Income tax increase for super rich - Can i hear a coherent argument against?

Snakeblood · 02-12-2011 04:21PM

gurramok wrote: »

Alot of people poor and rich are time poor and eat alot of prepared foods via processed stuff and also eat out at the likes of McDonalds(just look at modern day obesity in kids). This together with the high VAT on clothes, footwear and toiletries does affect the poor more than the wealthy.

Oh as Seamus pointed out, the poor should not be allowed to have a chocolate bar nevermind wash themselves:D

I don't really accept there isn't half an hour to prepare a healthy meal for anyone. And that's as long as it takes to do it.

I'd agree with the clothes, footwear and toiletries, except I see a lot of cheap clothes, I see a lot of cheap footwear and I see a lot of discount toiletries. Certainly not the best stuff, but perfectly safe and serviceable to use.

Seamus pointed out that chocolate is a luxury. It is. you don't need it to survive and prosper. It's an occasional treat that should be taxed highly, because the risk of fatties is high from it, whether the person eating it is rich or poor.

stevenmu · 02-12-2011 04:23PM

gurramok wrote: »

Eating out has VAT on it too.(http://www.revenue.ie/en/tax/vat/rates/decision-detail-01390.jsp)

Eating out is definitely a luxury.

gurramok · 02-12-2011 04:26PM

Snakeblood wrote: »

I don't really accept there isn't half an hour to prepare a healthy meal for anyone. And that's as long as it takes to do it.

I'd agree with the clothes, footwear and toiletries, except I see a lot of cheap clothes, I see a lot of cheap footwear and I see a lot of discount toiletries. Certainly not the best stuff, but perfectly safe and serviceable to use.

Seamus pointed out that chocolate is a luxury. It is. you don't need it to survive and prosper. It's an occasional treat that should be taxed highly, because the risk of fatties is high from it, whether the person eating it is rich or poor.

Well, how many of us can cook properly? I can't

There is even 21% VAT on gloves, but hey they never thought it would get cold here!

Chocolate is actually good for you. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-14679497

For Forks Sake · 02-12-2011 04:26PM

stevenmu wrote: »

Eating out is definitely a luxury.

You're doing it wrong

Snakeblood · 02-12-2011 04:29PM

gurramok wrote: »

Well, how many of us can cook properly? I can't

There is even 21% VAT on gloves, but hey they never thought it would get cold here!

Chocolate is actually good for you. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-14679497

It's hardly everyone else's fault if people can't cook. It's a basic skill, and helps with economising.

You can get gloves for 7 euro in Debenhams. I bought a pair today. I presume cheaper in Penneys. Even with an extra 21% vat it's still what I'd call affordable to those on a low income.

In moderation it may be. In excess, it turns people into fatties.

Frank Black · 02-12-2011 04:42PM

Snakeblood wrote: »

It's hardly everyone else's fault if people can't cook. It's a basic skill, and helps with economising.

You can get gloves for 7 euro in Debenhams. I bought a pair today. I presume cheaper in Penneys. Even with an extra 21% vat it's still what I'd call affordable to those on a low income.

In moderation it may be. In excess, it turns people into fatties.

I agree - and if €7 for gloves is too expensive a pair of socks worn over the hands will suffice.

It's apparent from this thread that a lot of people haven't a clue between what's essential and what's a luxury.

Johro · 02-12-2011 04:50PM

The super rich... Ffs.
They should all be taken outside and shot in front of their fam...
Oh wait..

K-9 · 02-12-2011 05:15PM

I'd have no major problem against it but I can't help but think that money would be better in the owners hands and let the Government incentivise investment, like give tax breaks for windfarms, setting up manufacturing, that type of thing.

That way, instead of it going to Govt. coffers it has a good chance of creating employment and industry.

There have been changes to the rules in 09 and 2010 that have plugged a lot of the tax break loopholes. People with incomes of 400k+ now have to pay an effective 30% tax rate and that is expected to be extended in the budget. That together with I think a 7% USC charge means they are paying more, you just don't hear much cribbing about it.

http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/high-earners-only-forced-to-pay-at-least-20pc-tax-on-income-2835589.html

The 09 tax figures are here if anybody is bored enough:

http://www.revenue.ie/en/about/publications/statistical/2010/income-distribution-statistics.pdf

1.71% of cases earn 150k + and pay 29.43% of income tax with 13.95% of the income..

Over 75k account for 10.22% of cases, 35.68% of income and pay 61.78% of taxes.

I would accept VAT tends to effect the less well of more. The new water and property rates as an example.

TL;DR I'd prefer giving targeted tax breaks so that wealth can be invested in industry and create jobs but tax breaks are now a no no, the public thinks developers.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i · 02-12-2011 05:26PM

Why should the rich be taxed more? Why would anybody work harder to gain a higher wage to get it taken off them?

A Primal Nut · 02-12-2011 05:36PM

Taxing the rich isn't a solution. It's a symbolic gesture governments make to be populist. There aren't many rich people in Ireland so taxing them even more is going to bring in very little extra tax revenue. That's why everyone needs to pay their fair share, not just the rich. If the government increased tax on the rich tomorrow, socialists would be happy but in reality it would have very little practical benefit.

Chuck Stone · 02-12-2011 10:35PM

foxyboxer wrote: »

I like this analogy....

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to €100…

The only problem with this well thanked analogy is that it is a simplistic, letter box, view of taxation. It only considers income taxes and completely ignores flat taxes like a TV licence and VAT.

Middle and lower income earners pay far more money in taxes as a percentage of their income than the wealthy and the rich.

psychward · 02-12-2011 11:22PM

Thoie wrote: »

I don't understand your point here. I consider the internet at home a luxury that I'm willing to pay for. If I couldn't afford it, I'd give it up, and use the free internet in the library.

You don't understand about the free market ? That must surely explain why you apparently support RTEs theft of money from people who never ever watch RTE.

Biscuits16 · 02-12-2011 11:28PM

massiveattack wrote: »

No, but you can hear my renditition of the late late show theme

Dah dah dah dah daaaa

Dahh dahh dah da dah daa

Dah de da de de

DE DE DE DA DAAAA

DAA DA DAAAA

That reads more like The Sunday Game theme tune

Osgoodisgood · 02-12-2011 11:28PM

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Middle and lower income earners pay far more money in taxes as a percentage of their disposable income than the wealthy and the rich.

The "wealthy and rich" create more revenue for the Rev Com because their expenditure tends to attract high levels of VAT and circulates through the market more quickly. The percentage is irrelevant (and is still debateable) unless begrudgery is a goal.

Thoie · 02-12-2011 11:43PM

psychward wrote: »

You don't understand about the free market ? That must surely explain why you apparently support RTEs theft of money from people who never ever watch RTE.

That's some leap of logic - we've gone from explaining to you that TV is a luxury, and not necessary to support life, to accusing me of supporting the TV license?

Chuck Stone · 02-12-2011 11:53PM

Osgoodisgood wrote: »

The "wealthy and rich" create more revenue for the Rev Com because their expenditure tends to attract high levels of VAT and circulates through the market more quickly.

They have the option of spending more. Unless you live in a cave and wash your clothes in a river then most VAT is not levied on 'luxury' goods.

The percentage is irrelevant

The percentage is everything. If percentage is nothing then why say that the rich pay more of their income taxes as a percentage of their pay?

You would like to use percentages for your argument and yet deny them to me. No. Just no.

unless begrudgery is a goal.

Ah that old chestnut - looks well polished.

K-9 · 03-12-2011 12:13AM

Osgoodisgood wrote: »

The "wealthy and rich" create more revenue for the Rev Com because their expenditure tends to attract high levels of VAT and circulates through the market more quickly. The percentage is irrelevant (and is still debateable) unless begrudgery is a goal.

It generally does effect the less well off disproportionately. It generally is accepted opinion, and a big reason for our bubble.

Governments, Employers and Unions all had a consensus on reducing Income Taxes and PRSI. The idea was to put more money in people's pockets to spend. And spend they did, on houses, extensions, 4*4's and cars, LCD TV's etc. hence fuelling indirect taxes like VAT, VRT and Stamp Duties, refuelling the circle.

Chuck Stone · 03-12-2011 12:22AM

K-9 wrote: »

It generally does effect the less well off disproportionately.

Absolutely.

The counter argument is 'but VAT is spent on luxuries - you have a choice'.

Which is total bullshit unless you're a troglodyte.

K-9 · 03-12-2011 12:35AM

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Absolutely.

The counter argument is 'but VAT is spent on luxuries - you have a choice'.

Which is total bullshit unless you're a troglodyte.

It tends to be a more discretionary expenditure for those with money, perfect example the car scrappage scheme. VAT receipts did reasonably well until it ended, its behind traget since it ended.

The better off can postpone the new car or kitchen say, the less well off still need to buy clothes and shoes.

freeze4real · 03-12-2011 12:42AM

All Thise over the years of 55+ should retire in my opinion. They constituye as majority if the workforce in banks.

We're are the newly educated graduates ? Oh wait ! They emigrated as they knew these ones are hoofing on to their jobs till they stop walking.

Ireland is meant to be a smart economy. These people that are working in a bank don't know what they're doing.

What degree do they have ? All if them should be given 3 years and should. E let go. Young graduates can enter then put in place some strategic management and more effecient finance modelling system.

Thise fat city bankers plus the lousy economist should be shamed.

Economics inireland is a joke. Those economists know nothing all they know is fiscal contraction. Taxes and cuts.

Simple solutions

Tax the rich 1.5times a base rate

Middle income earners x 1

Thise on the dole should receive the dole if they are prepared to do some work e.g sweep the floor cut the grasses at least Ireland would be more cleaner and the government won't have to pay management companies for these services.

Thoie · 03-12-2011 12:55AM

freeze4real wrote: »

All Thise over the years of 55+ should retire in my opinion. They constituye as majority if the workforce in banks.

We're are the newly educated graduates ? Oh wait ! They emigrated as they knew these ones are hoofing on to their jobs till they stop walking.

Ireland is meant to be a smart economy. These people that are working in a bank don't know what they're doing.

What degree do they have ? All if them should be given 3 years and should. E let go. Young graduates can enter then put in place some strategic management and more effecient finance modelling system.

Thise fat city bankers plus the lousy economist should be shamed.

Economics inireland is a joke. Those economists know nothing all they know is fiscal contraction. Taxes and cuts.

Simple solutions

Tax the rich 1.5times a base rate

Middle income earners x 1

Thise on the dole should receive the dole if they are prepared to do some work e.g sweep the floor cut the grasses at least Ireland would be more cleaner and the government won't have to pay management companies for these services.

Do you count yourself amongst the newly educated graduates?

arodabomb · 03-12-2011 01:11AM

Doctor_Socks wrote: »

The arguments I have for it are:

It won't help this country at all, it'll provide a small amount of income for the government but won't account for the god knows how many other f*cuks ups this country has in its economic system.

Secondly, a lot of people who are rich are rich because they deserve to be! I'll take a large set of my friends and colleagues. They are on a nice salary at the moment, not €100K but still high compared to the average wage. All of these people have PhDs in the field of electronic engineering, they accomplished this by putting in huge amounts of hours into research, writing journal and conference publications and spending an extra 4+ years in college. They didn't spend time arsing about drinking constantly and pissing away their education, they studied and earned their qualification which came from spending 21+ years in education. I am currently working towards my PhD and have been putting in 10-12 hour days for the last two months to get a publication submitted before Christmas Day.

So to sum up, there are people who deserve to get their money and not have additional money taxed from them because people think that it's unfair that they have to pay the same tax rate as some one who makes a considerable amount more then them.

Sorry for the rant, but it really annoys me when someone who dropped out of secondary school and is now on the dole because they didn't care enough about their education in their youth, complains about why rich people shouldn't be taxed more!

Exactly. I really hate the attitide in this country where people somehow think everyone became rich by the luck of the draw, that it wasn't through hard work and intelligence. In general, most of the people on 100K+ (I dissagree with the term super rich for this but anyway) are there because they have a unique set of skills, or they have started a business from the ground up.

Chuck Stone · 03-12-2011 01:27AM

freeze4real wrote: »

Thise on the dole should receive the dole if they are prepared to do some work e.g sweep the floor cut the grasses at least Ireland would be more cleaner and the government won't have to pay management companies for these services.

Trying to enforce the above would be a bureaucratic nightmare.

kthnxbai · 03-12-2011 01:38AM

freeze4real wrote: »

All Thise over the years of 55+ should retire in my opinion. They constituye as majority if the workforce in banks.

We're are the newly educated graduates ? Oh wait ! They emigrated as they knew these ones are hoofing on to their jobs till they stop walking.

Ireland is meant to be a smart economy. These people that are working in a bank don't know what they're doing.

What degree do they have ? All if them should be given 3 years and should. E let go. Young graduates can enter then put in place some strategic management and more effecient finance modelling system.

Thise fat city bankers plus the lousy economist should be shamed.

Economics inireland is a joke. Those economists know nothing all they know is fiscal contraction. Taxes and cuts.

Simple solutions

Tax the rich 1.5times a base rate

Middle income earners x 1

Thise on the dole should receive the dole if they are prepared to do some work e.g sweep the floor cut the grasses at least Ireland would be more cleaner and the government won't have to pay management companies for these services.

There are so many things wrong with this post I don't even know where to start.

Firstly, not all grads are upping and leaving. And a lot of them that have left are probably no good to a bank. I graduated last month. I have a degree in engineering. I'd **** up a bank if I got anywhere near it.

The smart economy thing refers to the IT sector. You're using it completely out of context.

A lot of economists that work with banks have degrees. Regardless, you do not necessarily need a degree to be able to do something well. Experience counts for a lot.

You say that people should have to do some sort of community service to receive a social welfare payment. Although in theory I would agree that this seems reasonable, it's just not practical. At all. So, you're saying they should sweep the streets? What happens to the people whose job that already is?

Saila · 03-12-2011 02:22AM

bamboozle wrote: »

a new tax band on income over 100k would only bring in around 100m extra, this is small change when we consider the same wealthy people are probably receiving several million in children's allowance and other allowances which should be means tested.

so why not bring in means testing, currently we fork out 2b in childrens allowances, means test it that only 75% of this is given, that's a saving of 500m per year, while we're at it, lets freeze PS pay increments for 5 years, that's a saving of 250m per year.
let bring in metered water rates for all.
lets reduce dail numbers by 20%
lets abolish the seanad
lets introduce a 90% levy on PS pension income over 100k
lets shut down half the county & city councils in the country

scrap childrens allowance and instead give a budget to a gatekeeper charity which decide if your circumstances and outgoings deserve to get it
a community welfare officer should handle it

Eoin · 03-12-2011 02:57AM

freeze4real wrote: »

All Thise over the years of 55+ should retire in my opinion. They constituye as majority if the workforce in banks.

So you want people who are currently paying taxes to retire and be paid pensions instead?

I don't know if you watched Logan's run recently or something, but 55 is hardly past it.

skregs · 03-12-2011 03:28AM

psychward wrote: »

You don't understand about the free market ? That must surely explain why you apparently support RTEs theft of money from people who never ever watch RTE.

Does your tax provide for old age pensions even if you're not over 65?
Does your tax allow for road maintainence on roads you'll never ever drive on?
Does it pay for a hospital bed you'll never sleep in?
Does it pay for the education system you never managed to benefit from?

You aren't being robbed, you just don't understand what tax is.

Chuck Stone · 03-12-2011 04:03AM

psychward wrote: »

You don't understand about the free market ? That must surely explain why you apparently support RTEs theft of money from people who never ever watch RTE.

What I do is watch every last bit of RTE programming I can just to spite them and get my money's worth.

You should do it too.

Income tax increase for super rich - Can i hear a coherent argument against?

Comments