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

Income Tax decreases on the way?

24

Comments

  • #32
    tjhook
    Registered Users Posts: 727 ✭✭✭tjhook


    Rainmann wrote: »
    Also, USC is painful. I will believe it when I see it, he has been saying this for ages.

    I used to feel like that. But now I think USC is one of the fairer taxes. Almost everybody pays it. Those at the top can't easily avoid it, and even those with modest pay contribute something.

    If they got rid of USC and rolled it onto PAYE instead, we'd only have the usual cohort of middle earners contributing meaningfully, so the rate would need to be higher.


  • #33
    ineedeuro
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 989 ✭✭✭ineedeuro


    Everyone should have to pay tax. It is alarming with all the people unemployed during covid the income tax never reduced. This confirms huge parts of the country are actually contributing nothing. The same people who are probably complaining about not getting a free this and a free that.

    We should have no wage on a 0% tax rate.


  • #34
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭[Deleted User]


    champchamp wrote: »
    USC needs to go as promised.

    Yeah right, USC plus COVID levy more like


  • #35
    ineedeuro
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 989 ✭✭✭ineedeuro


    _Kaiser_ wrote: »
    You can be sure that anything they give back will be more than made up by what they take through things like the upcoming hikes to property tax, increased carbon charges, and no doubt several more yet to come.

    I have no idea why anyone in this day & age expect's any government to suddenly cut the tax intake. They can't.

    THis would suggest a rebalance of tax, which based on covid shows the current system is completely unfair


  • #36
    Geuze
    Registered Users Posts: 13,029 ✭✭✭✭Geuze


    ineedeuro wrote: »
    Everyone should have to pay tax. It is alarming with all the people unemployed the income tax never reduced. This confirms huge parts of the country are actually contributing nothing. The same people who are probably complaining about not getting a free this and a free that.

    We should have no wage on a 0% tax rate.

    That is a reasonable point.

    Are you saying that any income, no matter how low, should face some tax?

    At the moment, here are the starting points:

    (1) income tax starts at 16,500 for a typical single person
    (2) the PRSI exemption is 352 pw / 18,304 pa
    (4) USC starts at 13,000


    I suggest abolishing the PRSI exemption, and re-introducing the PRSI-free allowance at 100 per week.

    This means starting paying PRSI at 100 per week.

    That means all low paid earners under 18k would pay PRSI on anything over 100 per week.


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    Geuze
    Registered Users Posts: 13,029 ✭✭✭✭Geuze


    Overall income tax revenue can't be reduced, if anything it needs to rise.

    Of course the 2021 and 2022 recovery, with more people back in work, will naturally lead to more income tax paid.


    What can happen is the very high marginal tax rates faced by average earners could be changed.


  • #38
    ineedeuro
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 989 ✭✭✭ineedeuro


    Geuze wrote: »
    That is a reasonable point.

    Are you saying that any income, no matter how low, should face some tax?

    At the moment, here are the starting points:

    (1) income tax starts at 16,500 for a typical single person
    (2) the PRSI exemption is 352 pw / 18,304 pa
    (4) USC starts at 13,000


    I suggest abolishing the PRSI exemption, and re-introducing the PRSI-free allowance at 100 per week.

    This means starting paying PRSI at 100 per week.

    That means all low paid earners under 18k would pay PRSI on anything over 100 per week.

    It’s the same group of people constantly getting hit, for everything and yet they are the people who are given no help

    I don’t see why everyone should give something, I don’t know enough to work out what that is but it should be something


  • #39
    lawred2
    Registered Users Posts: 24,257 ✭✭✭✭lawred2


    tjhook wrote: »
    I used to feel like that. But now I think USC is one of the fairer taxes. Almost everybody pays it. Those at the top can't easily avoid it, and even those with modest pay contribute something.

    If they got rid of USC and rolled it onto PAYE instead, we'd only have the usual cohort of middle earners contributing meaningfully, so the rate would need to be higher.

    USC has already been hollowed out at the bottom


  • #40
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭[Deleted User]


    If we middle class paid less taxes, who would fund the welfare class?

    We have to support those who refuse to work, and pay for their many, many children that they don't look after.

    That's the Irish way.


  • #41
    Jinglejangle69
    Registered Users Posts: 7,212 ✭✭✭Jinglejangle69


    brainboru1104 wrote: »
    If we middle class paid less taxes, who would fund the welfare class?

    We have to support those who refuse to work, and pay for their many, many children that they don't look after.

    That's the Irish way.

    And their 1400 a month HAP cause they would be "homeless"


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    ineedeuro
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 989 ✭✭✭ineedeuro


    brainboru1104 wrote: »
    If we middle class paid less taxes, who would fund the welfare class?

    We have to support those who refuse to work, and pay for their many, many children that they don't look after.

    That's the Irish way.

    I would love to see a complete overhaul of the system. Covid should make everyone look at the current system.
    Very few people who work get a "Christmas bonus" I don't see why this is required? the argument to say oh its pushed back into the economy is terrible. Why not give the money back to the tax payer so they can use the money themselves? it will end up back in the economy as well.

    The children allowance system is no longer fit for purpose, people should have children if they can afford them, not use them as a means to get additional money. Again the argument to say "oh we need more kids to re-populate Ireland" is not true, people who have two jobs etc can't afford more children because of the taxes they are paying.

    Will it happen? no but we can dream


  • #43
    ineedeuro
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 989 ✭✭✭ineedeuro


    Jinglejangle69 wrote: »
    And their 1400 a month HAP cause they would be "homeless"

    HAP should be scrapped


  • #44
    Irish Praetorian
    Registered Users Posts: 1,745 ✭✭✭Irish Praetorian


    Time for my regular reminder on the issue; whatever complaints you have about Social Welfare spending, remember the biggest part of that is Pensions. And that is a part of the budget which is growing at a rapid pace, 50% (from 6 billion to 9 billion annually) over the last ten years. Conversely, spending on working age income supports (primarily JSA and JSB) has gone from nearly 7 billion to a little over 3 billion from 2011 to 2019.

    Meanwhile with the tightening up of things like payments to one-parent families, the spending on children has remained more or less the same. More's the pity, because this is one area where I really don't think the government should be too tight on the purse strings.


  • #45
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭[Deleted User]


    Irish Praetorian wrote: »
    Conversely, spending on working age income supports (primarily JSA and JSB) has gone from nearly 7 billion to a little over 3 billion from 2011 to 2019.

    There is a very obvious reason for this change.

    Also, you chose a ten year period for pensions, but stopped at 2019 for JSA. Convenient.


  • #46
    Irish Praetorian
    Registered Users Posts: 1,745 ✭✭✭Irish Praetorian


    brainboru1104 wrote: »
    There is a very obvious reason for this change.


    Yes the lingering effects of the great recession, that is certainly very fair. However, I think my central point remains; we spend about as much on Jobseekers payments as we do on child benefits, and there may not be so much space to cut there. At least not without getting inventive.

    EDIT: I see you added the second part
    Also, you chose a ten year period for pensions, but stopped at 2019 for JSA. Convenient.

    Yes it's almost as if we had a worldwide pandemic and an enormous PUP system to calculate which I didn't want to contaminate the overall trends with.


  • #47
    ineedeuro
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 989 ✭✭✭ineedeuro


    Irish Praetorian wrote: »
    Time for my regular reminder on the issue; whatever complaints you have about Social Welfare spending, remember the biggest part of that is Pensions. And that is a part of the budget which is growing at a rapid pace, 50% (from 6 billion to 9 billion annually) over the last ten years. Conversely, spending on working age income supports (primarily JSA and JSB) has gone from nearly 7 billion to a little over 3 billion from 2011 to 2019.

    Meanwhile with the tightening up of things like payments to one-parent families, the spending on children has remained more or less the same. More's the pity, because this is one area where I really don't think the government should be too tight on the purse strings.

    The problem I see with the current system, people who are working, holding down two jobs etc can’t afford children, yet the people who have no work cAn. How exactly is that sensible?

    What exactly will happen in the future if this trend continues? Never mind pension, who is going to pay for anything?


  • #48
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭[Deleted User]


    Irish Praetorian wrote: »
    Yes the lingering effects of the great recession, that is certainly very fair. However, I think my central point remains; we spend about as much on Jobseekers payments as we do on child benefits, and there may not be so much space to cut there. At least not without getting inventive.

    EDIT: I see you added the second part



    Yes it's almost as if we had a worldwide pandemic and an enormous PUP system to calculate which I didn't want to contaminate the overall trends with.

    It's almost as if JSA is cyclical. Weird. So comparing it to the pension is pointless.


  • #49
    Irish Praetorian
    Registered Users Posts: 1,745 ✭✭✭Irish Praetorian


    ineedeuro wrote: »
    The problem I see with the current system, people who are working, holding down two jobs etc can’t afford children, yet the people who have no work cAn. How exactly is that sensible?

    What exactly will happen in the future if this trend continues? Never mind pension, who is going to pay for anything?

    That would be where my thinking lies and where I think the change ought to be made. If there are people in need of relief it is the class of dual income individuals, hemmed in by mortgage payments and having to seriously re-consider raising a family due to the expense. That is where we should focus things like child benefit - not as cash payments for those not paying tax, but as tax credits which can be of particular benefit to those families who are already making sizeable contributions to the government coffer.

    We really need to make sure that the fundamental drive of humans, to work, settle down, have a family, etc, remains within the reach of those who work hard and pay hard, and doesn't end up outsourced to those with little/no income who are dependent on the state.


  • #50
    Irish Praetorian
    Registered Users Posts: 1,745 ✭✭✭Irish Praetorian


    brainboru1104 wrote: »
    It's almost as if JSA is cyclical. Weird. So comparing it to the pension is pointless.

    No there is quite a big point to comparing it with the Jobseeker payments - scale. One grows and shows no sign of abating, the other might well wax and wane. Ultimately, I don't think we'll be worrying so much about the Jobseekers bill in ten years time as much as we might be worrying about the pension bill.


  • #51
    javaboy
    Registered Users Posts: 15,094 ✭✭✭✭javaboy


    Geuze wrote: »
    Of course the 2021 and 2022 recovery, with more people back in work, will naturally lead to more income tax paid.

    As has been said already, income tax receipts apparently didn’t fall all that much. The jobs lost and hopefully regained soon were not generally highly paid or taxed.


  • Advertisement
  • #52
    ineedeuro
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 989 ✭✭✭ineedeuro


    Irish Praetorian wrote: »
    That would be where my thinking lies and where I think the change ought to be made. If there are people in need of relief it is the class of dual income individuals, hemmed in by mortgage payments and having to seriously re-consider having a family due to the expense. That is where we should focus things like child benefit - not as cash payments for those not paying tax, but as tax credits which can be of particular benefit to those families who are already making sizeable contributions to the government coffer.

    We really need to make sure that the fundamental drive of humans, to work, settle down, have a family, etc, remains within the reach of those who work hard and pay hard, and doesn't end up outsourced to those with little/no income who are dependent on the state.

    I agree but you look at at political parties now, none of them are talking about this group of people

    It’s all about free house, more social welfare, more free everything. The main opposition whole purpose is to absolutely screw anyone with a job. It’s disheartening to see what is coming, I think mass emigration is coming again soon. Ireland will end up turning into a country again with very few working and anyone that wants to work will have to move away.


  • #53
    ineedeuro
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 989 ✭✭✭ineedeuro


    javaboy wrote: »
    As has been said already, income tax receipts apparently didn’t fall all that much. The jobs lost and hopefully regained soon were not generally highly paid or taxed.

    Income tax as you say didn’t massively reduce yet we had what 600k people out of work due to covid. That should be shocking but it’s not


  • #54
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭[Deleted User]


    Irish Praetorian wrote: »
    No there is quite a big point to comparing it with the Jobseeker payments - scale. One grows and shows no sign of abating, the other might well wax and wane. Ultimately, I don't think we'll be worrying so much about the Jobseekers bill in ten years time as much as we might be worrying about the pension bill.

    You tried to present both as a trend though. Which is not an honest interpretation.


  • #55
    Irish Praetorian
    Registered Users Posts: 1,745 ✭✭✭Irish Praetorian


    brainboru1104 wrote: »
    You tried to present both as a trend though. Which is not an honest interpretation.

    Both are a trend, pensions are increasing and Jobseekers payments, even if we take the last two years into account, are still dramatically down from ten years ago. Now I'm happy to hear the argument that there are longer term cycles at play here owing to economic ups and downs, but I think that's a bit beyond the remit of the data we have available here.


  • #56
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭[Deleted User]


    Irish Praetorian wrote: »
    Both are a trend, pensions are increasing and Jobseekers payments, even if we take the last two years into account, are still dramatically down from ten years ago. Now I'm happy to hear the argument that there are longer term cycles at play here owing to economic ups and downs, but I think that's a bit beyond the remit of the data we have available here.

    Sigh. JSA is cyclical, so if you would like to be honest about it, take the data that includes a FULL ECONOMIC CYCLE and draw a trend line through it. THAT is a trend, not what you presented. You presented your own fiction and anyone half educated in statistics would know this.

    I'm beginning to realise that you don't understand this point at all.


  • #57
    lawred2
    Registered Users Posts: 24,257 ✭✭✭✭lawred2


    ineedeuro wrote: »
    Income tax as you say didn’t massively reduce yet we had what 600k people out of work due to covid. That should be shocking but it’s not

    Most of those would have been in the service industry and paying next to no tax anyway


  • #58
    myshirt
    Registered Users Posts: 5,245 ✭✭✭myshirt


    Let the bears pay the bear tax. I'll pay the Homer tax.


  • #59
    kowloon
    Registered Users Posts: 13,264 ✭✭✭✭kowloon


    JimmyCorkhill wrote: »
    If tax goes up, I sincerely hope the dole/welfare goes down.

    I'd prefer if they went after the ultra-wealthy and raised the minimum wage to encourage people to go to work. The problem is not at the bottom, Starving people out of unemployment will just increase crime and boost the black economy IMO.
    None of that will happen though and in all likelihood, everyone who lives on a wage is going to be ridden sideways.


  • #60
    Geuze
    Registered Users Posts: 13,029 ✭✭✭✭Geuze


    _Kaiser_ wrote: »
    You can be sure that anything they give back will be more than made up by what they take through things like the upcoming hikes to property tax, increased carbon charges,

    The LPT isn't being increased. Houses that are exempt are to be included.

    The carbon tax has been increased, and the plan is to increase it every year, yes.


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    Geuze
    Registered Users Posts: 13,029 ✭✭✭✭Geuze


    kowloon wrote: »
    I'd prefer if they went after the ultra-wealthy

    With higher income taxes?

    The 48.5% rate already starts at a very low point, approx 35/36k.


Advertisement