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
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Introduction of fees seemingly imminent

13»

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,065 ✭✭✭Fighting Irish


    I presume you're one of those who don't need / are unlikely to receive a grant? :)

    sure help the wasters


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 126 ✭✭LeotheLion


    sure help the wasters
    and what kind of brainless comment is that?

    If your suggesting that someone who could do with financial assistance in the form of a grant,which they are entitled to,can be deemed a waster?

    You obviously dont have the correct mentality to go to college/complete a degree or enter society

    You should stick at picking potatoes with your bare hands


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 11,148 ✭✭✭✭KnifeWRENCH


    sure help the wasters
    Not everyone who requires a grant is a "waster". That is a ridiculous generalisation to make.
    LeotheLion wrote: »
    You obvioulsy dontt have the correct mentality to go to college/complete a degree or enter society

    You should stick at picking potatoes with your bare hands

    Quit the abuse please.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,440 ✭✭✭✭Piste


    This tax is and should be income tax Piste. As those with 3rd level education will be earning on average far more than those with out 3rd level education. What about the thirteen years of people who have gone through without paying a graduate tax? I'll pay for my education via income tax, as it's by the far the fairest way to tax an economy.

    Yeah that was affordable during the celtic tiger, but now the income tax has to go to other areas like healthcare, defence and those darned banks so can't go to education. We need to pay for education. Before we paid through taxes, now that's not enough so fees have to come in. Education was never free in this country, it was always paid for through income tax, which meant that everyone paid for education, whether they benefited from it or not. Now only those that receive third level education will pay for it, which seems fairer to me.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,065 ✭✭✭Fighting Irish


    LeotheLion wrote: »
    and what kind of brainless comment is that?

    If your suggesting that someone who could do with financial assistance in the form of a grant,which they are entitled to,can be deemed a waster?

    You obviously dont have the correct mentality to go to college/complete a degree or enter society

    You should stick at picking potatoes with your bare hands

    it was a piss take statement :pac::D

    I do believe though that the whole world needs to stop helping the people who don't/haven't even tried
    Quit the abuse please.

    Don't worry about it, i was fishing ;)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,509 ✭✭✭✭randylonghorn


    Did I say that was right?
    No, you just ignored them completely because they didn't suit your argument! :)
    We did, before the abolition of the Irish Hospital Sweepstakes, but thats a whole different story.
    Hmmm ... I'm tempted to get into this one with you. In fairness, yet again, I don't completely disagree ... but yet again, it's a statement which is way too simplistic and black and white to be defensible.

    However, that debate has no place in the LC forum, so I'll let it drop.
    I hope to go and do something like that, the townships in South Africa being my particular place that I wish to visit/help.
    Fair play, and I mean that genuinely. You will find it a very educational experience apart from anything else, and I doubt that you will ever look at things in quite the same way again.
    If we are to have any way out of this mess, It's via education. While my earlier post may have been seen as rather selfish, admittedly taxing going to college will not help things. A 3rd band of tax at ~60% and an increase of the higher rate of tax to 45-46% would be much fairer, as we still would be paying for our education when we actually started making money, and not having the mountain of debt inflicted upon us by FF.
    I can very much see where you're coming from, but again, it's not black and white, and a lot of things have to be balanced up and the best compromise reached.

    The factor which immediately strikes me when I read that paragraph is the disincentive it would create to inward investment or indeed to retaining our own native entrepreneurs.

    We badly need people to come invest in Ireland right now, and the reality is that there isn't much investment activity out there worldwide at the moment, so we're in a very competitive market.

    So what do we have to offer the big investors? A resonably educated work-force, yes (and that comes back to your basic argument, I know) but so do other places.

    What else? Em ... lots of rain is about the only thing I can think of right now.

    Our wage costs are still inordinately high by world standards.

    We're peripheral geographically to the rest of Europe and the big population centres and markets. Products which don't rely on shipping such as Google, at least we're on a level playing field there, but with products which do, which are still the majority, we're at a decided disadvantage.

    The last thing we want to do is reinstate a tax-regime which punitively penalises those who have a good idea, employ people and make money, otherwise they will have another reason to go elsewhere. Much the same goes for our home-grown entrepreneurs ... if we tax the bejaysus out of them why should they bother?

    So ... the socialist within me agrees with you, the realist who co-habits with him is very skeptical!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,509 ✭✭✭✭randylonghorn


    Piste wrote: »
    I'm in favour of a graduate tax as long as decent funding does go to the various third level institutions and not to plug the various holes which have appeared in the economy.
    Again, I don't think there's a hope. Oh, the politicos will dress it up in satin and lace, and it will be like watching a reprise of the governor in The Best Little Whorehouse in Texas ... but they're already cutting back drastically at third level, and by the time this happens, even if the full fees raised come to the colleges, the best we can hope for is that it will plug the gaps made by the cuts they're currently implementing.
    It ridiculous to think that a person who earns €40,000 is taxed in the same band as one earning €2,000,000.
    I completely agree, but see my comments above.

    Taxation should be progressive, not regressive ... but it can't be punitive to the point where people just find somewhere else to set up shop.
    If I was in a 60% tax band, paying at the highest rate possible, I'd be more than happy to pay, as it would mean that I would have a standard of living that was very comfortable indeed.
    Fair play, but in my experience that attitude only lasts until people find themselves earning a lot of money ... then suddenly they start looking for ways to avoid paying any tax at all!!
    This tax is and should be income tax Piste. As those with 3rd level education will be earning on average far more than those with out 3rd level education. What about the thirteen years of people who have gone through without paying a graduate tax? I'll pay for my education via income tax, as it's by the far the fairest way to tax an economy.
    I suggested above that as one of a raft of measures ALL graduates earning above a certain (decent) salary should pay a 1% levy towards HE.

    A raft of measures to try to spread the pain, and not have it all suddenly fall on your heads i.e. those going through college in the next few years.

    Because you're right in a sense ... while I still say you'll get nowhere by jumping up and down and throwing a wobbly, still it isn't especially fair that the whole load should fall on you lot.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,509 ✭✭✭✭randylonghorn


    Ireland wasn't too badly affected by the Great Depression as opposed to industrialised countries.
    Mainly because our economy was so depressed it couldn't get much worse! But you're right ... an agriculturally-based borderline-subsistence agrarian economy like ours was fairly immune to the Great Depression.
    sure help the wasters
    Would you care to define "wasters"? ... watching those hobnail boots of yours on that very thin ice while you're doing so, of course.
    LeotheLion wrote: »
    and what kind of brainless comment is that? ... You should stick at picking potatoes with your bare hands
    Leave it out, unless you have a yen to spend a week potato-picking in other forums bar this one.
    Piste wrote: »
    Yeah that was affordable during the celtic tiger, but now the income tax has to go to other areas like healthcare, defence and those darned banks so can't go to education.
    Wait, whut?!! :eek:

    I really don't mean to offend, m'lady fair, but have you been on the sherry? :D

    Why on earth should we prioritise defence above education?

    This country has never been in a position to properly defend itself since the inception of the state. We rely on the good will of our neighbours and NATO and the US, on world public opinion, and the fact that we haven't any real enemies or dangerous neighbours to keep us safe.

    If even a 4th rate military power decided to invade, we would have little choice but to bend over and take it up the ... Shannon estuary! We could probably mount a reasonable guerilla resistance all right; the Irish have always been good at making unwanted guests in our country feel uncomfortable.

    And defend against who, anyway?? Our tiny naval unit has some work to do all right, what with poaching fishermen and smugglers and illegal immigrants (though we're likely to see less of the latter for a while!)

    What do our army have to do? Look macho outside the banks when there's a cash delivery? Keep an eye on the border with NI (and even that's less of a problem than 20 years ago)? Polish their weapons and show them to the President?
    I do believe though that the whole world needs to stop helping the people who don't/haven't even tried.
    So those who get grants haven't even tried, eh?

    Well, they seem to have tried hard enough in their LC to get into college for a start.

    I have no doubt that some people abuse the grant scheme, but many people work hard to get into college, get the grant because their financial circumstances merit it, work hard to finish college, and go on to become useful tax-paying members of society.

    Such BS makes me believe the first part of your nick and deeply regret the second part ...
    Don't worry about it, i was fishing ;)
    Fishing forum is here.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,440 ✭✭✭✭Piste


    Lol I meant the guards! Like defending us from each other, not defending the country from others! Though in hindsight it woulda made more sense to say "police force" instead of defence :pac:


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,509 ✭✭✭✭randylonghorn


    Piste wrote: »
    Lol I meant the guards! Like defending us from each other, not defending the country from others! Though in hindsight it woulda made more sense to say "police force" instead of defence :pac:
    Just slightly ... ~_^


  • Advertisement
  • Users Awaiting Email Confirmation Posts: 284 ✭✭We


    It ridiculous to think that a person who earns €40,000 is taxed in the same band as one earning €2,000,000.

    It's usually best to stop talking when you have no idea what your talking about..

    You'd think that having just finished the leaving cert you might still remember that little term 'standard cut-off point' from maths...

    €40k earner..
    36k @ 20% = 7200
    4k @ 41% = 1640

    total= €8840..


    €2,000,000 earner
    36k @ 20% = 7200
    1,964,000 @ 41% = 805,240

    total = €812,440

    Theres more to it, tax credits and other things, but you should be able to see how flawed your thinking on this is..

    Want to talk politics? try it on the politics forum and see how long you last without someone slating and exposing you for not having a clue what your talking about..

    Forget taxing the rich, tax the ignorant! they wont even realise...


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,632 ✭✭✭SligoBrewer


    We wrote: »
    It's usually best to stop talking when you have no idea what your talking about..

    You'd think that having just finished the leaving cert you might still remember that little term 'standard cut-off point' from maths...

    €40k earner..
    36k @ 20% = 7200
    4k @ 41% = 1640

    total= €8840..


    €2,000,000 earner
    36k @ 20% = 7200
    1,964,000 @ 41% = 805,240

    total = €812,440

    Theres more to it, tax credits and other things, but you should be able to see how flawed your thinking on this is..

    Want to talk politics? try it on the politics forum and see how long you last without someone slating and exposing you for not having a clue what your talking about..

    Forget taxing the rich, tax the ignorant! they wont even realise...

    Eh.. wtf are you on about? My point was that both were paying in the same tax band as each other. Not the same amount of tax. You are basically repeating what I said. :rolleyes:

    EDIT: You didn't even read the piece you quoted.


  • Users Awaiting Email Confirmation Posts: 284 ✭✭We


    Eh.. wtf are you on about? My point was that both were paying in the same tax band as each other. Not the same amount of tax. You are basically repeating what I said. :rolleyes:

    EDIT: You didn't even read the piece you quoted.

    Maybe you didn't read my post..

    You seem to be implying in your post that the person earning 40k and the person earning 2mil are contributing the same proportions or percent of their salary towards tax, and that is why a higher, 60% tax rate is needed on top of the 40%..

    My point was that this is the reason for the standard cut off rate.. When you do the maths, the 40k earner only has to contribute around 27% of his total salary towards tax, while the 2mil earner has to contribute just under 40%.. a much bigger slice of his pizza ;) It already has the effect of your proposed 60% rate, just less, as 60% would be rediculous and remove any incentive that the rich had for staying in this country.


    I think that should suffice.. if not, your on your own to figure it out..


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,632 ✭✭✭SligoBrewer


    We wrote: »
    Maybe you didn't read my post..

    You seem to be implying in your post that the person earning 40k and the person earning 2mil are contributing the same proportions or percent of their salary towards tax, and that is why a higher, 60% tax rate is needed on top of the 40%..

    My point was that this is the reason for the standard cut off rate.. When you do the maths, the 40k earner only has to contribute around 27% of his total salary towards tax, while the 2mil earner has to contribute just under 40%.. a much bigger slice of his pizza ;) It already has the effect of your proposed 60% rate, just less, as 60% would be rediculous and remove any incentive that the rich had for staying in this country.

    I know exactly what you are saying, but they are still paying at the same tax band. Which is my point, and I never stated any different.
    The person paying a 60% tax can well afford to pay tax at 60%, as they would be earning a lot of money. The whole idea would be to tax those who can easily afford it, avoiding taxing those who can't. The incentive to earn money will always be there.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,586 ✭✭✭sock puppet


    I know exactly what you are saying, but they are still paying at the same tax band. Which is my point, and I never stated any different.
    The person paying a 60% tax can well afford to pay tax at 60%, as they would be earning a lot of money. The whole idea would be to tax those who can easily afford it, avoiding taxing those who can't. The incentive to earn money will always be there.

    Why? If I was rich enough to be in the 60% band I'd either move from the country or else just not bother trying to earn above that. If it was a choice between fees and higher taxes I'd take the fees.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,632 ✭✭✭SligoBrewer


    Why? If I was rich enough to be in the 60% band I'd either move from the country or else just not bother trying to earn above that.

    Not all of your income would be at 60% Only the proportion over the threshold, see the example given by We above.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,586 ✭✭✭sock puppet


    Not all of your income would be at 60% Only the proportion over the threshold, see the example given by We above.

    Which is why there'd be no point in earning above the threshold.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,632 ✭✭✭SligoBrewer


    Which is why there'd be no point in earning above the threshold.

    Wealth redistribution then so?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,586 ✭✭✭sock puppet


    Wealth redistrubution then so?

    Well yes. Redistributed to other countries that is.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,632 ✭✭✭SligoBrewer


    Well yes. Redistributed to other countries that is.

    Explain how please.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,586 ✭✭✭sock puppet


    Explain how please.

    Why would a rich person stay if taxes were so high. And 60 percent is very high.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,632 ✭✭✭SligoBrewer


    Why would a rich person stay if taxes were so high.

    Convenience, security and patriotism. (S)He'll have his/her family here, his/her job and his/her life.

    Whereas if young people are saddled with a massive debt that they must repay upon their beginning of work, there will be a lot more people leaving as we'll have a lot less ties then those who are older.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,586 ✭✭✭sock puppet


    Convenience, security and patriotism. (S)He'll have his/her family here, his/her job and his/her life.

    Whereas if young people are saddled with a massive debt that they must repay upon their beginning of work, there will be a lot more people leaving as we'll have a lot less ties then those who are older.

    They can still live here and become tax exiles if they are wealthy enough. I agree with your last point. Nothing that the government does is going to improve things. At least with a loan system everyone gets the chance to go to college.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,632 ✭✭✭SligoBrewer


    They can still live here and become tax exiles.

    The tax exiles net is going to be closed or at least tightened a good bit afaik.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,509 ✭✭✭✭randylonghorn


    Well yes. Redistributed to other countries that is.
    Explain how please.
    With people skidaddling to less punitive tax regimes. The more money they have the easier it is to do and the more incentive to do it ... and it's not exactly our climate is going to keep them here!!
    Convenience, security and patriotism. (S)He'll have his/her family here, his/her job and his/her life.
    When you have enough money, almost anywhere is convenient and secure, and very few people's patriotism survives seeing 60% of their income disappear out of their pocket. And when you're rich enough it is very easy to move your family and your life, and do it to some place which they find exciting and attractive enough to ameliorate any pangs of homesickness, and given that we are talking primarily about business people / entrepreneurs, their job is basically wherever they are.

    The other side of that is that the self-same factors will (theoretically) keep outside investors at home unless you give them a good enough reason to move base ... and a punitive tax system is the ultimate "Do not enter!" for such people.
    Whereas if young people are saddled with a massive debt that they must repay upon their beginning of work, there will be a lot more people leaving as we'll have a lot less ties then those who are older.
    ... not to mention no jobs and being shafted by this tax regime of yours even if they find a decent one!

    Honestly, SB, I can see where you're coming from with a lot of this, but you need to expose some of these black-and-white ideas of yours to the light of harsh realities, and take particular note of the greytone!!

    I'm highly skeptical of this student loans idea for a host of reasons, but you are not showing me any good / workable alternatives either.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 98 ✭✭Seanh111


    Sorry if this is a stupid question but im starting college this sept. So if fees come back for sept 2010 does that mean i wont have to pay as im already in college? Personally i think fees, if they must come back, should be means tested. Those who can afford it pay, those who cant the state pays.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,909 ✭✭✭Agent J


    Seanh111 wrote: »
    Sorry if this is a stupid question but im starting college this sept. So if fees come back for sept 2010 does that mean i wont have to pay as im already in college? Personally i think fees, if they must come back, should be means tested. Those who can afford it pay, those who cant the state pays.

    Nice idea.
    Never going to happen though.
    Just wait until they set the thresholds. COnsidering at the moment 2 parents working full time at McDonalds(No offense to Mcds workers intended) are considered too rich for their kids to get a Grant i wouldnt hold out too much faith in it.

    If the government can get away with it they will charge you fees as soon as possible. I cant see them doing it for this academic year but could see it for further years.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,509 ✭✭✭✭randylonghorn


    Seanh111 wrote: »
    Sorry if this is a stupid question but im starting college this sept. So if fees come back for sept 2010 does that mean i wont have to pay as im already in college?
    I wouldn't bet on it. As I said above, there seems to be a general message going out from the Minister that one of the reasons this is getting such an airing now before the decision has even been made is so that people entering college this September can't say this time next year that they got no warning that something was coming down the line.

    I suspect at best it means that you get one year over and done with, and get caught for subsequent years.


Advertisement