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
TDs urging people not to pay tax - criminal negligence?
Options
Comments
-
So what's your solution then? How does Ireland close the €18 billion gap in its budget?
Now you're just being pedantic.
Fed up printing this.
1. Do not hand over 3.5 Billion to unguaranteed Bondholders.
2. Put 1c tax on text messages.
3. Cut the waste from the TOP of the H.S.E.
4. Put 5c on alcohol.
5. Put another 25/50c on cigarettes.
6. Pay cap on top wages in P.S.
7. Do away with Seanad Eireann.
8. Half the number of T.D.'s
Stop making the ordinary people pay for everything.
There that's it done for you.0 -
Do you have figures for 2 to 8?tayto lover wrote: »Fed up printing this.
1. Do not hand over 3.5 Billion to unguaranteed Bondholders.
2. Put 1c tax on text messages.
3. Cut the waste from the TOP of the H.S.E.
4. Put 5c on alcohol.
5. Put another 25/50c on cigarettes.
6. Pay cap on top wages in P.S.
7. Do away with Seanad Eireann.
8. Half the number of T.D.'s
Stop making the ordinary people pay for everything.
There that's it done for you.
As for one, do you really think it's as simple as the communists from ULA and Sinn Fein suggest?0 -
The ECB/IMF are propping this country up by lending us money no one else will give to us. They have every right to tell us what to do. I don't understand why people are complaining.
Oh but don't forget, we couldn't have had a situation where the senior bondholders took losses for their reckless gambling now could we? You can't treat a symptom without ignoring the disease, but that's what was conveniently done.0 -
tayto lover wrote: »Fed up printing this.
1. Do not hand over 3.5 Billion to unguaranteed Bondholders.
2. Put 1c tax on text messages.
3. Cut the waste from the TOP of the H.S.E.
4. Put 5c on alcohol.
5. Put another 25/50c on cigarettes.
6. Pay cap on top wages in P.S.
7. Do away with Seanad Eireann.
8. Half the number of T.D.'s
Stop making the ordinary people pay for everything.
There that's it done for you.
That wouldn't even come anywhere close to closing the gap. Nowhere close.0 -
That wouldn't even come anywhere close to closing the gap. Nowhere close.
How do you know that?
I reckon there is a big saving there and things like that should be tried before taking the coal from some old woman's fire because that won't solve it either.
Sure the property tax won't be 18 billion either. At least halving the number of T.D.'s and doing away with the Seanad will make ordinary people feel better for a start as they will see that someone else is losing out and not just them.0 -
Advertisement
-
Thought exercise for you: you take out a loan, for which you are not required to provide collateral. You decide not to pay back the loan. You apply for another loan.tayto lover wrote: »1. Do not hand over 3.5 Billion to unguaranteed Bondholders.
What do you suppose will be the outcome of the second application?0 -
oscarBravo wrote: »Thought exercise for you: you take out a loan, for which you are not required to provide collateral. You decide not to pay back the loan. You apply for another loan.
What do you suppose will be the outcome of the second application?
Nothing but GAMBLING involved with the Bondholders.
Would Paddy Power give you your money back?0 -
"Ordinary people" don't drink, smoke or use mobile phones?tayto lover wrote: »2. Put 1c tax on text messages.
...
4. Put 5c on alcohol.
5. Put another 25/50c on cigarettes.
...
Stop making the ordinary people pay for everything.
I don't, but feel free to demonstrate otherwise. Think about it - you need about €4,000 from every single person in the country. A few extra cents from texts, cigarettes and booze will barely make a dent in that figure.tayto lover wrote: »I reckon there is a big saving there...
I completely disagree, but at least you've identified the root of the problem - everyone wants somebody else to pay to clean up the mess, preferably someone who earns more than them.tayto lover wrote: »At least halving the number of T.D.'s and doing away with the Seanad will make ordinary people feel better for a start as they will see that someone else is losing out and not just them.0 -
tayto lover wrote: »Nothing but GAMBLING involved with the Bondholders.
Would Paddy Power give you your money back?
I see this analogy used over and over again and it is simply wrong.
They did gamble and they won. The banks are still there. If you can't understand the situation without resorting to comparisons to bookies then it's like you made a bet with Paddy Power that your horse would finish the grand national and it limps across the line with the jockey alongside holding it up and then when you try to collect Paddy Power tells you that they are in a bit of financial difficulty and they don't feel like paying out even though they are clearly legally obliged to. They are suprised when everyone else demands their bets be cancelled and their stake returned, nobody ever places a bet with them again and they go broke. They spend their nights in the carboard box wondering how it all went wrong, sure everyone told them they shouldn't pay out on those bets.0 -
hallelujajordan wrote: »+1
I don't mind people complaining about paying tax . . none of us like to pay tax no matter how much we earn . . These politicians are trying to make out that there is something fundamentally 'unfair' about this tax and they are whipping up a frenzy about it for no other reason than to try to consolidate their own support base and secure re-election. .
I don't believe that anyone on here really believes that there is any fundamental difference between the household charge as it relates to property and the motor tax as it relates to your car . .
Alright lets put it this way. You buy a car, pay all the taxes associated with buying the car and park it on your drive. Would you consider it reasonable to have an ever increasing tax levied on that car, just for the privilege of owning it?
I don't have a difficulty with paying for services, what I do have a difficulty with is paying, for ever more, for something I've already paid for.
To call it a "Household Charge", is also misleading, It is a "Home Owners Tax".0 -
Advertisement
-
tayto lover wrote: »Fed up printing this.
1. Do not hand over 3.5 Billion to unguaranteed Bondholders.
2. Put 1c tax on text messages.
3. Cut the waste from the TOP of the H.S.E.
4. Put 5c on alcohol.
5. Put another 25/50c on cigarettes.
6. Pay cap on top wages in P.S.
7. Do away with Seanad Eireann.
8. Half the number of T.D.'s
Stop making the ordinary people pay for everything.
There that's it done for you.
There's already a tax on text messages, and it's more than 1c.
It's called VALUE ADDED TAX.0 -
-
HivemindXX wrote: »I see this analogy used over and over again and it is simply wrong.
They did gamble and they won. The banks are still there. If you can't understand the situation without resorting to comparisons to bookies then it's like you made a bet with Paddy Power that your horse would finish the grand national and it limps across the line with the jockey alongside holding it up and then when you try to collect Paddy Power tells you that they are in a bit of financial difficulty and they don't feel like paying out even though they are clearly legally obliged to. They are suprised when everyone else demands their bets be cancelled and their stake returned, nobody ever places a bet with them again and they go broke. They spend their nights in the carboard box wondering how it all went wrong, sure everyone told them they shouldn't pay out on those bets.
If not being able to lose means winning then they won. Still unfair because the opposite applies to us who didn't gamble at all.
How can they lose if we have to pick up their tab?0 -
"Ordinary people" don't drink, smoke or use mobile phones?
I don't, but feel free to demonstrate otherwise. Think about it - you need about €4,000 from every single person in the country. A few extra cents from texts, cigarettes and booze will barely make a dent in that figure.
I completely disagree, but at least you've identified the root of the problem - everyone wants somebody else to pay to clean up the mess, preferably someone who earns more than them.
Yes everyone wants someone else to pay. BUT that someone else is always the middle income earner who is caught for everything. At least my way sees everyone paying something. AND it's not just the few cents you seem to think. There are millions of texts sent everyday.
Lets have your solution then.0 -
I don't understand this - are you suggesting that you have already paid for all local services provided in the vicinity of your home, for ever more?I don't have a difficulty with paying for services, what I do have a difficulty with is paying, for ever more, for something I've already paid for.0 -
VAT was already increased recently.tayto lover wrote: »So increase that.
I think "millions" is probably an over-statement, but, for the sake of argument, let's say you're right. Let's be really optimistic and say that every single person in the country sends 10 text messages every day. That's about 16.5 billion text messages every year. If we put an added tax of €0.01 on these texts and assume this has no effect on volume (which it probably will, because pay-as-you-go credit will run out faster), that equates to about €164 million, which represents less than 1% of the budget deficit. And that's being really optimistic.tayto lover wrote: »...it's not just the few cents you seem to think. There are millions of texts sent everyday.
Reduce welfare. Drastically. Not only will this immediately reduce public spending, it will also provide a greater incentive for people to get back working, boosting tax revenue. There will also be less incentive for welfare fraud. Reducing all welfare payments by just 5% would save the state €1.5 BILLION. That's a tiny decrease to any one individual (and still leaves them with some of the highest welfare benefits in Europe), but represents big savings to the state. Reduce welfare by 5% every 6 months over 3 years, saving €9 billion, and we're half-way there.tayto lover wrote: »Lets have your solution then.
The proposed property tax will bring in another €1.2 billion. Water charges will probably bring that up to about €1.5 billion. So that leaves a hole of about €7.5 billion.
As of Q3 2011, the average annual income in Ireland is just over €36k. Increasing tax on income by an average of 3.5% (applied to everyone) would yield another €2.6 billion, based on a labour force of 2.1 million.
So that leaves about €5 billion. I'm pretty confident that a fair chunk of that could be saved by cutting staff numbers in the public service (it's been estimated that €500 million could be saved by streamlining local authorities, for example), but it's hard to put a figure on it without detailed inside knowledge. Add in your proposed tax increases on tobacco and alcohol and I think we'd come pretty close to breaking even.
I accept that this is back-of-the envelope type stuff and obviously there's going to be complex interplays between these different variables (public sector job losses will mean a larger welfare bill, for example), but you get the idea - drastic cuts are required. But, while public expenditure has to be reduced substantially, it shouldn't be forgotten that we're setting off from a very, very high starting point.0 -
Buying bonds is lending money. If I buy a bond, whether from a government or a corporation, I'm lending that government or corporation money. In return, they promise to pay that money back after a set period of time, along with a premium - in effect, with interest.tayto lover wrote: »Nothing but GAMBLING involved with the Bondholders.
Would Paddy Power give you your money back?
You can call that gambling if you like, but that doesn't change the fact that if I lend someone money and they don't pay it back, I'm not going to lend to them again. Which is the minor detail that seems to be missed by the people who are desperate to burn every bondholder they can find, ideally at the stake: if we don't pay back borrowed money, it's going to be harder to borrow more money later.0 -
VAT was already increased recently.
I think "millions" is probably an over-statement, but, for the sake of argument, let's say you're right. Let's be really optimistic and say that every single person in the country sends 10 text messages every day. That's about 16.5 billion text messages every year. If we put an added tax of €0.01 on these texts and assume this has no effect on volume (which it probably will, because pay-as-you-go credit will run out faster), that equates to about €164 million, which represents less than 1% of the budget deficit. And that's being really optimistic.
Reduce welfare. Drastically. Not only will this immediately reduce public spending, it will also provide a greater incentive for people to get back working, boosting tax revenue. There will also be less incentive for welfare fraud. Reducing all welfare payments by just 5% would save the state €1.5 BILLION. That's a tiny decrease to any one individual (and still leaves them with some of the highest welfare benefits in Europe), but represents big savings to the state. Reduce welfare by 5% every 6 months over 3 years, saving €9 billion, and we're half-way there.
The proposed property tax will bring in another €1.2 billion. Water charges will probably bring that up to about €1.5 billion. So that leaves a hole of about €7.5 billion.
As of Q3 2011, the average annual income in Ireland is just over €36k. Increasing tax on income by an average of 3.5% (applied to everyone) would yield another €2.6 billion, based on a labour force of 2.1 million.
So that leaves about €5 billion. I'm pretty confident that a fair chunk of that could be saved by cutting staff numbers in the public service (it's been estimated that €500 million could be saved by streamlining local authorities, for example), but it's hard to put a figure on it without detailed inside knowledge. Add in your proposed tax increases on tobacco and alcohol and I think we'd come pretty close to breaking even.
I accept that this is back-of-the envelope type stuff and obviously there's going to be complex interplays between these different variables (public sector job losses will mean a larger welfare bill, for example), but you get the idea - drastic cuts are required. But, while public expenditure has to be reduced substantially, it shouldn't be forgotten that we're setting off from a very, very high starting point.
That won't work either.
The incentive to work is negated by the lack of jobs. So no increase in tax revenue there.
Cutting welfare will lead to less money being spent and less taxes paid too.
Cutting wages and jobs in the P.S. (while needed at the top) will leave less to be spent in shops, pubs etc so more jobs will be lost there. Highest welfare in Europe ?? Maybe but prices are high here too. VRT far higher here than anywhere else and that's only one tax. Road tax higher too. Tax on petrol/diesel very high here. Electrical goods dearer. Gas , heating oil electricity. Could go on.0 -
Alright lets put it this way. You buy a car, pay all the taxes associated with buying the car and park it on your drive. Would you consider it reasonable to have an ever increasing tax levied on that car, just for the privilege of owning it?
I don't have a difficulty with paying for services, what I do have a difficulty with is paying, for ever more, for something I've already paid for.
To call it a "Household Charge", is also misleading, It is a "Home Owners Tax".
For your analogy to make any sense it requires that you buy a car, leave it in your driveway and never use it . . Great Analogy . .
Here's another one . . TV licence . . is it unfair that you have to pay for a TV licence to use your TV even though you have already paid tax on the TV. . by your logic it is but someone has to fund public service broadcasting . . should this just come from central funds too ..tayto lover wrote: »Yes everyone wants someone else to pay. BUT that someone else is always the middle income earner who is caught for everything. At least my way sees everyone paying something. AND it's not just the few cents you seem to think. There are millions of texts sent everyday.
Lets have your solution then.
No . . the only additional taxes you suggest are transaction based taxes. . one can choose not to drink, smoke or send text messages . . On the other hand the governments way (i.e. household charge) actually does see pretty much everyone paying something . .0 -
That's the sort of argument there's far too much of - we can't cut public spending, and we can't raise taxes (except on other people).tayto lover wrote: »That won't work either.
The incentive to work is negated by the lack of jobs. So no increase in tax revenue there.
Cutting welfare will lead to less money being spent and less taxes paid too.
Cutting wages and jobs in the P.S. (while needed at the top) will leave less to be spent in shops, pubs etc so more jobs will be lost there.
We have to cut public spending, and we have to raise taxes. Every cut will hurt everyone, and tax hikes need to hurt a lot of people in order to be effective. Trying to think of ways of filling a gaping chasm while not offending anyone is just a long-winded way of refusing to address the problem.
And yet, you have suggested increasing VAT, thereby increasing prices.Highest welfare in Europe ?? Maybe but prices are high here too.
Prices are a function of supply and demand. If prices are high, it's because people can afford them. As incomes decrease, so do prices. It works the other way too, which is why prices are so high in this country.
I'd suggest that you check out the VRT rates in Denmark, if I thought you had any interest in silly things like facts.VRT far higher here than anywhere else...0 -
Advertisement
-
We have to borrow the money so there is no economic loss if we don't borrow and give it out for free.tayto lover wrote: »That won't work either.
Cutting welfare will lead to less money being spent and less taxes paid too.
Cutting wages and jobs in the P.S. (while needed at the top) will leave less to be spent in shops, pubs etc so more jobs will be lost there.0 -
tayto lover wrote: »That won't work either.
The incentive to work is negated by the lack of jobs. So no increase in tax revenue there.
Cutting welfare will lead to less money being spent and less taxes paid too.
Cutting wages and jobs in the P.S. (while needed at the top) will leave less to be spent in shops, pubs etc so more jobs will be lost there.
You're basically suggesting that we borrow money (at a pretty high interest rate) to fund P.S. workers and Social Welfare recipients spending money.
If you're going to borrow to stimulate the economy, you would be better off investing in infrastructure. You would generate jobs in a labour intensive industry and you would get the piece of infrastructure at the end of it- which would add value.
Would make way more sense.0 -
oscarBravo wrote: »That's the sort of argument there's far too much of - we can't cut public spending, and we can't raise taxes (except on other people).
We have to cut public spending, and we have to raise taxes. Every cut will hurt everyone, and tax hikes need to hurt a lot of people in order to be effective. Trying to think of ways of filling a gaping chasm while not offending anyone is just a long-winded way of refusing to address the problem. And yet, you have suggested increasing VAT, thereby increasing prices.
Prices are a function of supply and demand. If prices are high, it's because people can afford them. As incomes decrease, so do prices. It works the other way too, which is why prices are so high in this country. I'd suggest that you check out the VRT rates in Denmark, if I thought you had any interest in silly things like facts.
Love the way you mention Denmark. Why do you mention the highest one. I thought someone like you would have given us the VRT rates across Europe but no you pick the highest. As a matter of fact Finland and the Netherlands are higher than ours too but their other taxes are lower. Any more facts?0 -
Because you said we were the highest, which isn't true. If you're going to make an argument, make sure you're arguing based on something that's true instead of something you just made up.tayto lover wrote: »Love the way you mention Denmark. Why do you mention the highest one.
Why would I? I didn't need to; I only needed one to point out that what you said wasn't true.I thought someone like you would have given us the VRT rates across Europe...
Yes. We have a vast, colossal, gaping chasm in our public finances. That's a fact. A deficit that large can only be realistically closed by raising taxes and cutting spending - another fact. In order to bridge a gap of that magnitude, the taxes that have to be raised must be broadly-based, and that means that they will have to affect a lot of people, and will ipso facto be unpopular. The cuts that are required will be painful, and it will not be possible to make the necessary cuts without negatively impacting large numbers of people, many of them quite severely.As a matter of fact Finland and the Netherlands are higher than ours too but their other taxes are lower. Any more facts?
These are all facts. Now you get to refute them, if any of them are untrue. I've already shown you how.0 -
While the Danes pay a higher rate of VRT as you pointed out I see thast Ireland has the highest cost for cars in the 12 country euro currency zone, 30% higher than mostoscarBravo wrote: »Because you said we were the highest, which isn't true. If you're going to make an argument, make sure you're arguing based on something that's true instead of something you just made up. Why would I? I didn't need to; I only needed one to point out that what you said wasn't true. Yes. We have a vast, colossal, gaping chasm in our public finances. That's a fact. A deficit that large can only be realistically closed by raising taxes and cutting spending - another fact. In order to bridge a gap of that magnitude, the taxes that have to be raised must be broadly-based, and that means that they will have to affect a lot of people, and will ipso facto be unpopular. The cuts that are required will be painful, and it will not be possible to make the necessary cuts without negatively impacting large numbers of people, many of them quite severely.
These are all facts. Now you get to refute them, if any of them are untrue. I've already shown you how.
http://www.finfacts.com/irelandbusinessnews/publish/article_10006812.shtml
Is it also a fact that our Government are breaking their own rules by paying their advisors more than allowed. Is it also a fact that many rich people pay very little or no tax at all. Have the scams stopped? You said everyone will pay but judging from our history I seriously doubt that.
http://www.swp.ie/features/tax-dodges-rich/1708
Your facts are a bit misleading as not everyone pays in Ireland.
Did "Fingers" pay back the million euro he promised? No he did not. Anything done by the Govt. about taxing that at 90% like the bank workers? Again a big NO. You see some are more equal than others.
When everyone pays a fair share of the burden I will stop complaining but until then I will refuse to pay my so called Property Tax and continue to encourage others to do likewise. Fact.0 -
By what percentage would our annual deficit be reduced if every government advisor was paid no more than the limit? That's not a rhetorical question; I'd like to see a calculation, even if it's only back-of-an-envelope.tayto lover wrote: »Is it also a fact that our Government are breaking their own rules by paying their advisors more than allowed.
How many rich people? How much tax would you have them pay? By what percentage would our annual deficit be reduced if all the rich people were taxed to your satisfaction?Is it also a fact that many rich people pay very little or no tax at all.
What scams?Have the scams stopped?
I'll do the calculation on that one for you. If the government were to tax that million euro at 90%, it would contribute 0.005% towards the current budget deficit. Now all we need is another twenty thousand million-euro sums that we can tax at 90%. Any suggestions where we should start looking?Did "Fingers" pay back the million euro he promised? No he did not. Anything done by the Govt. about taxing that at 90% like the bank workers? Again a big NO.
According to a Ronan Lyons blog post I just read, the average millionaire in Ireland in 2008 paid six times the rate of income tax that the average earner paid. In the same year, two thirds of the people paying income tax in Ireland paid less than 10%. The median earner on 25 grand paid four percent in income tax.When everyone pays a fair share of the burden I will stop complaining but until then I will refuse to pay my so called Property Tax and continue to encourage others to do likewise. Fact.
Granted, things have changed somewhat in the past three years - but not to an earth-shattering extent. So if the top earners paying six times the average rate of income tax isn't "paying a fair share of the burden" in your book, exactly what is it that you want? A pound of actual flesh?0 -
oscarBravo wrote: »By what percentage would our annual deficit be reduced if every government advisor was paid no more than the limit? That's not a rhetorical question; I'd like to see a calculation, even if it's only back-of-an-envelope. How many rich people? How much tax would you have them pay? By what percentage would our annual deficit be reduced if all the rich people were taxed to your satisfaction? What scams? I'll do the calculation on that one for you. If the government were to tax that million euro at 90%, it would contribute 0.005% towards the current budget deficit. Now all we need is another twenty thousand million-euro sums that we can tax at 90%. Any suggestions where we should start looking? According to a Ronan Lyons blog post I just read, the average millionaire in Ireland in 2008 paid six times the rate of income tax that the average earner paid. In the same year, two thirds of the people paying income tax in Ireland paid less than 10%. The median earner on 25 grand paid four percent in income tax.
Granted, things have changed somewhat in the past three years - but not to an earth-shattering extent. So if the top earners paying six times the average rate of income tax isn't "paying a fair share of the burden" in your book, exactly what is it that you want? A pound of actual flesh?
Yes i do want my "pound of flesh" as you put it. I want everyone to be seen to be doing their bit and not just the middle income workers. A rich man can afford more so should pay more.0 -
I love the way you refuse to answer the questions you don't have answers to, and then continue with the content-free rhetoric.tayto lover wrote: »Yes i do want my "pound of flesh" as you put it. I want everyone to be seen to be doing their bit and not just the middle income workers. A rich man can afford more so should pay more.
Rich people do pay more. They pay vastly more; orders of magnitude more. I could have sworn I already made that point. Oh wait: I did, and you ignored it, because it doesn't suit your narrative.
Basically, you're making excuses for tax evasion. When so-called "rich people" don't pay tax, it's an unspecified "scam". When you don't pay tax, it's a noble crusade.
Guess what: if anyone doesn't pay tax they're legally mandated to pay, it's tax evasion. Deal with it.0 -
oscarBravo wrote: »I love the way you refuse to answer the questions you don't have answers to, and then continue with the content-free rhetoric.
Rich people do pay more. They pay vastly more; orders of magnitude more. I could have sworn I already made that point. Oh wait: I did, and you ignored it, because it doesn't suit your narrative.
Basically, you're making excuses for tax evasion. When so-called "rich people" don't pay tax, it's an unspecified "scam". When you don't pay tax, it's a noble crusade.
Guess what: if anyone doesn't pay tax they're legally mandated to pay, it's tax evasion. Deal with it.
You know well enough that that these people find ways around paying taxes that P.A.Y.E workers and small businessmen cannot. There were no poor people using the Cayman Islands to hide their wealth years ago and none of the people found out served any time either. Fact. there are those who are paying every cent due and those who can wiggle out of it. Sure haven't NAMA even put some of the speculators on their pay roll. But sure these were always treated very well, Galway tent and all. Its only criminal to avoid tax when you're poor.0 -
Advertisement
-
Are you still pretending that I didn't post the figures earlier about who actually does the taxpaying in this country, or are you pretending that they're not true but not troubling to refute them? Because you keep coming out with the same rhetoric over and over and over again about how rich people don't pay tax, when it's the rich people who are paying the lion's share of the tax in this country. In fact, that's part of our core problem: the tax base isn't broad enough, and every attempt to broaden it is met with vicious resistance.tayto lover wrote: »You know well enough that that these people find ways around paying taxes that P.A.Y.E workers and small businessmen cannot.
If you're just going to duck the issue again and post SWP-esque nonsense about how rich people are going to have to pay even more tax (how many rich people? how much tax? I could have sworn I asked those questions already - oh wait: I did) feel free to keep preaching to the choir, but that sort of empty rhetoric isn't going to pay the bills.0
Advertisement