69% Tax? No Thanks!

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

bonkey

Originally posted by daveirl
Will people actually go in for this?

It depends what they will get out of it.

Higher taxes carry the premise of more money being spent on more stuff. What its being spent on and how that will effect all of us should decide whether or not its needed.

jc

ReefBreak

What we might get out of it is actually lower tax revenue - as the higher rates kill off the incentive to work and take risks.

ionapaul

Yes, it that were to happen lower tax revenue would be certain. I would definitely leave the country, as would (I think) many people who currently pay the highest rates of tax or expect/hope to someday pay the highest rates of tax.

I doubt Sinn Fein will ever get into a position to decide tax rates in any case. At some point the vast middle class will realise that Sinn Fein cannot offer anything to them (in addition to the fact they still employ a private army!) and that will be the end of Sinn Fein's appeal. They will never get more than 15% of the popular vote and will never dictate economic policy in any coalition, I would guess.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

ReefBreak

I would hope that their vote has peaked - but I wonder how much more of the electorate is so gullible as to vote for them and their nonsense policies. Certainly, anyone that I've ever met that has admitted to voting for them (including a close friend) couldn't give me any real reasons why - apart from the usual vague rubbish about, "oh, they'll make things better, cos they'll invest more in stuff". Not one single, reality-based policy was forthcoming - apart from raising taxes across the board.

thejollyrodger

I read the article, looney lefties... they are simply squandering whatever money we have gained. Pre boom they were against the ecommic policies and if we voted for them then we would be in a terrible situation now.

Its easy for anyone to publish a document saying ahh just spend more and everything will be ok, ignoring the tax implications ... in the long term they will shaft us:mad: :mad:

we cant allow terrorist scum to get into government down south:(

leeroybrown

69% is pretty rediculous figure and I'm assuming it's just to illustrate the pie-in-the-sky reasobning behind some SF policies. As it is an average entry level college graduate getting a decent salary and few bonuses is almost paying top bracket taxes.

One thing I would be in favour of is a tri-band income taxation system.

oscarBravo

Originally posted by leeroybrown
One thing I would be in favour of is a tri-band income taxation system.

Why?

pork99

Great news - they have no chance of getting elected to government with policies like that

They have got things arse-about face. Any increased Govt. spending should be on those things which facilitate the functioning of the economy like transport & communications infrastructure, education & training.

As the economy expands, facilitated by this type of spending, then you have increased tax revenue (without necessarily putting up tax rates) to put into the "non-productive" areas like health and social housing.

ixoy

Oh yeah, I'd really be willing to pay that amount :rolleyes: As it is, it's horribly easy to be pushed into the upper tax bracket for even a small portion of your income. I don't want to have to consider paying 69% on all future increases when, as the past few years would seem to show, I'm not getting very much value for my money once I've factored in education (that'll teach me not to use the major roads, never get sick or never claim social welfare).

milltown

69% eh?

They'd better not sever their ties with the IRA just yet. They'll need them if they ever get into a position to implement these policies. They'll be first up against the wall when the inevitable revolution comes

But seriously. I don't think the votes SF have been receiving are a true indication of the level of support thay have. I think a lot of people, myself included, have used the SF option on the ballot as an alternative to spoiling the vote and voting against the government and their "opposition" parties.

Hopefully people will see this as a wake up call, that Sinn Féin are actually having delusions about running the country at some point, and start using the vote more wisely. Or just spoiling it properly.

seamus

Originally posted by oscarBravo
Why?

Our rich/poor divide is stretching, as they are wont to do. There are other ways of generating revenue than Income tax, but for the most part, if a country needs to raise taxes, it should take more from the higher band, as increasing the taxation on the lower band will only make a poor person's situation worse by taking more income from them.

A triband system would allow us a few things, badly needed in Ireland -
Protection of income for lower wage earners. Anyone earning less than €20,000, and not living at home, is going to struggle, or start struggling as they get older. Unless they're a single male in a three-bed flat share in Artane, they haven't a whole lot of disposable cash. Raising the taxation level in the lower band is the best way to make more money, but can cause more problems than it solves. Say a lower band finished at €22,000, and we lowered the rate to 18%, we would ease the burden on a lot of younger people, and those in social housing and low-paid jobs. Not a bad thing.
Middle-income earners would have a lower taxation rate. "Boo-hoo" I hear you say, but in Modern Ireland, we have a strange situation. The average industrial wage now sits in the upper tax band - The band traditionally used to tax those who have enough money in their basic cash (up to the lower tax band), that they can afford the balance of their wages to be heavily taxed. But no more. The average industrial wage cannot afford the mortagage on a home in Dublin, yet still pays heavy taxes on a portion of their income. How do we expect this country to rise out of its rut and spiralling prices, when the average worker has 40% of all his future wage rises taken in taxes? Middle-income earners now are just as strapped for cash as those in social housing. Many people who are well into the higher tax band are struggling to make ends meet and have debtors banging on their doors. Make a third tax band between €22,000 and €40,000, taxed at 30%, and see what happens. More people able to afford homes and children.

Sounds reasonable to me. I don't see how we can justify taking 40% out of the wages of people who can barely afford it.

Imposter

Originally posted by seamus
Make a third tax band between €22,000 and €40,000, taxed at 30%, and see what happens. More people able to afford homes and children.

Sounds reasonable to me. I don't see how we can justify taking 40% out of the wages of people who can barely afford it. [/B]

But wouldn't that just put more money into the economy and if anything cause house prices to climb still further while also leading to higher inflation?

ixoy

Originally posted by seamus
Sounds reasonable to me. I don't see how we can justify taking 40% out of the wages of people who can barely afford it.

Damn straight. Paying even a small amount of my income in that bracket annoys the hell out of me. I don't have that much disposable income and I couldn't even fathom buying a house but, given that I've breached this bracket there's a perception I'm in a "high income" situation. The hell I am. A tri-band system would at least help alleviate financial burdens and make certain things, like property ownership, only next to impossible as opposed to beyond it.

ionapaul

One of the reasons Sinn Fein could imagine levying a 69% tax rate is none of their supporters would pay this. Most are earning too little, and their most ardent supporters, though earning far more, are not paying any tax at all! Remember when that RTE interviewer tried to pin Adams down to condemn/make a statement on the IRA commanders/leaders making millions from smuggling/cigs/drugs and he refused? Doesn't go for the old 'politics of condemnation' of course...:)

What a horrible isolated hole of a place Ireland would become if they ever had a say in running the country.

leeroybrown

Originally posted by oscarBravo
Why?

1) Increased taxation on very high earners.
2) Facilitates a reduction in the bottom band for low earners.
3) A middle band that allows a person to gain a good reward from extra earnings while still paying tax at a reasonable rate.

Ultimately a system like that should be able generate the same taxation income while leaving the low paid and middle earners better off.

ixoy

Wasn't Ireland originally a tri-band system, before the tax credits system? Why was it removed (beyond lack of foresight)?

seamus

Originally posted by Imposter
But wouldn't that just put more money into the economy and if anything cause house prices to climb still further while also leading to higher inflation?

Well, they were only suggested limits. The ones I gave would actually raise the tax bill of the average worker

leeroybrown

Tax Credits are really just a less easily understandable implementation of the original Tax Free Allowance. TBH, I still wonder why they bothered.

When I say tri-band tax rates I mean three %-bands with credits/allowance also. The tax free allowance (implemented via tax credits now) is one of the most important ways to make low incomes worthwhile.

Imposter

Originally posted by seamus
Well, they were only suggested limits. The ones I gave would actually raise the tax bill of the average worker

But giving more money back to those who are just inside the higher tax band at the moment is what you are suggesting and that would have these consequences. Barring a property price crash, or some direct intervention by the government in the area of housing, I can't see anyone in that sort of wage bracket being any more able to afford a house, even if they have more take home pay, than they are now.

oscarBravo

Originally posted by seamus
A triband system would allow us a few things, badly needed in Ireland -
Protection of income for lower wage earners.

Wouldn't raising the threshold for the upper tax band and/or increasing tax credits achieve this?

Middle-income earners would have a lower taxation rate.

...and this?

The average industrial wage now sits in the upper tax band

...and this?

I'm not convinced of the need to further complicate the tax system to meet those goals.

Originally posted by leeroybrown
1) Increased taxation on very high earners.
2) Facilitates a reduction in the bottom band for low earners.
3) A middle band that allows a person to gain a good reward from extra earnings while still paying tax at a reasonable rate.

See above. Very high earners will always find ways of reducing their tax liability, in the absence of a fairly thorough overhaul of the taxation system - and, all come to all, they'll just move to Guernsey. The bottom band exists already, in the form of tax credits, and the middle band can be widened by increasing the threshold for the top tax rate.

Tax Credits are really just a less easily understandable implementation of the original Tax Free Allowance. TBH, I still wonder why they bothered.

If you were used to TFAs, the tax credit system seems harder to understand at first. Clear your mind of the concept of allowances, think about what it means to get a tax credit, and see if it makes more sense then.

As to why they bothered - I get the impression it's a first step along the road to a "basic income" concept, which might not be a bad thing.

seamus

Originally posted by oscarBravo
Wouldn't raising the threshold for the upper tax band and/or increasing tax credits achieve this? ...and this? ...and this?

Yes, but you'd need to seriously adjust the higher and/or lower tax rate to compensate. Either way you're going to do something which either lumps more tax on the already poor or (if you increase tax credits) takes unreasonable amounts of tax from those in the higher band.

oscarBravo

Originally posted by seamus
Yes, but you'd need to seriously adjust the higher and/or lower tax rate to compensate.

I'm sorry, I don't see it. Can you illustrate?

Either way you're going to do something which either lumps more tax on the already poor or (if you increase tax credits) takes unreasonable amounts of tax from those in the higher band.

Again, I don't see it.

Assuming that we increase tax credits by (say) €2k per annum - wouldn't that have a proportionally greater effect on low- than on high-income earners?

seamus

Originally posted by oscarBravo
I'm sorry, I don't see it. Can you illustrate? Again, I don't see it.

Assuming that we increase tax credits by (say) €2k per annum - wouldn't that have a proportionally greater effect on low- than on high-income earners?

Disregarding tax credits, if you raise the lower tax band, to say €33,000, then you lose the difference in tax between 40% and 20% - €1,000 in the case of the full €5,000 - per taxpayer earning €28,000 or more. If you increase tax credits, say by €2000 per person, then you lose €2000 per taxpayer.
So obviously, you're going to have to adjust somewhere to compensate.

Civilian_Target

When does the upper tax band kick in?

Devious

€28k for a single individual, €37k for married, rising to €56k depending on spouses income.

sceptre

Originally posted by Civilian_Target
When does the upper tax band kick in?

28,000 for a single person with no kiddies.

All (including the credits) listed here.

mike65

Back to the topic, SF. If they ever got their hands on the levers of power (which they wont) the brain drain and
flight of capital would be on a Third World Marxist Coup scale. No doubt we'll have the usual suspects to tell us how crippling levels of high rate tax can make economic sense. It did'nt in the 80s when the level was at 55% (as far as I recall) and emmigration was running at 40,000 pa while the levels of unemployment averaged 12-14%, and the GDP/debt ratio was around 125%.

Mike.

arcadegame2004

Originally posted by Bonkey
Higher taxes carry the premise of more money being spent on more stuff. What its being spent on and how that will effect all of us should decide whether or not its needed.

But higher rates of tax can actually reduce revenue. And lowering tax rates can actually increase revenue. Remember the doubling of revenue from capital-gains tax after Charlie McCreevy halved the rate of CGT from 40% to 20%.

SF are Reds and they are only proving this by their reported plans to join the Communist Party in the European Parliament. They have shown their true colours and I would rather climb Mount Everest naked than vote for them.

sceptre

Originally posted by mike65
No doubt we'll have the usual suspects to tell us how crippling levels of high rate tax can make economic sense.

I doubt I'm one of the usual suspects (at least not on this one) but crippling levels of high rate tax can make economic sense if the vast majority (and I'm talking /vast/ majority as in "pretty much almost everyone") feel that the return on that tax bill is enough to make the take worth it (and you'd need a level of services so high that we won't be doing it this century at least). Stating the obvious really and you'll still get tax exiles. Thomas More called it "Utopia" for a darned good reason.

Obviously there's a balance to be struck. Some of the more extreme noob supply-side economists are as wacked as whoever writes this stuff for Sinn Fein , they just come at it from the other side. Reduce all tax to nothing and the state can't pay for anything unless everything is free, increase tax to 100% and almost no-one will work, study or do anything useful.

It did'nt in the 80s when the level was at 55% (as far as I recall)

65% Mike:D

(April 83 to March 85)