Social Justice Ireland- oh dear sweet baby jebus

Banned Account · 05-10-2010 08:51AM #1

So the latest shower to stick their oars in on the impending budget are a charity called "Social Justice Ireland" and their contribution ...?

To lower the tax relief on pension contribution to 20% for anyone earning above the average industrial wage! Seriously, are they actually suggesting that this should be considered - it will only serve to prevent those in the higher tax bracket from contributing to their pensions, thus creating a new generation of poor retirees more reliant on the state for support.

Added to this the fact that they seem to think that making everyone equally poor is the best way to achieve social justice - Jesus wept.

I'm getting pretty sick to the back teeth of the idea that those who have managed to become even remotely succussful are now to be penalised for not being hard up - it's bad enough having to shoulder the bigger tax burden but then to have reliefs taken away on top of it is just going way to far for my liking.

Is it not time to realise that for social jusice to be achieved, people will once more have to believe in the notion of the social contract, this will only be done by restoring peoples faith in the fact that their tax monies will be spent in a way which is for the good of society as a whole. The fact that this notion is dead is not the fault of the general public but rather the fault of generations of politicians who seem to have lost touch with the basic principles of good governance.

The idea that old school left wingers feel that one part of society can be rightfully bled dry by de facto reason of earnings and job title alone is really beginning to sicken me to the pit of my stomach.

I'm actually beginning to hate this country a little more every day now.

irishh_bob · 05-10-2010 09:15AM

the well fed fr sean healy of social justice ireland was on the news at one yesterday outlining his ( goverment ) programme , a visitor to the country would think this man was the opposition spokesperson on finance , the 1st thing that should be done in the next budget is a cull of this unelected QUANGO

bullpost · 05-10-2010 09:20AM

Interesting - the Catholic Church couldn't wait to get rid of Communism - now they can't wait to bring it back :eek:

Idbatterim · 05-10-2010 09:27AM

Talking of social justice, the below I just pulled from the independent is a step in the right direction... "The Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne also said he would cap the total state benefits paid to any family at £26,000 (€30,097) to ensure they would not be better off than working families." The full article is below.

http://www.independent.ie/world-news/europe/britain-ends-child-welfare-for-wealthier-families-2364544.html

P. Breathnach · 05-10-2010 09:29AM

irishh_bob wrote: »

the well fed fr sean healy of social justice ireland was on the news at one yesterday outlining his ( goverment ) programme , a visitor to the country would think this man was the opposition spokesperson on finance , the 1st thing that should be done in the next budget is a cull of this unelected QUANGO

What unelected QUANGO? Or are you suggesting that any group that participates in public discourse should be culled?

On the point that so incenses Fitzcaraldo: those on higher incomes have, for decades, received a proportionately greater tax subsidy towards their pensions than have those on lower incomes. I find it hard to sympathise with a contention that inequity is a good thing and should be continued.

Banned Account · 05-10-2010 09:34AM

P. Breathnach wrote: »

On the point that so incenses Fitzcaraldo: those on higher incomes have, for decades, received a proportionately greater tax subsidy towards their pensions than have those on lower incomes. I find it hard to sympathise with a contention that inequity is a good thing and should be continued.

Right, so the best way to adress inequity is to reduce all to the lowest level rather than improve the lot of those worse off by increasing their relief to 41% or introduce a common 30% relief in the hope that lower earners may provide for themselves in the future??

murphaph · 05-10-2010 09:37AM

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I find it hard to sympathise with a contention that inequity is a good thing and should be continued.

...but we are not all equal. Some people work harder than others and they deserve the breaks. Some people are more intelligent than others and so can perform complex tasks that the less intelligent cannot...these people deserve to earn, on average, more! What is the problem with that?

I like the UK's move to "a single benefits payment" capped at a certain figure. This is badly needed in Ireland. NO FAMILY ON BENEFITS SHOULD "EARN" MORE THAN A WORKING FAMILY

Coillte_Bhoy · 05-10-2010 09:38AM

irishh_bob wrote: »

the well fed fr sean healy of social justice ireland was on the news at one yesterday outlining his ( goverment ) programme , a visitor to the country would think this man was the opposition spokesperson on finance , the 1st thing that should be done in the next budget is a cull of this unelected QUANGO

Whata re you on about? Unelected Quango?? You obv havent s clue what you're on about,

Tipp Man · 05-10-2010 09:43AM

Fitzcaraldo wrote: »

Right, so the best way to adress inequity is to reduce all to the lowest level rather than improve the lot of those worse off by increasing their relief to 41% or introduce a common 30% relief in the hope that lower earners may provide for themselves in the future??

Thats what sickens me about a lot of people in this country. They'd rather drag down the people who are successful rather than incentivise those who are less successful.

The best thing you can do in this country is nothing, that way somebody who is actually doing something will do all the hard work while you reap all the benifits.

Its also hilarious that public servants on this thread with defined benefit pensions have the cheek to complain about tax breaks for pensions when they have contributed f##k all to their own gold plated pensions.

Equality is great when somebody else is paying

Idbatterim · 05-10-2010 10:03AM

why dont the catholic church spread some of their wealth if they are so concerned about "social justice"!

johnboy_123 · 05-10-2010 10:21AM

murphaph wrote: »

...but we are not all equal. Some people work harder than others and they deserve the breaks. Some people are more intelligent than others and so can perform complex tasks that the less intelligent cannot...these people deserve to earn, on average, more! What is the problem with that?

I like the UK's move to "a single benefits payment" capped at a certain figure. This is badly needed in Ireland. NO FAMILY ON BENEFITS SHOULD "EARN" MORE THAN A WORKING FAMILY

Thats bolloxology it really is...the whole childrens allowence thing its a crap shoot and I will tell you why.

If your rich and paying more tax then the poor and you should be entitled to childrens allowence it isnt a payment by the gov it is a tax break...They pay for childrens allowence through tax so why shouldnt they get it.

If your middle class taking this away is going to impact on your quality of life it is a lifeline for people here at the moment

If your unemployed/struggling/lower class this definately needs to be kept but having said that I dont think its fair that people working hard should have to pay for other peoples children.

Either cut it out altogether that way me you and the man on the street isnt paying for Mary who couldnt be arsed getting a job as the childrens allowence and other allowences are too good to get up off the hole

or cut it accross the board...The other point here is that this money is for the children who has not got their own wealth (yet) so every child should get it.

Also this should be paid in domestic grossery store vouchers..If the government could stike a deal with dunnes/tesco/aldi/lidle and any other stores who would like to avail of it... This gets rid of the argument that only the poorer put this money back into the local ecconomy...So the rich would have to spend it in the local supermarkets or whatever....It could also be done at a discount say go to the stores and say right we are paying 10billion in childrens allowance at present (dont quote me on that figure) and go to the stores and see if they will do a deal for 10 billion worth of credit for say 9 billion - thats 1 billion off the current deficit

murphaph · 05-10-2010 10:40AM

johnboy_123 wrote: »

Thats bolloxology it really is...the whole childrens allowence thing its a crap shoot and I will tell you why.

If your rich and paying more tax then the poor and you should be entitled to childrens allowence it isnt a payment by the gov it is a tax break...They pay for childrens allowence through tax so why shouldnt they get it.

If your middle class taking this away is going to impact on your quality of life it is a lifeline for people here at the moment

If your unemployed/struggling/lower class this definately needs to be kept but having said that I dont think its fair that people working hard should have to pay for other peoples children.

Either cut it out altogether that way me you and the man on the street isnt paying for Mary who couldnt be arsed getting a job as the childrens allowence and other allowences are too good to get up off the hole

or cut it accross the board...The other point here is that this money is for the children who has not got their own wealth (yet) so every child should get it.

Also this should be paid in domestic grossery store vouchers..If the government could stike a deal with dunnes/tesco/aldi/lidle and any other stores who would like to avail of it... This gets rid of the argument that only the poorer put this money back into the local ecconomy...So the rich would have to spend it in the local supermarkets or whatever....It could also be done at a discount say go to the stores and say right we are paying 10billion in childrens allowance at present (dont quote me on that figure) and go to the stores and see if they will do a deal for 10 billion worth of credit for say 9 billion - thats 1 billion off the current deficit

I'm struggling to understand your take on this tbh.

05-10-2010 10:56AM

Tipp Man wrote: »

Thats what sickens me about a lot of people in this country. They'd rather drag down the people who are successful rather than incentivise those who are less successful.

The best thing you can do in this country is nothing, that way somebody who is actually doing something will do all the hard work while you reap all the benifits.

Its also hilarious that public servants on this thread with defined benefit pensions have the cheek to complain about tax breaks for pensions when they have contributed f##k all to their own gold plated pensions.

Equality is great when somebody else is paying

This post is bullcrap and more of the misleading garbage that is posted about public servants. Please get some facts and come back to this point.

Tipp Man · 05-10-2010 11:04AM

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

This post is bullcrap and more of the misleading garbage that is posted about public servants. Please get some facts and come back to this point.

How about you come out with some facts to prove it is bullcrap rather than just call it that. Why not let the facts speak for themselves. Prove it wrong

And don't even start by saying the ps pension is not top notch

05-10-2010 11:12AM

Tipp Man wrote: »

How about you come out with some facts to prove it is bullcrap rather than just call it that. Why not let the facts speak for themselves. Prove it wrong

And don't even start by saying the ps pension is not top notch

I dont need to tipp mann
The government have a document including the history of remuneration and what is paid. Have some happy reading. http://finance.gov.ie/viewdoc.asp?DocID=895

Banned Account · 05-10-2010 11:18AM

Folks, do you think it would be too much to ask for the occasional thread to be allowed to run without descending into the same old private versus public sector debate which has been done a million times?

The thread was about whether it's right to achieve equality by reducing the rights of one party rather than increasing the rights of another, I really don't see what the public v's private sector debate has to do with it.

Thanks.

ardmacha · 05-10-2010 11:29AM

On the point that so incenses Fitzcaraldo: those on higher incomes have, for decades, received a proportionately greater tax subsidy towards their pensions than have those on lower incomes. I find it hard to sympathise with a contention that inequity is a good thing and should be continued.

It is not quite as simple as that though, as those on higger incomes typically also pay a higher rate of tax on income drawn from those pensions. There is a case to answer regarding pensions, but it is not a simple one.

dvpower · 05-10-2010 11:58AM

Fitzcaraldo wrote: »

To lower the tax relief on pension contribution to 20% for anyone earning above the average industrial wage! Seriously, are they actually suggesting that this should be considered - it will only serve to prevent those in the higher tax bracket from contributing to their pensions, thus creating a new generation of poor retirees more reliant on the state for support.

If they didn't insist on taxing annuity income at the higher rate this wouldn't be so bad; tax relief on pension contributions is basically just tax deferred.

dvpower · 05-10-2010 12:00PM

Perhaps a benefit in kind on defined benefits pensions should be considered or a tax on all payments made by employers into these schemes.

mikemac · 05-10-2010 12:48PM

Nobody mentioned that they want a tax on text messages.
I realize this was proposed by the Greens last year also

A 1 cent tax on text messages.
All mobile operators have sophisticated billing systems.
It would be pretty straightforward to calculate and forward what's due to Revenue

Tbh, I don't have an issue with it.
Not sure how much it raise. Over several million anyway

Fat_Fingers · 05-10-2010 01:32PM

Greens should change their party name to Tax Party

Taxi Drivers · 05-10-2010 01:58PM

The supporting arguments for a lot of these proposals are baseless. The pension proposal Fr Healy said "pension tax breaks – with a 20% rate on lower incomes and a 41% rate for higher earners – unfairly hit the less well-off. This means four-fifths of the benefit goes to the richest one-fifth."

The ability to make pensions contributions from gross salary reduces an earner's income tax liability. The benefit is reduced income tax. The pension contribution scheme cannot help the low paid because they do not pay income tax. In 2006, 50% of income tax cases filed with the Revenue Commissioners had an income tax bill of approximately zero.

Removing the tax-free status of pension contributions at the marginal rate will do adsolutely nothing for low earners. We already do as much as we can for them - they do not pay income tax.

There may be reasons for changes our pension provisions, but any argument that the current situation mainly benefits mid to high earners is a meaningless one. The current provisions can only benefit these people as they are the only ones paying income tax.

A income tax deduction can only benefit those who actually pay income tax. Fr Healy should be more concerned with trying to raise to incomes of lower paid to help them benefit from this provision rather than reducing the incomes of higher paid.

Finally, the issue of relevance here is a person's income tax bill. Obviously everyone pays indirect taxes but the pension debate relates primarily to income tax. The issues with our indirect taxes is another debate.

P. Breathnach · 05-10-2010 02:35PM

Taxi Drivers wrote: »

... There may be reasons for changes our pension provisions, but any argument that the current situation mainly benefits mid to high earners is a meaningless one...

Huh? Meaningless, but involving real money. A tax spend is still a spend.

People on high incomes get a tax break at 41%, meaning that the state underwrites 41% of their pension savings; people on moderate incomes get a tax break at 20%, meaning that the state underwrites 20% of their pension savings; people on low incomes get 0% of their pensions underwritten.

johnboy_123 · 05-10-2010 02:40PM

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Huh? Meaningless, but involving real money. A tax spend is still a spend.

People on high incomes get a tax break at 41%, meaning that the state underwrites 41% of their pension savings; people on moderate incomes get a tax break at 20%, meaning that the state underwrites 20% of their pension savings; people on low incomes get 0% of their pensions underwritten.

But its still a tax break they are still paying the gov 41% of their wage so why shouldnt they get this tax break?

dvpower · 05-10-2010 02:50PM

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Huh? Meaningless, but involving real money. A tax spend is still a spend.

People on high incomes get a tax break at 41%, meaning that the state underwrites 41% of their pension savings; people on moderate incomes get a tax break at 20%, meaning that the state underwrites 20% of their pension savings; people on low incomes get 0% of their pensions underwritten.

People who have high pension incomes pay 41% tax on it
People who have moderate pension incomes pay 20% tax on it
People who have no pension income pay 0% tax.
Seems like a fair system to me.

Tipp Man · 05-10-2010 02:50PM

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Huh? Meaningless, but involving real money. A tax spend is still a spend.

People on high incomes get a tax break at 41%, meaning that the state underwrites 41% of their pension savings; people on moderate incomes get a tax break at 20%, meaning that the state underwrites 20% of their pension savings; people on low incomes get 0% of their pensions underwritten.

Sorry what is your point??

The tax is defferred until the pension is drawn down, so if you pay a lot into a pension now then you get a big relief, when you draw down this big pension then you will pay a lot of tax on it then.

kmick · 05-10-2010 02:50PM

If they remove the tax breaks people simply wont contribute to their pension. People who do not contribute to their pension end up costing the state. Its a deferred cost to the state in the end. Special interest groups are a bane to democracy. We need to bring back the debate about ministers decoupling from being TD's who are unfortunately always accountable to their constituencies.

Tipp Man wrote: »

The tax is defferred until the pension is drawn down, so if you pay a lot into a pension now then you get a big relief, when you draw down this big pension then you will pay a lot of tax on it then.

This is correct albeit you can draw down 25% tax free.

dvpower · 05-10-2010 02:52PM

johnboy_123 wrote: »

But its still a tax break they are still paying the gov 41% of their wage so why shouldnt they get this tax break?

Exactly. The income is foregone (at least until retirement), so it seems fair that the tax should be foregone (at least until retirement).

Tipp Man · 05-10-2010 02:54PM

Fitzcaraldo wrote: »

Folks, do you think it would be too much to ask for the occasional thread to be allowed to run without descending into the same old private versus public sector debate which has been done a million times?

The thread was about whether it's right to achieve equality by reducing the rights of one party rather than increasing the rights of another, I really don't see what the public v's private sector debate has to do with it.

Thanks.

on the issue of equality I think that Michael McDowell once said that it is good not to have an equal society and he was lambasted for it. But technically he is very much correct as can be summed up nicely in Murph's post

murphaph wrote: »

...but we are not all equal. Some people work harder than others and they deserve the breaks. Some people are more intelligent than others and so can perform complex tasks that the less intelligent cannot...these people deserve to earn, on average, more! What is the problem with that?

dvpower · 05-10-2010 02:55PM

kmick wrote: »

If they remove the tax breaks people simply wont contribute to their pension. People who do not contribute to their pension end up costing the state. Its a deferred cost to the state in the end. Special interest groups are a bane to democracy. We need to bring back the debate about ministers decoupling from being TD's who are unfortunately always accountable to their constituencies.

If they agreed not to tax the income derived from pensions then it would be acceptable to revove the relief on contributions, but this proposal is to lower the relief to 20% but keep the tax on pension income at 41%.

Its taxing the same income twice.

rumour · 05-10-2010 03:11PM

johnboy_123 wrote: »

Thats bolloxology it really is...the whole childrens allowence thing its a crap shoot and I will tell you why.

If your rich and paying more tax then the poor and you should be entitled to childrens allowence it isnt a payment by the gov it is a tax break...They pay for childrens allowence through tax so why shouldnt they get it.

If your middle class taking this away is going to impact on your quality of life it is a lifeline for people here at the moment

If your unemployed/struggling/lower class this definately needs to be kept but having said that I dont think its fair that people working hard should have to pay for other peoples children.

Either cut it out altogether that way me you and the man on the street isnt paying for Mary who couldnt be arsed getting a job as the childrens allowence and other allowences are too good to get up off the hole

or cut it accross the board...The other point here is that this money is for the children who has not got their own wealth (yet) so every child should get it.

Also this should be paid in domestic grossery store vouchers..If the government could stike a deal with dunnes/tesco/aldi/lidle and any other stores who would like to avail of it... This gets rid of the argument that only the poorer put this money back into the local ecconomy...So the rich would have to spend it in the local supermarkets or whatever....It could also be done at a discount say go to the stores and say right we are paying 10billion in childrens allowance at present (dont quote me on that figure) and go to the stores and see if they will do a deal for 10 billion worth of credit for say 9 billion - thats 1 billion off the current deficit

I have a novel approach, seems to me I pay tax and then have it given back to me in childrens allowance

. WTF we are employing people to go around in circles administering nonsense.

How about just adding it as a tax credit to mothers or identified carers period. Another couple of hundred grand(probably millions) saved in admin and one less media argument over nothing spared.

Oh I can just hear the 'what about the single mum with no income'...thats a social welfare problem.

Social Justice Ireland- oh dear sweet baby jebus

Comments