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
13567…21

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    lawred2
    Registered Users Posts: 24,281 ✭✭✭✭lawred2


    Allinall wrote: »
    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.

    They will pay a higher percentage


  • Options
    #63
    starkid
    Registered Users Posts: 762 ✭✭✭starkid


    https://cdn.thejournal.ie/media/2014/09/debunking-irish-income-tax-myths.pdf

    its all here.

    Ireland is already one of the most progressive tax systems in the World. And a system where we have corporations paying low tax, and in some cases next to none. Its falling on a small portion of society which is completely wrong. We're reaching a situation where only the poorest or richest i nsociety see tangible benefits and have access to certain services and housing etc.

    And very little state supports are available to many tax paying people.

    If Ireland wants some sort of Danish style social democracy, well then everybody needs to pay their way, and everybody needs to get access to services. Its that ****ing simple. we have near to one million working people paying next to no tax. We have a workforce of about 2.2 million people. We have a socialist wing looking for a wealth tax, while fighting against our only wealth tax in the property tax. Its bonkers.

    I earn 29k give or take. I pay about 3k in tax. I should probably pay a little more.


  • Options
    #64
    BluePlanet
    Registered Users Posts: 2,346 ✭✭✭BluePlanet


    How much of the public sector tax haul is absorbed in wages and pensions?


  • Options
    #65
    RandomViewer
    Registered Users Posts: 6,191 ✭✭✭RandomViewer


    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?

    Doesn't work out like that, there's loopholes for high earners


  • Options
    #66
    B2021M
    Registered Users Posts: 515 ✭✭✭B2021M


    Allinall wrote: »
    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.

    They do pay more...it should just be the same percentage.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 3,801 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


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

    They pay VAT and other taxes.


  • Options
    #68
    Mrs OBumble
    Registered Users Posts: 25,698 ✭✭✭✭Mrs OBumble


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

    They are contributing more than their fair share.

    I've met quite a few who limit their official hours to ensure they pay little if any tax.

    The rest of their time is spent working under the table.


  • Options
    #69
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 3,801 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    RandomViewer wrote: »
    Doesn't work out like that, there's loopholes for high earners

    Not really except the very highest earners. And even then that is being locked down.


  • Options
    #70
    tjhook
    Registered Users Posts: 731 ✭✭✭tjhook


    Marginal income tax rates are already too high for high-rate taxpayers. I've turned down additional work on a number of occasions because the state would take more of the additional pay than I'd get. It's just not worthwhile. That's not good for the economy, my employer or the state more generally.

    If we want to impose income taxes more like the European average, we'd need to tax more at most income levels, but proportionally more at lower income levels. Income taxes at higher income levels are already at or above the European average, so could see some reduction.

    Beyond income taxes, we'd also have water taxes and higher property taxes, but lower VAT, motoring taxes, alcohol taxes.

    Of course with European-level taxation we'd also be within our right to demand better public services. Better public health systems would mean less need for private health insurance - a big saving for many people. What I'd save in health insurance costs would cover a lot of water charges and property taxes.


  • Options
    #71
    RandomViewer
    Registered Users Posts: 6,191 ✭✭✭RandomViewer


    gibgodsman wrote: »
    Can you define the middle class and lower class for me please? I work full time and at this rate I have no idea which I fall into anymore

    Basically FG supporters consider themselves as middle class and every one else isn't, some pub owner that barely breaks even every year is considered middle class but a factory worker who does 50-60 hour weeks and makes decent money is not , Its a wannabe brit concept


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    starkid
    Registered Users Posts: 762 ✭✭✭starkid


    Allinall wrote: »
    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.

    they already do...thats the point many of us are making on here.

    Inclusive of income tax and the USC, a single person will not reach an effective tax rate of 5% until over 20,000 in income. At the top end of the scale, the average effective tax rate for a single-income earner (based on Revenue data) including income tax, USC and employee PRSI is 43% with a sharp shift upward in effective tax rates at the entry point to the marginal rate of tax. The top 1% of all income tax cases in Ireland earn 9.1% of income and pay 30.4% of the taxation, the top 5% pay almost 55% of all taxation from 22.7% of the
    income. In effect this means that those persons or households with over 100,000 in income account for over half of all income tax paid, underlining the extreme redistributive effects of the Irish tax system.


  • Options
    #73
    Traumadoc
    Registered Users Posts: 2,523 ✭✭✭Traumadoc


    Fred Cryton wrote: »
    Firstly let's please stop using the word "progressive" in relation to taxes. What we're really talking about is robbing the middle class blind in order to pay for bloated welfare payments and bloated public sector salaries and pensions.


    Ireland already has some of the highest marginal tax rates, north of 50% taken off us in the private sector. What really should be happening is those on lower incomes should be paying more taxes. A person earning €20k in Germany pays €4k in tax. Here they pay €1k.



    I love how it doesn't even enter their little heads that perhaps public sector pay freezes might be one answer to budget deficits...

    GRRRRR..........get some one else to pay.


  • Options
    #74
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    RandomViewer wrote: »
    Basically FG supporters consider themselves as middle class and every one else isn't, some pub owner that barely breaks even every year is considered middle class but a factory worker who does 50-60 hour weeks and makes decent money is not , Its a wannabe brit concept

    Why did you even bother writing that drivel?


  • Options
    #75
    starkid
    Registered Users Posts: 762 ✭✭✭starkid


    RandomViewer wrote: »
    Basically FG supporters consider themselves as middle class and every one else isn't, some pub owner that barely breaks even every year is considered middle class but a factory worker who does 50-60 hour weeks and makes decent money is not , Its a wannabe brit concept

    yes its purely a FG concept.

    I mean Mary Lou would know all about it having attended proivate school and grew up in Rathgar.

    the inherant part of class is really based on income and perceptions. Plenty of people who consider themselves working class, salt of the earth earning 50k to 60k. Think the Jack O'Connor or the luas drivers of the World.


  • Options
    #76
    thebiggestjim
    Registered Users Posts: 345 ✭✭thebiggestjim


    tjhook wrote: »
    Marginal income tax rates are already too high for high-rate taxpayers. I've turned down additional work on a number of occasions because the state would take more of the additional pay than I'd get. It's just not worthwhile. That's not good for the economy, my employer or the state more generally.

    Agreed on this. This oppressive marginal tax rate is designed to keep you in the workforce as long as possible despite your labor and toil or whatever you have done to better yourself. Keep you as a nice earner bee for as long as possible.


  • Options
    #77
    biko
    Registered Users Posts: 81,223 ✭✭✭✭biko


    Is there anything to be said to cutting government spending instead of increasing tax burden on citizens?


  • Options
    #78
    B2021M
    Registered Users Posts: 515 ✭✭✭B2021M


    biko wrote: »
    Is there anything to be said to cutting government spending instead of increasing tax burden on citizens?

    A lot to be said for it.....but it wont be said.


  • Options
    #79
    timmyntc
    Registered Users Posts: 6,820 ✭✭✭timmyntc


    biko wrote: »
    Is there anything to be said to cutting government spending instead of increasing tax burden on citizens?

    A lot of NGOs living off govt handouts and giving nothing in return - might save a bit of coin.


  • Options
    #80
    RandomViewer
    Registered Users Posts: 6,191 ✭✭✭RandomViewer


    starkid wrote: »
    yes its purely a FG concept.

    I mean Mary Lou would know all about it having attended proivate school and grew up in Rathgar.

    the inherant part of class is really based on income and perceptions. Plenty of people who consider themselves working class, salt of the earth earning 50k to 60k. Think the Jack O'Connor or the luas drivers of the World.

    No such thing as class up until the mid 90s, everyone went to the same schools, hospitals etc.., then the Celtic Tiger crap came along and all of a sudden people were considered less because they didn't own this or weren't a member of that, I call BS on the whole concept,


  • Options
    #81
    B2021M
    Registered Users Posts: 515 ✭✭✭B2021M


    timmyntc wrote: »
    A lot of NGOs living off govt handouts and giving nothing in return - might save a bit of coin.

    Yes. And not only do they live off government handouts they spend their time lecturing the taxpayer on all the things they are doing wrong or what they should be doing. You wouldnt make it up.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    RandomViewer
    Registered Users Posts: 6,191 ✭✭✭RandomViewer


    biko wrote: »
    Is there anything to be said to cutting government spending instead of increasing tax burden on citizens?

    Probably somewhere between 20-30% excess employed in public service, the state pays over the odds for almost every service from pharmaceuticals to Garda cars, then we have cronies on the state teat for decades,


  • Options
    #83
    RandomViewer
    Registered Users Posts: 6,191 ✭✭✭RandomViewer


    ESRI used to be a place where the odd offspring of Garret Fitzgerald were sent to keep them out of mischief


  • Options
    #84
    BluePlanet
    Registered Users Posts: 2,346 ✭✭✭BluePlanet


    If there is a symbiosis between Public and Private Sectors, then why doesn't the Public Sector expand and contract when the Private Sector does?


  • Options
    #85
    timmyntc
    Registered Users Posts: 6,820 ✭✭✭timmyntc


    BluePlanet wrote: »
    If there is a symbiosis between Public and Private Sectors, then why doesn't the Public Sector expand and contract when the Private Sector does?

    Across the world, Public sectors rarely shrink. Easy to hire, hard to fire.


  • Options
    #86
    lawred2
    Registered Users Posts: 24,281 ✭✭✭✭lawred2


    starkid wrote: »
    they already do...thats the point many of us are making on here.

    Inclusive of income tax and the USC, a single person will not reach an effective tax rate of 5% until over 20,000 in income. At the top end of the scale, the average effective tax rate for a single-income earner (based on Revenue data) including income tax, USC and employee PRSI is 43% with a sharp shift upward in effective tax rates at the entry point to the marginal rate of tax. The top 1% of all income tax cases in Ireland earn 9.1% of income and pay 30.4% of the taxation, the top 5% pay almost 55% of all taxation from 22.7% of the
    income. In effect this means that those persons or households with over 100,000 in income account for over half of all income tax paid, underlining the extreme redistributive effects of the Irish tax system.

    pffft

    but they can "afford it"


  • Options
    #87
    timmyntc
    Registered Users Posts: 6,820 ✭✭✭timmyntc


    lawred2 wrote: »
    pffft

    but they can "afford it"

    Hardly - they will live in more expensive areas and pay more expensive mortgages and have to pay for health insurance and the works, since the more you pay the government the less freebies you get in return.

    People seem to think 100k household income is extremely wealthy - its not.
    Only in Ireland is there an attitude of everyone earning 6 figures is a billionaire who needs to be stripped of their wealth because they have too much


  • Options
    #88
    HBC08
    Registered Users Posts: 3,293 ✭✭✭HBC08


    Chips Lovell wrote: »
    Not really, if you do the sums. For example, the chart has the Irish average of income tax a little under 20%. A couple with a combined income of 100,000 (which is a decent haul) will pay around 19% in income tax.

    The thread is about taxes.
    My household brings in less than 100k but pay a LOT more than 19% in taxes,probably nearer double and that's before you consider road tax,LPT,VAT.
    That's a very disingenuous post.


  • Options
    #89
    lawred2
    Registered Users Posts: 24,281 ✭✭✭✭lawred2


    timmyntc wrote: »
    Hardly - they will live in more expensive areas and pay more expensive mortgages and have to pay for health insurance and the works, since the more you pay the government the less freebies you get in return.

    People seem to think 100k household income is extremely wealthy - its not.
    Only in Ireland is there an attitude of everyone earning 6 figures is a billionaire who needs to be stripped of their wealth because they have too much

    I think you missed the tone


  • Options
    #90
    starkid
    Registered Users Posts: 762 ✭✭✭starkid


    lawred2 wrote: »
    I think you missed the tone

    I got the tone alright, but i suppose the issue is that is the reply of many people in Ireland. pffftt..The rich should pay. Who are the rich we ask? oh the people earning 50 to 60k....so you'd include luas drivers, bus drivers as the rich....no, no they'll say. Its all a load of bull****. And the people who manipulate such people in politics, media and unions etc are as bad. The privately educated smoked salmon socialists that are ten a penny in this country.

    It boils my piss and i say this as a person who earns 29k in a good year. My brother works in the UK and would be paying huge sums in tax. People like him already pay the most.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    timmyntc
    Registered Users Posts: 6,820 ✭✭✭timmyntc


    lawred2 wrote: »
    I think you missed the tone

    :o


Advertisement