Families that earn €100k are ‘struggling’

Sleepy · 04-07-2014 04:38PM

bluewolf wrote: »

And if you inherited a big house that had taxes paid on it out of post-tax income, paid inheritance tax on it (from post tax income), and then had to try and fork out property tax on it even though you aren't wealthy at all...?
I don't really see how it's more equitable and honestly it seems like govt taking every penny or may or may not have on any pretext at all

I generally share your libertarian outlook and would be in favour of lower taxation / lower spend government in general. However, we do have to generate tax and, to my mind, a combination of income, wealth and consumption taxes is more equitable, and more stable, than relying solely on income tax.

Maybe it's because I'm from a family that's never seen inheritance (my grandparents all died young and left little to nothing behind them) so maybe my thinking is biased but taxation on one's income (a relatively fair measure of one's contribution to an economy) seems harsher than taxation on wealth accumulated over generations.

Ask me again in 40 years when I'm trying to will whatever I've accumulated in my lifetime to my own kids and I may see things differently but, by and large, I would consider inheritance one of the fairest things to tax.

04-07-2014 04:41PM

Alright... I think it's pretty much one of the worst things to tax
At least on income it's paid once. On inheritance, it's taxed income used to buy something on which you paid tax, and then stepping in for no reason other than that someone died to demand more
But I guess we've been down this road before

miss no stars · 04-07-2014 04:48PM

Lads, the problem isn't our tax system not generating enough income... It's our spending. Our national spending is off the walls across pretty much all sectors.

Oh a point I forgot to mention. A family on 100k get sweet f all in benefits. If they have 2 kids in their early teens, they're probably trying to save a hefty chunk to help those kids go to college, because the kids will be deemed too wealthy to avail of all the supports that kids from "less well off" families have. They also don't get medical cards, or family income supplement and the welfare grabbers are baying for them to lose the childrens allowance as well.

The problem in Ireland is that we're dictated to by a welfare class who vote in leftist politicians and roll out bleeding heart social workers any time someone suggests that there be a limit on welfare and handouts. That, shock horror, staying on the dole for 10 years pretty much means you haven't bothered your arse trying to find a job. So for goodness sake can we stop trying to make already punitive tax regimes even more punishing on those who actually work hard in stressful jobs and pay the bulk of the tax ALREADY?

RoboRat · 04-07-2014 04:51PM

Alright... I think it's pretty much one of the worst things to tax

Agreed, tax was paid on the accrual of the inheritance and then its double taxed when its inherited. Its like paying tax on your wages and then having to pay another tax to withdraw.

Sugar Free · 04-07-2014 04:54PM

We as a couple (no kids) have a combined income into six figures.
Most certainly not struggling but certainly not wealthy either.

I can completely understand why families aren't doing as well on a similiar figure.

super_furry · 04-07-2014 04:54PM

Add two young children into the mix, along with a mortgage and you might as well have two mortgages given the cost of child care in this country.

A friend of mine has just emigrated to Berlin with his wife and two children and the biggest reason was the difference in price between childcare here - up to €2000 a month for two kids - compared to a fraction of that in Germany.

04-07-2014 05:11PM

Its not just tax though, for example there was an article in the Irish times basically saying that fetac level 5 is too low an academic qualification to work in a crèche it should be a degree in early child care( debatable I would think ) anyway if a requirement for a degree was mandatory to work in a crèche the cost would go up... suddenly instead of it being 200 a week it would be 250 a week....or take ever increasing paper work around health and safety on a building site that's a good thing, but someone has to pay for it...it make the house more expensive at the end of the day.

Making society a better? safer more regulated place also make it more and more expensive.

Have to laugh at the person who think they are going to pay less tax in Germany.

Where Is this county that every talks about when you get a European standard of housing, healthcare, child care, law and a safe civil society and so on but you pay very little tax?

steddyeddy · 04-07-2014 05:12PM

awec wrote: »

People are much lower wages get to bring home a lot more of their salary every month.

You mean a higher percentage or higher amount?

steddyeddy · 04-07-2014 05:16PM

Is the mantra here that people who take home a lower percentage of their wages worse of than people who take home less money?

Yogosan · 04-07-2014 05:22PM

If you knew your money was going to where it is most needed then I think most people are fine with high taxes. But when you know the money is going to pay off millionaire bondholders and when you know that the problems which caused the financial problems in the first place have not been rectified, then it's understandable that people of all levels of income are hesitant to hand over there hard earned cash.

Turtwig · 04-07-2014 05:24PM

awec wrote: »

People are much lower wages get to bring home a lot more of their salary every month.

They also get to bring home a lot more money. Seriously, reading this thread you'd swear families with 100k income had less money than those with half that. And that's not including other perks and bonuses.

Ireland's tax system is very progressive. Boyd is full of sht. But that's down to misconceptions about our finances. People with 100k income are struggling but in general they have far more discretion over choosing where their struggles will be.

steddyeddy · 04-07-2014 05:27PM

Turtwig wrote: »

They also get to bring home a lot more money. Seriously, reading this thread you'd swear families with 100k income had less money than those with half that. And that's not including other perks and bonuses.

Ireland's tax system is very progressive. Boyd is full of sht. But that's down to misconceptions about our finances. People with 100k income are struggling but in general they have far more discretion over choosing where their struggles will be.

I think our tax system is progressive too but the "lower paid workers bring home higher percentage wages" is a spectacularly meaningless statement.

miss no stars · 04-07-2014 05:34PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

I think our tax system is progressive too but the "lower paid workers bring home higher percentage wages" is a spectacularly meaningless statement.

How is it meaningless? If you account for all the tax taken out of 100k (based on a family with 2 earners), pension contributions (given that the gov are talking about scrapping state pensions for the people who paid all the money into them in the first place :rolleyes:), property tax being higher, USC, cost of childcare, health insurance etc

and then

you take account of all the benefits in kind that a lower earning family on say 1 income have like medical card, no childcare expenses, probably lower property tax...

Their spending power isn't as vastly different as would be suggested by the difference in their gross income.

That's just the simple reality of it. We continue to give to those who don't contribute and take from those who already do. There comes a point (I think we've gone past it tbh), where you have to stop giving to those who aren't contributing and stop taking more from those who are.

miss no stars · 04-07-2014 05:39PM

I saw this posted on boards a while ago, I thought it summed it up nicely.

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this…

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing
The fifth would pay $1
The sixth would pay $3
The seventh would pay $7
The eighth would pay $12
The ninth would pay $18
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59
So, that’s what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve ball.

“Since you are all such good customers,” he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20″. Drinks for the ten men would now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men ? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share?

The bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by a higher percentage the poorer he was, to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using, and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.

And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% saving).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% saving).
The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% saving).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% saving).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% saving).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% saving).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings.

“I only got a dollar out of the $20 saving,” declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,”but he got $10!”

“Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a dollar too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!”

“That’s true!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get $10 back, when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!”

“Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison, “we didn’t get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!”

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

Turtwig · 04-07-2014 05:41PM

Oh that libertarian propaganda shyte glurge...

Nemeses · 04-07-2014 05:46PM

miss no stars wrote: »

I saw this posted on boards a while ago, I thought it summed it up nicely.

"Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this…"

etc

So are you saying I should get free beer?

Arthur Beesley · 04-07-2014 05:58PM

miss no stars wrote: »

I saw this posted on boards a while ago, I thought it summed it up nicely.

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this…

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing
The fifth would pay $1
The sixth would pay $3
The seventh would pay $7
The eighth would pay $12
The ninth would pay $18
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59
So, that’s what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve ball.

“Since you are all such good customers,” he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20″. Drinks for the ten men would now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men ? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share?

The bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by a higher percentage the poorer he was, to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using, and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.

And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% saving).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% saving).
The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% saving).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% saving).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% saving).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% saving).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings.

“I only got a dollar out of the $20 saving,” declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,”but he got $10!”

“Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a dollar too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!”

“That’s true!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get $10 back, when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!”

“Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison, “we didn’t get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!”

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And hopefully the publican beat the nine of them up.

miss no stars · 04-07-2014 06:03PM

Nemeses wrote: »

So are you saying I should get free beer?

They're the equivalent to those on welfare. Contribute nothing and get everything in return. So if you're on welfare... Yeah, you get free beer, paid for by those on over 100k.

super_furry · 04-07-2014 06:05PM

miss no stars wrote: »

They're the equivalent to those on welfare. Contribute nothing and get everything in return. So if you're on welfare... Yeah, you get free beer, paid for by those on over 100k.

And how about those who spent 20 years buying beer for people but suddenly lose their jobs?

That story is just daft diet-Ayn Rand nonsense.

miss no stars · 04-07-2014 06:06PM

super_furry wrote: »

And how about those who spent 20 years buying beer for people but suddenly lose their jobs?

That story is just daft diet-Ayn Rand nonsense.

That's fine. Support them. Buy them beer. Doesn't take 10 years to get another job though...

EyeSight · 04-07-2014 06:07PM

One of the reasons i emigrated was the high tax in Ireland for poor services.
I am doing the same work in the US for more money and pay less tax for better services(although they have their problems). In Ireland i found i was just working to pay tax and bills and never had anything much leftover.

I notice that because the tax is relatively low here, people like to spend their disposable income. People eat out a lot etc. In turn that stimulates the economy, makes people happier and eventually it filters into tax system.

Idbatterim · 04-07-2014 06:16PM

Just remember to vote fg people, they have acknowledged what a disgrace the marginal rate is. Are they great no, good hard to say, but compared to the other waster parties, they are streets ahead. Remember always pay cash to it will make a difference, better in the hands of a worker than a waster or waste of space like Bertie neary cowan etc...

moxin · 04-07-2014 06:16PM

Sleepy wrote: »

Given that the mortgage on a decent home in Dublin is about 2k per month and childcare is going to cost another thousand or so (more if you've 2 or more kids) and when you add pension contributions, transport expenses, life/health/car/house insurance etc. and there's not a lot left..

Exaggerate much?

A decent home in Dublin does not cost 2k per month in mortgage repayments unless you are talking about the some of the wealthiest areas. Only fools have taken out Ferrari type mortgages to maintain that lifestyle beyond their means, no-one forced them to.

steddyeddy · 04-07-2014 06:27PM

miss no stars wrote: »

How is it meaningless? If you account for all the tax taken out of 100k (based on a family with 2 earners), pension contributions (given that the gov are talking about scrapping state pensions for the people who paid all the money into them in the first place :rolleyes:), property tax being higher, USC, cost of childcare, health insurance etc

and then

you take account of all the benefits in kind that a lower earning family on say 1 income have like medical card, no childcare expenses, probably lower property tax...

Their spending power isn't as vastly different as would be suggested by the difference in their gross income.

That's just the simple reality of it. We continue to give to those who don't contribute and take from those who already do. There comes a point (I think we've gone past it tbh), where you have to stop giving to those who aren't contributing and stop taking more from those who are.

Do you see the difference in what you said and what a previous poster said? One variable VS many?

You also mention those who don't contribute so I take it you are in favour of a higher inheritance tax?

steddyeddy · 04-07-2014 06:29PM

By the way little miss no stars the following:

property tax , USC, cost of childcare, health insurance

Are things low earners pay too. As Turtwig says higher earners have the luxury of picking where they struggle.

steddyeddy · 04-07-2014 06:30PM

It's no wonder economics gets such a bad name as a area of study. Half of the people spouting it are making assumptions to suit their own socio economic background.

steddyeddy · 04-07-2014 06:42PM

bluewolf wrote: »

Is there anyone in favour of property tax??

Well my point is the people complaining about our current tax system don't seem to give a sh1t when it comes to the working poor's struggles. The seem to consider percentage of take home pay as a indicator of struggles.

04-07-2014 06:50PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

Well my point is the people complaining about our current tax system don't seem to give a sh1t when it comes to the working poor's struggles. The seem to consider percentage of take home pay as a indicator of struggles.

The point is that it's totally unfair that those who earn more have to hand over a higher percentage of it in tax rather than keeping it for themselves and enjoying the fruits of their labour.

You are also discounting the fact that people normalize to a lifestyle and if their income drops they can struggle just as much as lower earners even if they are on a significantly higher gross salary. They can't choose their struggles like you are trying to claim.

Iwasfrozen · 04-07-2014 06:51PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

Well my point is the people complaining about our current tax system don't seem to give a sh1t when it comes to the working poor's struggles. The seem to consider percentage of take home pay as a indicator of struggles.

The working poor? With min wage at 8.75 an hour how could a person be working and poor?

alias no.9 · 04-07-2014 06:54PM

bluewolf wrote: »

Is there anyone in favour of property tax??

I am as part of an evolution to proper local government, funded locally with some level of redistributions between wealthy and disadvantaged areas. When people's choice on the local election ballot directly affects their taxation and the level of services they receive, they may take it more seriously but then again, this is Ireland, it's someone else's fault and someone else should pay.

Families that earn €100k are ‘struggling’

Comments