Renua

BoJack Horseman · 10-10-2015 9:46pm

walshyn93 wrote: »

Here's proof that our tax system is causing a brain drain.

http://www.independent.ie/business/jobs/bruton-wants-30pc-emigrant-tax-to-lure-highly-skilled-back-to-ireland-31580155.html

It isn't though....

Lack of jobs & opportunity caused an exodus of working age adults in the last decade.

If people find the pay too low in Ireland, they will of course move elsewhere.... but the above isn't really proof at all that jobs go unfilled due income tax rates.

walshyn93 · 10-10-2015 10:02pm

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

It isn't though....

Lack of jobs & opportunity caused an exodus of working age adults in the last decade.

If people find the pay too low in Ireland, they will of course move elsewhere.... but the above isn't really proof at all that jobs go unfilled due income tax rates.

How is that not proof? Bruton reacting to a brain drain by trying to change our tax system isn't proof that taxation is a major factor? Unless you think he's just being an absolute spoofer... I'd be more inclined to think he's taken on board what the research in his million euro consultancy reports have shown him.

In the last decade... We're not taxing people out of last decades wages at the moment are we? I'm talking about the future here.

Young graduates of law, finance, medicine, science, they all realise that their potential for upward mobility in Ireland is severely reduced by our progressive income tax regime. The overwhelming majority of emigrants are not unemployed, they're leaving jobs in Ireland because they're clearly not paying well enough for them to stay. The ones who had to leave unemployment left long ago. Ireland risks become a training outpost for the more rewarding anglophone countries unless it rewards hard work and talent.

Never said anything about unfilled jobs. The jobs are filled by foreign workers and that is what keeps wages low. Either Irish workers are to content themselves with stagnant wages or they can leave is the message put forward by our harshly progressive tax system. Putting no upper limit on what it is acceptable for a person to earn in this country is likely to keep our best here and attract others' best.

BoJack Horseman · 10-10-2015 10:09pm

walshyn93 wrote: »

Young graduates of law, finance, medicine, science, they all realise that their potential for upward mobility in Ireland is severely reduced by our progressive income tax regime.

Well, here is a broad outline of where our emigrants are heading to:
http://www.cso.ie/multiquicktables/quickTables.aspx?id=pea18_2

And here is a list of countries in the world that have a flat income tax rate and the corresponding rate....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_tax#Countries_that_have_flat_tax_systems

While the CSO link doesn't breakdown country by country, rather by region.... its safe to assume that leaving for a flat income tax is not on the minds of most... perhaps some do go to Mongolia, Ukraine or Belarus, but I'm certain the vast majority leave for similarly progressive income taxed countries

walshyn93 · 10-10-2015 10:15pm

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Well, here is a broad outline of where our emigrants are heading to:
http://www.cso.ie/multiquicktables/quickTables.aspx?id=pea18_2

And here is a list of countries in the world that have a flat income tax rate and the corresponding rate....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_tax#Countries_that_have_flat_tax_systems

While the CSO link doesn't breakdown country by country, rather by region.... its safe to assume that leaving for a flat income tax is not on the minds of most... perhaps some do go to Mongolia, Ukraine or Belarus, but I'm certain the vast majority leave for similarly progressive income taxed countries

Ridiculous post. I never said emigrants had a fetish for flat tax jurisdictions. Just that they're attracted to whichever country is going to leave them with the best disposable income. It follows that if Ireland has lower after tax earnings for top grads then they're not going to stay. My argument is that in order to compete, Ireland should lower its taxes. A flat tax is a fairly nifty way to achieve that.

Of course, you know that which is why I think you're only trying to catch me out rather than debate the issue at hand.

BoJack Horseman · 10-10-2015 10:28pm

walshyn93 wrote: »

Ridiculous post.

Easy tiger...

You said.

walshyn93 wrote: »

Young graduates of law, finance, medicine, science, they all realise that their potential for upward mobility in Ireland is severely reduced by our progressive income tax regime.

Progressive taxation doesn't appear to be an inhibitor for this abstract "upward mobility"...
The rich still seem to remain rich.
High earners tend to somehow remain high earners.
Meritocracy, not yet outlawed.

Those who leave, don't do so because of progressive taxation (as I demonstrated).

Somehow, despite the tyranny of progressive taxation Ireland largely prospers!

walshyn93 · 10-10-2015 10:46pm

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Easy tiger...

You said.

Progressive taxation doesn't appear to be an inhibitor for this abstract "upward mobility"...
The rich still seem to remain rich.
High earners tend to somehow remain high earners.
Meritocracy, not yet outlawed.

Those who leave, don't do so because of progressive taxation (as I demonstrated).

Somehow, despite the tyranny of progressive taxation Ireland largely prospers!

Nitpicking. The brain drain won't hurt us in the short term because the generation of skilled workers that the graduates of years 2008-2015 and beyond are intended to replace have not yet retired. It's immensely short sighted to not look at the current trends. Just because I phrased one sentence wrong doesn't mean that trend won't be reversed by reducing the extent to which our future high earners are taxed. The fact that you're trying to prove ME wrong rather than the spirit of my argument is just you playing the man and not the ball.

As I've already said, current high earners are likely to grin and bear it because they have children in school or they're mid career. Those at the start of their career are looking for more prosperous nations. You still can't tell me how even a reduction in our progressive taxation won't prevent that.

EDIT: In fact no, I didn't phrase that wrong now I've reread it in context. I was saying OUR progressive income tax regime. Not progressive income tax regimes in general. We (apparently) have one of the most progressive tax regimes in the EU. I'd advise you to stop nitpicking if its a productive debate you're after.

jjmcclure · 10-10-2015 10:52pm

walshyn93 wrote: »

Nitpicking. The brain drain won't hurt us in the short term because the generation of skilled workers that the graduates of years 2008-2015 and beyond are intended to replace have not yet retired. It's immensely short sighted to not look at the current trends. Just because I phrased one sentence wrong doesn't mean that trend won't be reversed by reducing the extent to which our future high earners are taxed. The fact that you're trying to prove ME wrong rather than the spirit of my argument is just you playing the man and not the ball.

As I've already said, current high earners are likely to grin and bear it because they have children in school or they're mid career. Those at the start of their career are looking for more prosperous nations. You still can't tell me how even a reduction in our progressive taxation won't prevent that.

EDIT: In fact no, I didn't phrase that wrong now I've reread it in context. I was saying OUR progressive income tax regime. Not progressive income tax regimes in general. We (apparently) have one of the most progressive tax regimes in the EU. I'd advise you to stop nitpicking if its a productive debate you're after.

Totally agree. If I were single with no kids I'd be in Dubai or UAE.

30 to 40 k per month with no tax. Why would you be here????

BoJack Horseman · 10-10-2015 11:02pm

walshyn93 wrote: »

Those at the start of their career are looking for more prosperous nations

That has always ever been thus though
Those that can find better prosperity elsewhere will gravitate towards it, always been that way, always will.

However, the fact is, our tyrannical way of asking higher earners to pay more hasn't proven to be a dampener on GDP or job growth.

The cause of the 2008 crash was not high income taxes.
Increasing those income taxes has not inhibited GDP or job creation to any level anyone has actually measured empirically.

So, that said... awarding a 40% reduction in PAYE rates for higher earners, just to blow the backside out of the budget deficit may seem like its the gateway to utopia....

But when looking at the list of takers... I & I'm sure the majority will kindly say 'no' to Lucinda & her grand idea.

We will just muddle on... not being nearly as fantastic & prosperous as these flat tax heavens

walshyn93 · 10-10-2015 11:19pm

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

That has always ever been thus though
Those that can find better prosperity elsewhere will gravitate towards it, always been that way, always will.

That's the whole point, mate. We should create a tax regime that allows them to be prosperous here.

However, the fact is, our tyrannical way of asking higher earners to pay more hasn't proven to be a dampener on GDP or job growth.

The cause of the 2008 crash was not high income taxes.
Increasing those income taxes has not inhibited GDP or job creation to any level anyone has actually measured empirically.

The government has risen taxes to the point where the middle class won't emigrate. Not exactly difficult, they're essentially trapped with negative equity mortgages as well as the obvious aversion to uprooting a family. But their kids aren't so restricted and they're leaving in droves. So even though you're not seeing this impact on GDP or employment figures (and who says we aren't?) now doesn't mean it's not a problem. We will have a hard time paying the pensions of our bloated public sector if we let our future tax payers leave. In fact, unless we do something to ensure a reliable tax base of high earners into the future our taxes are only going to get more progressive, and that's a spiral that's hard to break out of.

BoJack Horseman · 10-10-2015 11:44pm

walshyn93 wrote: »

We should create a tax regime that allows them to be prosperous here.

People are prosperous here.
Certainly the Irish people enjoy a greater level of prosperity than the bulk of citizens of the countries I displayed above that follow your ideal.

I'm confident that this is true, though I welcome proof of the contrary, if there is any.

So even though you're not seeing this impact on GDP or employment figures (and who says we aren't?)

As I said, no one has every empirically shown there to be.... certainly Renua can't seem bothered.

We will have a hard time paying the pensions of our bloated public sector if we let our future tax payers leave. In fact, unless we do something to ensure a reliable tax base of high earners into the future our taxes are only going to get more progressive.

.... Except, the Renua plan increases the deficit.
Your argument is invalid as its advocate (hence the thread title) acknowledge that it will harm the governments ability to cover state costs!

walshyn93 · 11-10-2015 12:00am

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

People are prosperous here.
Certainly the Irish people enjoy a greater level of prosperity than the bulk of citizens of the countries I displayed above that follow your ideal.

I'm confident that this is true, though I welcome proof of the contrary, if there is any.

As I said, no one has every empirically shown there to be.... certainly Renua can't seem bothered.

.... Except, the Renua plan increases the deficit.
Your argument is invalid as its advocate (hence the thread title) acknowledge that it will harm the governments ability to cover state costs!

I've already distinguished my position from Renua's and you know this, but because you can't pick holes in my argument you're using Renua's as a strawman.

Besides, all of your arguments are totally fallacious. The worst being the implication that countries with flat tax regimes will inevitably end up like Mongolia or Russia. Your arguments are absent any content or context whatsoever and don't seem to be specifically tailored to the country under discussion save for a few references to economic indicators that have little relevance to the discussion in the manner in which you present them.

Worse still, you only respond to morsels of my argument rather than taking it in its full context.

BoJack Horseman · 11-10-2015 12:04am

walshyn93 wrote: »

but because you can't pick holes in my argument you're using Renua's as a strawman.

Strawman???
Its the goddamn thread title!!!
The whole point of the thread is the Renua tax plan!

Its not me saying this 40% tax cut for the higher earners blows a hole in government finances... Renua are!!

countries with flat tax regimes will inevitably end up like Mongolia or Russia.

End up like??

They are Russia, Mongolia & Belize & Bulgaria & East Timor & Madagascar & Macedonia... etc.. etc....

Strawman..... Jesus effing Christ.

walshyn93 · 11-10-2015 12:18am

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Strawman???
Its the goddamn thread title!!!
The whole point of the thread is the Renua tax plan!

Its not me saying this 40% tax cut for the higher earners blows a hole in government finances... Renua are!!

End up like??

They are Russia, Mongolia & Belize & Bulgaria & East Timor & Madagascar & Macedonia... etc.. etc....

Strawman..... Jesus effing Christ.

You said my argument is invalid "because Renua...". Have you even read my argument? It's completely independent of Renua's 23% flat tax.

Anyway, you shouldn't be the one getting annoyed. You're the one posting ridiculous comments about Ireland ending up like Russia because of our tax rate. If anyone should be getting annoyed it's the people who have to read that tripe and worse, me who has to defend his perfectly reasonable arguments against ridiculously fallacious arguments.

BoJack Horseman · 11-10-2015 12:35am

walshyn93 wrote: »

It's completely independent of Renua's 23% flat tax.

Yep, You said cut yet more public services .... terrific!

walshyn93 wrote: »

For the deficit, cutting public services

The broad catch-all to cover anything you want.

However an additional 14% cut in the already modest expenditure on public services, right when the state is finally in a position to increase public expenditure again will be fart-in-elevator popular with the people.

Its quite a sh*t sandwich you expect the Irish people to swallow....
- A further cut in public expenditure almost equal to what has preceded us these last 5 years.
- Tax rises on low-income families.
- So higher earners can enjoy an enormous 40% tax cut....

and all because....no one will want to emigrate anymore.

Good times!

walshyn93 · 11-10-2015 12:43am

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Yep, You said cut yet more public services .... terrific!

The broad catch-all to cover anything you want.

However an additional 14% cut in the already modest expenditure on public services, right when the state is finally in a position to increase public expenditure again will be fart-in-elevator popular with the people.

Its quite a sh*t sandwich you expect the Irish people to swallow....
- A further cut in public expenditure almost equal to what has preceded us these last 5 years.
- Tax rises on low-income families.
- So higher earners can enjoy an enormous 40% tax cut....

and all because....no one will want to emigrate anymore.

Good times!

Alright, you've gone beyond ridiculous now. I also mentioned introducing a negative income tax to replace the social safety net. You actually cut me off mid sentence to try and make your point. I'm not sure what you get out of this but I'll not be seeing any of your posts on this again and so will not be responding. Good luck.

BoJack Horseman · 11-10-2015 12:54am

walshyn93 wrote: »

I also mentioned introducing a negative income tax to replace the social safety net.

Something so fantastic, no nation on earth does it!

And the almost version of 'working tax credit', in the UK where people receive monies back from revenue despite having no tax liability did nothing to replace social safety nets!

Shame your backing out.... Lucinda & the God Squad couldn't make their 40% tax cut add up either.

But the voter, as always, will decide either way.

jank · 11-10-2015 1:13am

Gringo180 wrote: »

You answered your own question. Why can't it be employer friendly instead of enterprise friendly? Do you honestly think people will be motivated to work 40 hours a week on minimum wage clearing a pathetic €275. I wouldn't get up out of bed for that.

A flat tax rate only benefits the well off in society and hurts the people on the breadline. We already have a huge gap between the rich and poor in society as it is.

It is employer friendly as employers PRSI (who get NOTHING in return for their money) would also be abolished. Afaik, employers PRSI is over 10% at this stage.
That would instantly free up revenue to a) employ more people b) give pay rises to the most productive staff

Interesting comment that would think 275 a week is beneath you. Regardless, Renua state that for the lowest paid, there would be tax rebates which would bring this net income up.

jank · 11-10-2015 1:20am

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Fun fact....

60% of workers earn below the average industrial wage.

Isn't this an oxymoron. How can 50% of workers who earn less then the average industrial wage somehow comprise of 60% of workers?

Another way to look at it. Renua are not targeting those who are going to vote for Sinn Fein or the alphabet soup of the looney left. They are however targeting those who earn more then the average industrial wage, which is still a lot of people.

jank · 11-10-2015 1:28am

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Well, here is a broad outline of where our emigrants are heading to:
http://www.cso.ie/multiquicktables/quickTables.aspx?id=pea18_2

And here is a list of countries in the world that have a flat income tax rate and the corresponding rate....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_tax#Countries_that_have_flat_tax_systems

While the CSO link doesn't breakdown country by country, rather by region.... its safe to assume that leaving for a flat income tax is not on the minds of most... perhaps some do go to Mongolia, Ukraine or Belarus, but I'm certain the vast majority leave for similarly progressive income taxed countries

I am afraid walshyn93 is right. For me to ever come back to Ireland the amount of Tax i would have to pay is a major consideration for me. Once you go abroad you realise how much the middle income earner gets screwed in Ireland and for very little in return. I know many Irish people who have returned home and a common complaint is the tax burden. I also know many who go 'home' but only to live in the UK as their take home pay is more there than in Ireland.

A flat tax is only a remedy to a problem, not the solution in of itself.

BoJack Horseman · 11-10-2015 1:37am

jank wrote: »

Isn't this an oxymoron. How can 50% of workers who earn less then the average industrial wage somehow comprise of 60% of workers?.

The difference between 'median' & 'average'

The Randy Riverbeast · 11-10-2015 2:44am

jank wrote: »

Isn't this an oxymoron. How can 50% of workers who earn less then the average industrial wage somehow comprise of 60% of workers?

Another way to look at it. Renua are not targeting those who are going to vote for Sinn Fein or the alphabet soup of the looney left. They are however targeting those who earn more then the average industrial wage, which is still a lot of people.

9 people have 10 euro. 1 person has 110 euro. The average is 20 euro. 90% of people have less than the average.

The average is just adding up a bunch of numbers and dividing. It can be easily skewed. The median is the middle point where 50% are above and 50% are below.

It's a lot of people but they still need people to vote in a manner which ends up with them paying more tax so that people who earn more than them can pay less in order to have a majority.

K-9 · 11-10-2015 10:07am

walshyn93 and bojack, cut it out please. I'm not sure where it's going but both of you will be banned if ye keep it up. And what's with the Beavis and Butthead act? Backsides, farts etc.

oscarBravo · 11-10-2015 12:39pm

jank wrote: »

Isn't this an oxymoron. How can 50% of workers who earn less then the average industrial wage somehow comprise of 60% of workers?

Look at it like this: what percentage of people have more than the average number of arms?

11-10-2015 1:51pm

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Still waiting for the above to be backed up.

No, nor am I going to bother to. You head seems to be well and truly stuck in the sand.

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

It isn't though....

Lack of jobs & opportunity caused an exodus of working age adults in the last decade.

If people find the pay too low in Ireland, they will of course move elsewhere.... but the above isn't really proof at all that jobs go unfilled due income tax rates.

Came up a year or two here that the cso shows little about the numbers of families who have left.
But judging from Brutons 30% flat tax suggestion to lure them back they are aware of it.
Most of my work is abroad so I have limited dealings with business' in Ireland, but still personally know over 10 families at this stage, two of those siblings. Age group 35 to 45,
4 mid career employees with technology companies with no shortage of opportunities to move to other companies if they wished.
Rest self employed/small business' that were still very viable, folded their business' 2 laid off employees, packed up families, sold homes and left.

All left for the same reason, the high marginal tax/the ridiculously low level it kicks in at.

Pay is not low in Ireland!
There is no shortage of opportunities in Ireland!
There is no shortage of training, at very reasonable cost, in many cases almost free, for anyone who wants to get away from minimum wage work, into good paying careers.

Ireland's "progressive" tax system as is, removes any incentive to and any benefit from hard work.

With our system as is I hold no hope for the future. There has to be change. I think Renua's proposals are on the right track. A fair, flat tax system accompanied by a negative income tax for low earners, savings from cutting the huge overheads of services, has real potential.

Berkieahern · 11-10-2015 3:16pm

Can only see Renua making up numbers for FG after the next election!

walshyn93 · 11-10-2015 4:26pm

Berkieahern wrote: »

Can only see Renua making up numbers for FG after the next election!

That's sort of the idea. I suppose they want to be in there to push FG towards the right.

K-9 · 11-10-2015 7:49pm

The effective rate of income tax gives a good idea who would benefit:
http://lh6.ggpht.com/-26PVKt4-LiI/UGNf-BzKZZI/AAAAAAAAG5A/uiiDWv68a1I/Average%252520Incomes%252520and%252520Tax%252520Paid_thumb%25255B2%25255D.jpg?imgmax=800

It doesn't count the income levy and PRSI so probably need to over 60 or 70k to benefit.

How many people would benefit?
http://www.irisheconomy.ie/index.php/2014/12/06/the-distribution-of-income-in-ireland/

About 300,000 cases would benefit, about 2 million would lose out or no change.

How 2 million people are supposed to make more money through more hours etc. I'm not sure. It'll be some boom anyway!

jank · 12-10-2015 9:20am

K-9 wrote: »

The effective rate of income tax gives a good idea who would benefit:
http://lh6.ggpht.com/-26PVKt4-LiI/UGNf-BzKZZI/AAAAAAAAG5A/uiiDWv68a1I/Average%252520Incomes%252520and%252520Tax%252520Paid_thumb%25255B2%25255D.jpg?imgmax=800

It doesn't count the income levy and PRSI so probably need to over 60 or 70k to benefit.

How many people would benefit?
http://www.irisheconomy.ie/index.php/2014/12/06/the-distribution-of-income-in-ireland/

About 300,000 cases would benefit, about 2 million would lose out or no change.

How 2 million people are supposed to make more money through more hours etc. I'm not sure. It'll be some boom anyway!

The figures in the first link seems to be wrong.

Different numbers here https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CBwQFjAAahUKEwiF1aXWv7zIAhXiUKYKHcd4CWs&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.taxinstitute.ie%2FPortals%2F0%2FEffective%2520Income%2520Tax%2520Rates%2520Ireland%2520v%25207%2520competitor%2520countries.pdf&usg=AFQjCNFNdzHXgouWFk_yjKfjSc-CcZv7Jw&sig2=wFgQ1UBF-IHB83aOly4AQQ&bvm=bv.104819420,d.dGY

K-9 · 12-10-2015 10:29am

jank wrote: »

The figures in the first link seems to be wrong.

Different numbers here https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CBwQFjAAahUKEwiF1aXWv7zIAhXiUKYKHcd4CWs&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.taxinstitute.ie%2FPortals%2F0%2FEffective%2520Income%2520Tax%2520Rates%2520Ireland%2520v%25207%2520competitor%2520countries.pdf&usg=AFQjCNFNdzHXgouWFk_yjKfjSc-CcZv7Jw&sig2=wFgQ1UBF-IHB83aOly4AQQ&bvm=bv.104819420,d.dGY

Not wrong as they don't include PRSI and the USC. Yours is better though!

Which shows how stupid the decision to remove the minimum wage from USC is.

The other way to cut high effective rates is to increase the standard rate cut off point cutting the amount of income taxed at 40% tax. Somebody on less than the average industrial wage paying high rate tax makes no sense, and that is why we shoot up that table.

Tbh I'd prefer a more structured and targeted tax reform system, a childcare tax credit given the cost of childcare in this country for example. That helps everybody that pays a hefty work related cost, regardless of level of earnings.

Renua

Comments