Tax Changes under a Sinn Féin Government

Fr. Ned · 01-06-2014 10:38AM

kippy wrote: »

The biggest issue is, in my opinion, that the only people in politics are in general morons.
Job spec for a politician;
Get elected.

I'd say there's a few good, educated people in politics.

The problem is that the likes of FG are ran by an ex-schoolteacher in kenny and an estate agent in hogan's case.

FrStone · 01-06-2014 10:51AM

comongethappy wrote: »

So keep raising taxes until those who can, flee. While at the same time reduce the burden on those who already pay the lowest, thus reducing the base line to almost nill.

Question:
When you do find that "limit", who pays for the collapse in income tax revenue?

You are correct. We need to increase taxes on the lower paid though. USC is a joke. If you earn €327 per week you only pay €10 a week in USC, no PAYE, no PRSI.

High earners pay massive amounts, low earners pay next to nothing and get more back.

theKillerBite · 01-06-2014 11:39AM

R0ot wrote: »

Yeah because I mean it's not like people are addicted to gambling or anything. Look at the amount of money lost every time they raise tax on alcohol and cigarettes.

You can't tax gambling. If you did you would have to allow gambling losses to offset against winnings and it just dosn't work.

comongethappy · 01-06-2014 12:15PM

Fr. Ned wrote: »

Source?

If we have a €1 billion surplus, why are FG going to take another €2 billion in cuts and taxes in October's budget?

Check out this Jpeg Father.

http://lh6.ggpht.com/-n3xU5I9ZzJg/T3DsPde4pXI/AAAAAAAAFk4/PRbXgsFWUYM/s1600-h/Underlying%252520Deficits%25255B5%25255D.jpg

The data is a year old, so the 2014 day-to-day surplus is a projection. (Noonan mentioned approx 1bn by yr end & approx 4bn by next year.

The 2014/15 adjustment is intended to make sure that small surplus happens.

What is stark about the reduction in deficit since 2010, is that SF declared they had no intention on reducing the deficit at all, as you can see with the subtotal, a term of SF would cost us more than the bailout.

enfant terrible · 01-06-2014 01:25PM

comongethappy wrote: »

Check out this Jpeg Father.

http://lh6.ggpht.com/-n3xU5I9ZzJg/T3DsPde4pXI/AAAAAAAAFk4/PRbXgsFWUYM/s1600-h/Underlying%252520Deficits%25255B5%25255D.jpg

The data is a year old, so the 2014 day-to-day surplus is a projection. (Noonan mentioned approx 1bn by yr end & approx 4bn by next year.

The 2014/15 adjustment is intended to make sure that small surplus happens.

What is stark about the reduction in deficit since 2010, is that SF declared they had no intention on reducing the deficit at all, as you can see with the subtotal, a term of SF would cost us more than the bailout.

Yes we will still have a deficit of 8.5 billion this year and 5 billion for 2015.

Our total debt is to rise to over 190 billion by next year.

http://namawinelake.wordpress.com/2012/06/14/irish-finance-minister-refuses-to-provide-assumptions-underpinning-deficit-projections/

AlekSmart · 01-06-2014 01:31PM

LimeTimee wrote: »

All I'm saying is that nobody should have to live a life in poverty. It should by no means be pampered but poor people should have at least enough money to buy essentials such as bread and milk and they should be able to pay the bills. The govt needs to set up more services like FAS.

Perhaps a hard & fast definition of the word "Poverty" would be a good starting point in all of this ?

AlekSmart · 01-06-2014 01:53PM

kippy wrote: »

The biggest issue is, in my opinion, that the only people in politics are in general morons.
Job spec for a politician;
Get elected.

It took a wee while for that to hit-home with me...;)

It was by listening to Irish Budget Speeches during the "good times" which usually had a phrase delivered by the relevant Minister saying...

"I propose to remove X,000 lower earners from the Taxation System"

This would usually be greeted with some enthisiasm by the RTE panelists,particularly those in the "caring & sharing" areas.

Mind you,It would have taken a VERY brave Minister for Finance to commence a Budget Speech with the words "I propose to bring X,000 MORE lower earners into the taxation system"...which is exactly what would have been required to establish a truly fair & equitable taxation system.

Did'nt happen,and not likely to happen in my lifetime....Chas McCreevy's , "If I have it,I'll spend it" line has never been more apposite

bumper234 · 01-06-2014 01:57PM

AlekSmart wrote: »

Perhaps a hard & fast definition of the word "Poverty" would be a good starting point in all of this ?

Yeah

Some think poor Anto and Sharon have to be able to have the full sky sports/movies/disney package. They also need beers 4 nights a week (socializing) and don't forget 3 trips to McDonalds every week for little Anto, Deco, and Britney. The best of designer label tracksuits and runners (matching of course) and the yearly holliers to Puerto ven ****hole. Anything less is.poverty stricken.

Renegade Mechanic · 01-06-2014 02:41PM

AlekSmart wrote: »

Perhaps a hard & fast definition of the word "Poverty" would be a good starting point in all of this ?

True, but, while no one really needs, say, a cinema, theres little point in living in a country where you cant afford to see it. Little luxuries are important. They help keep our somewhat high suicide rate well below places like Sri Lanka and The Czech Republic.

awec · 01-06-2014 02:53PM

R0ot wrote: »

I'm almost sure I'm paying this on anything I earn in over time these days. (I'm well under 100k p/a )

You should go see an accountant if you are paying 48% income tax on any part of your earnings.

Davei141 · 01-06-2014 03:13PM

homerjay2005 wrote: »

not at all, but highlighting an issue in our country that costing 100's and 100's of millions every year.

we have the most generous benifits system in the world, people can argue all they want about it, but its the reality.

and you know what, good luck to them, but at the same time tax payers dont have to be happy about it.

i was on holiday a couple of years back and met an eastern european family. she was a "single" mam but actually lived with the father of the child. in the eyes of the law, their relationship didnt exist.

she was claiming all the benifits, plus childrens allowance and had a house paid for.
he was getting his dole and living in that house.

they had 2 cars and 3 or 4 holidays a year. they didnt want to get married as they would lose too much money off the state if they did. in the meantime, myself and my missus were there on the same holiday as them that we worked hard to pay for while they sat there laughing at us.

and they are not the only ones doing it, theres many 1000s more im pretty sure. as pointed out above, its time that we actually means tested social welfare first and cut the spending there, before actually looking to charge the people funding the country, even more.

Isn't it amazing how a couple you just met divulged their entire personal history to you. Convenient eh.

Iwasfrozen · 01-06-2014 03:13PM

Renegade Mechanic wrote: »

True, but, while no one really needs, say, a cinema, theres little point in living in a country where you cant afford to see it. Little luxuries are important. They help keep our somewhat high suicide rate well below places like Sri Lanka and The Czech Republic.

Why should our standard of living automatically be better than someone from Sri Lanka or the Czech Republic? I thought the days of privileged birth right were gone.

titan18 · 01-06-2014 03:17PM

Renegade Mechanic wrote: »

True, but, while no one really needs, say, a cinema, theres little point in living in a country where you cant afford to see it. Little luxuries are important. They help keep our somewhat high suicide rate well below places like Sri Lanka and The Czech Republic.

People should work for that, not expect it to be handed to them for doing nothing

Idbatterim · 01-06-2014 04:17PM

it is wrong to tax a working person almost to breaking point, then give it to a person who is able to work but refuses to!

steddyeddy · 01-06-2014 04:22PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Why should our standard of living automatically be better than someone from Sri Lanka or the Czech Republic? I thought the days of privileged birth right were gone.

Are you serious?

Mongfinder General · 01-06-2014 04:28PM

Idbatterim wrote: »

it is wrong to tax a working person almost to breaking point, then give it to a person who is able to work but refuses to!

Part of the solution lies in taxing welfare. It's income, unearned, but still income. It should not be excluded from income tax. Will any government in Ireland tax welfare? Not a hope.

Idbatterim · 01-06-2014 04:31PM

why tax it though, you would have to administer it etc, simply cut it and reduce it the longer you are on it, fairly sharpish in my opinion, with the exception of current crisis like we are emerging from, where it the length of time before it gets cut, could be increased...

Mongfinder General · 01-06-2014 04:37PM

Idbatterim wrote: »

why tax it though, you would have to administer it etc, simply cut it and reduce it the longer you are on it, fairly sharpish in my opinion, with the exception of current crisis like we are emerging from, where it the length of time before it gets cut, could be increased...

Yes, we would have to administer it. That's why we all have PPS numbers and an army of public servants.

Lastlight. · 01-06-2014 05:28PM

Punishing the successful for earning success, this is what this is all about by Sinn Fein.

sock puppet · 01-06-2014 05:38PM

Mongfinder General wrote: »

Part of the solution lies in taxing welfare. It's income, unearned, but still income. It should not be excluded from income tax. Will any government in Ireland tax welfare? Not a hope.

Welfare is taxed, though you don't pay PRSI on it. Not sure about USC actually.

Mongfinder General · 01-06-2014 05:52PM

sock puppet wrote: »

Welfare is taxed, though you don't pay PRSI on it. Not sure about USC actually.

How so? Please enlighten me how somebody ho has never worked is taxed through PAYE?

bumper234 · 01-06-2014 06:07PM

sock puppet wrote: »

Welfare is taxed, though you don't pay PRSI on it. Not sure about USC actually.

How?

sock puppet · 01-06-2014 06:22PM

Mongfinder General wrote: »

How so? Please enlighten me how somebody ho has never worked is taxed through PAYE?

Knock yourself out

Mongfinder General · 01-06-2014 06:32PM

sock puppet wrote: »

Knock yourself out

Still don't see it. I don't see anything that tells me that John and Mary with 5 kids, who've never worked, are paying PAYE.

bumper234 · 01-06-2014 06:35PM

sock puppet wrote: »

Knock yourself out

This means, if a social welfare payment is your only source of income you may not pay tax because your tax liability does not exceed your tax credits.

So.someone who has never worked will not pay tax.

sock puppet · 01-06-2014 06:40PM

Mongfinder General wrote: »

Still don't see it. I don't see anything that tells me that John and Mary with 5 kids, who've never worked, are paying PAYE.

Your original post said welfare. Now you're talking specifically about one type of unemployment benefit. An unemployment benefit that is reduced if you have other income, taking away the need to tax it.

Iwasfrozen · 01-06-2014 06:56PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

Are you serious?

Yes.

mickydoomsux · 01-06-2014 07:07PM

sock puppet wrote: »

Your original post said welfare. Now you're talking specifically about one type of unemployment benefit. An unemployment benefit that is reduced if you have other income, taking away the need to tax it.

Moving the goalposts like every other welfare-state apologist.

tayto lover · 01-06-2014 07:35PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Why should our standard of living automatically be better than someone from Sri Lanka or the Czech Republic? I thought the days of privileged birth right were gone.

I am collecting for those poor people of Sri Lanka and the Czech Republic.
Please PM me your bank account details and I will forward your contribution on to where it will be greatly received.

sock puppet · 01-06-2014 07:39PM

mickydoomsux wrote: »

Moving the goalposts like every other welfare-state apologist.

Em it's the other poster who moved the goalposts. They said Welfare wasn't taxable. The link I provided says that it is. Perhaps there weren't enough colours and pretty pictures for you to be able to understand it?

Tax Changes under a Sinn Féin Government

Comments