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
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Average salary at €47,000

1246

Comments

  • #92
    Bob24
    Registered Users Posts: 10,905 ✭✭✭✭Bob24


    Zebra3 wrote: »
    People get hung up on tax that they pay but what's equally as important is the services that we get back.

    I'd gladly pay higher personal tax to have public services on par with Scandinavian countries.

    It's not all about an extra tenner in your back pocket.

    Income tax in Ireland is already on par with many European countries through. The State doesn’t have as much budget but this is because other taxes (for exemple corporate tax) are much lower. I understand that lowering taxes supported by companies (especially large ones) is the model Ireland has chosen to attract FDI, but there is a limit to how much are I ready for my income tax to increase in order to compensate for those low taxes.

    Also, while I am not as familiar with those counties I am under the impression that the golden age of high taxation / quality public services in those counties was in the 90s and that they have been changing quite a bit in the past 2 decades.


  • #93
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭[Deleted User]


    jimmycrackcorm wrote: »
    It's funny that you'd never hear that from anyone on a low income that is barely paying any tax at all.
    SF are proposing to cut USC for under 30k earners. Do those people not want to have Scandanavian style services?

    They expect to get the top quality services without paying the higher taxes. Why? Because they're entitled to them. Other countries have low cost and high quality services, so they deserve them too.

    Which I can kinda understand. Ireland is already a very expensive country. I always have to take a moment to accept the change whenever I return here. It's understandable that people would wonder why they're not receiving high quality services when they're already paying out a lot (cost of products and services as opposed to other taxation). Like 18 euro for a pouch of rolling tobacco? That staggered me a lot when I came back recently. Sure, it's related to the non-smoking drive, but it's still a signal of how expensive many things are here in comparison to other countries.


  • #94
    celtic_oz
    Registered Users Posts: 1,547 ✭✭✭celtic_oz


    no need to worry ..when sinn fein get in everyone gets a month back in their rent!


    this will be taken from the fat cats on 52%


  • #95
    BanditLuke
    Registered Users Posts: 2,600 ✭✭✭BanditLuke


    Earn more pay more.


  • #96
    Zebra3
    Registered Users Posts: 13,846 ✭✭✭✭Zebra3


    jimmycrackcorm wrote: »
    It's funny that you'd never hear that from anyone on a low income that is barely paying any tax at all.
    SF are proposing to cut USC for under 30k earners. Do those people not want to have Scandanavian style services?

    Firstly, if you think low income earners barely pay any tax at all, you don't understand our tax system.

    Secondly, I've no idea what "those people" want, I'm simply putting forward my view.


  • Advertisement
  • #97
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭[Deleted User]


    Zebra3 wrote: »
    Firstly, if you think low income earners barely pay any tax at all, you don't understand our tax system.

    Secondly, I've no idea what "those people" want, I'm simply putting forward my view.

    They pay little or no direct taxes, instead of increasing taxes on higher earners it’s lower earners that should be paying a little more. It’s not a good system that expects a large number of people to be subsidised by another smaller group. There should be either a flat rate tax or else the higher rate of tax should kick in at far higher incomes.

    Middle income and higher income households need to be seeing a lot more in their pocket from their gross wage than they currently are. It’s an other idiotic policy by SF cutting USC for lower earners when all they are doing is narrowing the tax base, it’s the higher earners that should be getting the cut.


  • #98
    Zebra3
    Registered Users Posts: 13,846 ✭✭✭✭Zebra3


    Leland Melted Rumor wrote: »
    They pay little or no direct taxes, instead of increasing taxes on higher earners it’s lower earners that should be paying a little more. It’s not a good system that expects a large number of people to be subsidised by another smaller group. There should be either a flat rate tax or else the higher rate of tax should kick in at far higher incomes.

    Middle income and higher income households need to be seeing a lot more in their pocket from their gross wage than they currently are. It’s an other idiotic policy by SF cutting USC for lower earners when all they are doing is narrowing the tax base, it’s the higher earners that should be getting the cut.

    And they pay disproportionately higher indirect taxes.

    It's amazing how ignorant people are that they think direct taxation is the be all and end all of taxation.


  • #99
    Arrival
    Closed Accounts Posts: 779 ✭✭✭Arrival


    Leland Melted Rumor wrote: »
    Living alone is not something that should be considered part of the living wage, share or live at home if possible but you don’t need to live alone to be considered “living”.

    I would say being able to share with 1 other person max for a comfortable price should be the standard considered for a living wage because couples should be able to live with each other for their own privacy and growth as a couple without having to break the bank so they can save for their future. The current ridiculous prices are actively inhibiting many couples from settling down and having families when they want to, this is a serious issue if allowed to go on for long enough


  • #100
    Fritzbox
    Registered Users Posts: 488 ✭✭Fritzbox


    Zebra3 wrote: »
    And they pay disproportionately higher indirect taxes.

    It's amazing how ignorant people are that they think direct taxation is the be all and end all of taxation.

    They are not being ignorant at all. Indirect taxes can be quite low for many people - no VAT on essential foodstuffs for example - although if you smoke or drink a lot you may be paying a lot more taxes.


  • #101
    Cypher_sounds
    Registered Users Posts: 8,093 ✭✭✭Cypher_sounds


    BanditLuke wrote: »
    Earn more pay more.

    Earn more buy bigger :)


  • Advertisement
  • #102
    Bubbaclaus
    Registered Users Posts: 4,461 ✭✭✭Bubbaclaus


    Zebra3 wrote: »
    And they pay disproportionately higher indirect taxes.

    It's amazing how ignorant people are that they think direct taxation is the be all and end all of taxation.

    Do they? No VAT on rent/mortgage, food, public transport etc. Surely that's the vast majority of most peoples spending tax free?


  • #103
    listermint
    Registered Users Posts: 33,576 ✭✭✭✭listermint


    Leland Melted Rumor wrote: »
    They pay little or no direct taxes, instead of increasing taxes on higher earners it’s lower earners that should be paying a little more. It’s not a good system that expects a large number of people to be subsidised by another smaller group. There should be either a flat rate tax or else the higher rate of tax should kick in at far higher incomes.

    Middle income and higher income households need to be seeing a lot more in their pocket from their gross wage than they currently are. It’s an other idiotic policy by SF cutting USC for lower earners when all they are doing is narrowing the tax base, it’s the higher earners that should be getting the cut.


    For someone who goes around giving their opinion on taxes in various threads. Be it tax bands , inheritance tax or CGT. You don't have a breeze about tax spend at all.

    Low income earners spend pretty much all their earnings on indirect tax. They don't have means to put into savings, stock gambles or property nor can they get into 'legal' tax avoidance such as as the type you seem to prescribe to.

    I would suggest you go an read some of the many research articles put together by various sources on indirect tax take from low earners. It may open your eyes somewhat ..... Well outside of the indo headlines you like to use. Sure these people have a free living.....


    Lol


  • #104
    listermint
    Registered Users Posts: 33,576 ✭✭✭✭listermint


    Bubbaclaus wrote: »
    Do they? No VAT on rent/mortgage, food, public transport etc. Surely that's the vast majority of most peoples spending tax free?

    No vat on what........

    Jesus wept.


    Absolute farcical knowledge put out as factual.


  • #105
    Bubbaclaus
    Registered Users Posts: 4,461 ✭✭✭Bubbaclaus


    listermint wrote: »
    Low income earners spend pretty much all their earnings on indirect tax.

    Can you explain this a bit more, considering I would expect accommodation and food to be contained in "spend pretty much all their earnings", neither of which are subject to indirect tax?


  • #106
    Bubbaclaus
    Registered Users Posts: 4,461 ✭✭✭Bubbaclaus


    listermint wrote: »
    No vat on what........

    Jesus wept.


    Absolute farcical knowledge put out as factual.

    There isnt any VAT on them. That is a fact. I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here?


  • #107
    Fritzbox
    Registered Users Posts: 488 ✭✭Fritzbox


    listermint wrote: »

    Low income earners spend pretty much all their earnings on indirect tax.

    Sheer nonsense

    I would suggest you go an read some of the many research articles put together by various sources on indirect tax take from low earners. It may open your eyes somewhat ..... Well outside of the indo headlines you like to use. Sure these people have a free living.....

    Any minute now your'e going to quote from that 44 page doc from the Nevin institute.


  • #108
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭[Deleted User]


    Arrival wrote: »
    I would say being able to share with 1 other person max for a comfortable price should be the standard considered for a living wage because couples should be able to live with each other for their own privacy and growth as a couple without having to break the bank so they can save for their future. The current ridiculous prices are actively inhibiting many couples from settling down and having families when they want to, this is a serious issue if allowed to go on for long enough

    When do we say that people need to earn a minimum before investing in a house/apartment, and do we differentiate with regards to quality/locations of such housing?

    When I bought my house before the banking crash, it was beyond the means of most people under 30. I had bought a previous cheap house, repaired/redecorated, and resold it for a 30k profit. That gave me the means to put a deposit on my actual house. I was earning higher than the average in salary, and I could afford to get a mortgage earlier than others my own age. Most people i know got their houses in their 30s, I got mine in my late 20s... but I also bought my property in an unpopular area (although it's become popular after a decade of paying my mortgage).

    The point I'm making is that these days, it seems like everyone expects to be able to afford a house pretty quickly. That the housing prices are unreasonable even though these people are talking about popular areas, or discussing large houses. There's little interest in buying, selling, buying again, and working up towards their family home. Instead, there's the expectation that they should be able to buy their family home right from the start... Just as they expect to be able to buy a place in a popular residential area rather than finding something in somewhere less popular even though prices are likely to be lower.

    I wonder where do we draw the line? I agree with you that people should be able to buy a place to live, but I wonder at your post, because it seems like a blanket statement that everyone should be able to do so... regardless of the considerations affecting price/availability.


  • #109
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭[Deleted User]


    Zebra3 wrote: »
    And they pay disproportionately higher indirect taxes.

    It's amazing how ignorant people are that they think direct taxation is the be all and end all of taxation.

    Middle income and higher earners pay far more direct and indirect taxes, far more. Low income earners pay very little tax either directly or indirectly on essentials.
    listermint wrote: »
    For someone who goes around giving their opinion on taxes in various threads. Be it tax bands , inheritance tax or CGT. You don't have a breeze about tax spend at all.

    Low income earners spend pretty much all their earnings on indirect tax. They don't have means to put into savings, stock gambles or property nor can they get into 'legal' tax avoidance such as as the type you seem to prescribe to.

    I would suggest you go an read some of the many research articles put together by various sources on indirect tax take from low earners. It may open your eyes somewhat ..... Well outside of the indo headlines you like to use. Sure these people have a free living.....


    Lol

    Rubbish from start to finish, what are they spending money on that’s contributing so much tax?


  • #110
    Salary Negotiator
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,148 ✭✭✭Salary Negotiator


    Leland Melted Rumor wrote: »
    Middle income and higher earners pay far more direct and indirect taxes, far more. Low income earners pay very little tax either directly or indirectly on essentials.



    Rubbish from start to finish, what are they spending money on that’s contributing so much tax?

    Fags and booze.


  • #111
    Geuze
    Registered Users Posts: 13,047 ✭✭✭✭Geuze


    Bob24 wrote: »
    Income tax in Ireland is already on par with many European countries through. The State doesn’t have as much budget but this is because other taxes (for exemple corporate tax) are much lower. I understand that lowering taxes supported by companies (especially large ones) is the model Ireland has chosen to attract FDI,

    Although the CT rate is low, the CT yield is huge.

    You seem to suggest that the CT yield is low, this is false.


  • Advertisement
  • #112
    Geuze
    Registered Users Posts: 13,047 ✭✭✭✭Geuze


    Note that this thread suggests average FT salary is 47k.

    To be clear, it's average FT earnings that are 47k, not salary.

    You could be on a basic of 42k, then you get overtime, bonus, etc.

    Earnings included overtime and bonus, etc.


  • #113
    beggars_bush
    Registered Users Posts: 4,336 ✭✭✭beggars_bush


    Geuze wrote: »
    Note that this thread suggests average FT salary is 47k.

    To be clear, it's average FT earnings that are 47k, not salary.

    You could be on a basic of 42k, then you get overtime, bonus, etc.

    Earnings included overtime and bonus, etc.

    Most workers don't have serious overtime or bonuses


  • #114
    bilbot79
    Registered Users Posts: 1,980 ✭✭✭bilbot79


    DellyBelly wrote: »
    Im a bit surprised by that figure. Thought it might be a little higher. Suppose that includes outside cities because if it doesn't I'd say the average wage is closer to 55 - 69 k. Definitely in Dublin anyway

    69k average wage in Dublin. Magicked up figures.


  • #115
    ILoveYourVibes
    Registered Users Posts: 15,176 ✭✭✭✭ILoveYourVibes


    It should take into account more than your salary. Your other income assets etc.

    If your salary is all you have ..that's tougher than some other people earning the same amount.


  • #116
    purifol0
    Registered Users Posts: 740 ✭✭✭purifol0


    Posters need to realise the difference in public sector and private sector take home pay.

    Private sector PAYE workers simply do not have the option of doubling their money by working overtime or Sundays. Gardai and Nurses are the two groups that massively increase their take home pay by these methods.

    Indeed as Eddie Hobbs pointed out it took the private sector nearly 20 years to catch up with the public sector average salary! Imagine that! In 2000 the avg public sector worker earned as much as the private sector one got in 2018.

    The reason taxes are so high and cannot be lowered (even if Varadkar knew he'd win a tonne of votes by keeping that particular promise he still couldn't do it) is because the country is paying public servants and their retired members an absolute fortune.

    This is the end result of Bertienomincs and "benchmarking" the public sector several times during the boom and not once during the bust.


  • #117
    Redneck Reject71
    Closed Accounts Posts: 586 ✭✭✭Redneck Reject71


    beggars_bush wrote: »
    Most workers don't have serious overtime or bonuses

    I work in the equestrian field, my typical work day is 9 to 12 hours a day with 1 day off. I've never been paid overtime and a bonus is a pipedream,heh.And I don't make no where 47k.heh.


  • #118
    dartboardio
    Registered Users Posts: 2,436 ✭✭✭dartboardio


    Hang on, €47 k being the average is not a high amount or shocking?

    By the time you are taxed it's much less than that.

    When they say the 'richer' should be taxed more I'd be thinking more along the lines of the people on €90k/100k upwards.

    €47k is an understandable average salary. People on that salary aren't exactly flush once all the bills are paid!

    for low paid workers maybe the average is 30k.


  • #119
    Sheeps
    Registered Users Posts: 2,762 ✭✭✭Sheeps


    Your effective rate of tax on that €47k is about 25%. That's sweet **** all compared to what some people pay. Aside from that, the median salary is lower, which is a far greater representation of what most people earn.


  • #120
    Geuze
    Registered Users Posts: 13,047 ✭✭✭✭Geuze


    dartboardio wrote: »
    Hang on, €47 k being the average is not a high amount or shocking?


    I don't think anybody is saying that the mean earnings for FT workers being 47k is "high or shocking".

    It is what it is.

    Ireland is a high productivity, high cost country.


  • Advertisement
  • #121
    Geuze
    Registered Users Posts: 13,047 ✭✭✭✭Geuze


    DellyBelly wrote: »
    Im a bit surprised by that figure. Thought it might be a little higher. Suppose that includes outside cities because if it doesn't I'd say the average wage is closer to 55 - 69 k. Definitely in Dublin anyway

    Here is a look at household incomes around the country:

    https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/ep/p-gpii/geographicalprofilesofincomeinireland2016/incomeinireland/

    (Note that income is not the same as earnings)


    Here is a look at earnings around the country:

    https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/ep/p-eaads/earningsanalysisusingadministrativedatasources2018/


Advertisement