


    Mr. teddywinkles wrote: »
    Thats precisely the problem the higher earners are asked to carry all the burden again and again and again. Think a massive audit of all departments might be the best option here. Cut the fat. Maybe lads instead of attacking each other. Look at the wasteful government. Spending wily nilly on any ****e

    Agreed, there never seems to be much if any emphasis on getting more bang for the massive amount we are already paying in taxes. The default answer lately from all these research organisations (ERSI 25% funded be the government) is you need your citizens to pay more taxes. I think we can all guess what recommendations will be coming out of the Tax and Welfare Commission next year (more taxes).

    This inefficiency (lack of private sector competition also in areas not just PS) and public sector bloat will lower the living standards for the vast majority (low, medium, high earners and both public and private sector employees) in the long run. There will be a few who succeed in playing the rent seeking game in this country. A lot of people are going to be in elder poverty or living on the bread line in retirement if the government keeps taking the wealth they earn in their productive years.

    This country needs to seriously improve how it operates. The dumb answer of make them pay more taxes will put everyone in peril.


  • Options
    #58
    ednwireland
    Registered Users Posts: 14,301 ✭✭✭✭ednwireland


    Mr. teddywinkles wrote: »
    Thats precisely the problem the higher earners are asked to carry all the burden again and again and again. Think a massive audit of all departments might be the best option here. Cut the fat. Maybe lads instead of attacking each other. Look at the wasteful government. Spending wily nilly on any ****e

    problem is Turkey's dont vote for Christmas.

    getting politicians and public sector to do some long term planning and restructuring seems impossible.

    esri doesnt have lot of credibility with its spend more and raise more taxes view.

    My weather

    https://www.ecowitt.net/home/share?authorize=96CT1F



  • Options
    #59
    Nermal
    Registered Users Posts: 2,616 ✭✭✭Nermal


    "The ESRI produces independent, high-quality research with the objective of informing policies that support a healthy economy and promote social progress."

    Of course, the ESRI do not attempt to define what "social progress" actually is.

    They are technocrats, managerialists: they assume that we have settled the question of what our values are, and the only problem is what policies are required to implement those values.

    It's not a settled question.


  • Options
    #60
    Jizique
    Registered Users Posts: 1,832 ✭✭✭Jizique


    B2021M wrote: »
    As if the housing market has ever been a proper market. Constant government intervention and meddling.

    Yes far too many people working in it. We might find out how many people need to work in it if it was profit based and subject to some competition.

    The housing sector, the charity sector and worst of all, the housing charity sector.
    What is this rush for 300k houses over next ten years? Great for the house builders but nobody else


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    B2021M
    Registered Users Posts: 515 ✭✭✭B2021M


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    Lol.....and how much would it cost if the schools were all private?

    How many tolls would you pass through if the motorways were privatised?

    We had war on the streets in the past few years when people were asked to pay for water, what do you think would happen if it was completely privatised?

    You sound like you don't know what you're talking about because you haven't thought it through.

    Im not talking about everything being privatised but spending on it needs to be reduced.

    I agree that it would be almost impossible to do much about it now but it shouldnt have evolved in this way in the first place.

    I'll ignore the cheap insult in your final sentence!


Advertisement