The more you earn the less you pay.

Victor

Victor wrote:

Can I scream "over-heated free market economy with tax subsidies" fast enough?Fair enough, but a lot of the property expenditure is frivolous. It's being spent on €750 gold taps from Germany, not floor space or roofs over people's heads.(a) the self-employed / corporate types refer to them as "business trips", not "holidays". (b) remind me how much VAT & excise the government makes on international flights and hotel stays abroad?

Victor you do realise I'll have ask you for links to surveys done on how many gold taps from Germany are in these appartments and to how many frivolous mar- dhea holidays are done...

And when in the last decade has our economy been overheated by the way,if by overheated you mean house price falls and bust rather than boom?

Victor

OK, anecdotally, do you think gold taps sold better in (a) 1984 (b) 1994 (c) 2004?

Earthman wrote:

how many frivolous mar- dhea holidays are done...

I would respond, but Charlie abolished departure tax, a key measuring factor in determining the figures.

Earthman wrote:

And when in the last decade has our economy been overheated by the way,if by overheated you mean house price falls and bust rather than boom?

... and the rest of the construction industry and personal services and health and pubs & restaurants and retail and energy & utilities and government services and consumer products ...

Remind me how much a bar of chocolate these days?

RainyDay

Earthman wrote:

Rise the tax rates to the people we are talking about and withdraw the incentives and see what happens, have a wee look back to the eighties and early ninties when educated people with the potential to earn here , left in droves.
It's not just the few who have made enough to be able to write off all their income in these schemes, who are using them, there are many on more modest earnings availing of them too.

Are you trying to reassure us, or rile us up even more? So now you find it acceptable that those on 'modest' earnings don't need to pay any tax either, once it is routed into one of these schemes supposedly to encourage 'growth'? This is just crazy. Our public services are in a mess, partially because we simply don't take in enough tax income (Yes, there are mis-management issues too, but that's a question for another day). We need to cut these schemes and fund some decent public services for our citizens.

Earthman wrote:

Exactly but ergo the private money wouldn't be invested there otherwise.

It is fairly clear from your posts that you are a smart guy, so I know you really didn't fall for this oul scaremongering. Do you really believe that there would be fewer car parks in Dublin city centre without these tax breaks? Or fewer stud farms in Kildare? Or fewer private hospitals currently in construction?

These developments will happen without any requirement for the state to subside them through tax relief. They may well end up being a little less profitiable for the developers and/or a little more expensive for the consumers, but they will still happen. There is no good reason for state funds to be used to subsidise these developments.

If there is state funding available to 'encourage' development in the health service, why isn't it being routed into the public health system. And if there is state funding available to 'encourage' development in transport, why isn't it being routed into the public transport system?

Earthman wrote:

I've emphasised the earners because you effectively seem to be saying that because they earn so much, they should be treated differently.
The " differently" I mean is that beyond a certain point the incentives open to lower income earners should be curbed... ie they should just be taxed at a higher rate and let the government spend it for them.

You are missing the point. No-one is proposing a higher tax rate on high earners on this thread. Several posters are simply proposing that the same tax rate which applies to ordinary factory & office workers will also apply to the super-high earners. It is about equity & fairness.

Victor

Victor wrote:

Remind me how much a bar of chocolate these days?

I could tell you that a packet of tayto in the 70's was probably around 1 or 2p Victor.
I can tell you that , I was in power city in sallynoggin yesterday and it was packed to the rafters with people carting out expensive items ranging from american style fridges to flat screen tv's ie there was plenty of money in evidence and not much sign of Bust.

RainyDay wrote:

You are missing the point. No-one is proposing a higher tax rate on high earners on this thread. Several posters are simply proposing that the same tax rate which applies to ordinary factory & office workers will also apply to the super-high earners. It is about equity & fairness.

If it's about equity and fairness, why is it being alluded to in this thread that because people earn money beyond a certain level that their access to certain reliefs should be curbed? Surely their rights to such earning capacity shouldn't be curbed, it's an infringement of their proven capabilities.
They have after all worked to get to that stage.

These developments will happen without any requirement for the state to subside them through tax relief. They may well end up being a little less profitiable for the developers and/or a little more expensive for the consumers, but they will still happen. There is no good reason for state funds to be used to subsidise these developments.

Well thats your point of view,take it up with the politicians,but while the relief is available,might I suggest not denograting peoples rights to take up the relief that is there, just because they have earned more resources to avail of it.

If there is state funding available to 'encourage' development in the health service, why isn't it being routed into the public health system. And if there is state funding available to 'encourage' development in transport, why isn't it being routed into the public transport system?

Well I'd agree with you on the public transport system,so would you mind then if someone who has earned massive amounts of income was able to offset all or most of it against investment in that area?

As regards private investment in the public health service, well regrettably, I doubt any sane wealthy individual would be too willing to plough funds into that without significant structural reform.
The blame for the state of the health services cannot hardly be held at the door of the people availing of tax incentive schemes-we've had many sucessive governments in charge of that debacle.

RainyDay

Earthman wrote:

I can tell you that , I was in power city in sallynoggin yesterday and it was packed to the rafters with people carting out expensive items ranging from american style fridges to flat screen tv's ie there was plenty of money in evidence and not much sign of Bust.

Carting out expensive items is not a sign of wealth. It is a sign of debt. I was amazed to overhear (OK - I was doing my very best to earwig) a couple purchasing a €4k plasma screen asking for the in-store finance package (APR around 29% iirc). If you can't afford to buy such luxury items, you really shouldn't be going into debt (very expensive debt) to get them.

Earthman wrote:

If it's about equity and fairness, why is it being alluded to in this thread that because people earn money beyond a certain level that their access to certain reliefs should be curbed? Surely their rights to such earning capacity shouldn't be curbed, it's an infringement of their proven capabilities.
They have after all worked to get to that stage.

I didn't see any such allusions on this thread. I saw direct statements that those with very high incomes should pay the same level of tax as the rest of us. No more, no less.

Earthman wrote:

Well thats your point of view,take it up with the politicians,but while the relief is available,might I suggest not denograting peoples rights to take up the relief that is there, just because they have earned more resources to avail of it.

I don't get your logic. You seem to assume that the existance of these reliefs is a 'given'. They are not a 'given' - the reliefs exist solely because certain Governments have explicitly decided to offer state subsidise to private developments. Once again, my problem isn't with the level of earnings, it is with the reliefs that allow such individuals to legally avoid tax.

And while we are at it, why is the mortgage interest relief given to property investors uncapped/unlimited, while the relief offered to home owners has a fairly low cap. Why should the state subsidise investors to help them to outbid first time buyers?

bonkey

Earthman wrote:

If it's about equity and fairness, why is it being alluded to in this thread that because people earn money beyond a certain level that their access to certain reliefs should be curbed?

Because those benefits are designed purely and solely to benefit the rich - they are benefits which typically are not available to the lower earner, or are simply not cost-effective (as the accountant costs would be as high, if not higher, then the money being saved).

If you want to keep it equal, then view it as a call to remove these "certain reliefs" from everyone. The net effect is the same, and - to be honest - thats how it would be implemented anyway.

What you're arguing seems to be that removing existing inequality is not about equity and fairness....which would be counter-intuitive.

jc

Redleslie2

Apologies if this was already posted but it sounds sensible to me.

Economist proposes flat-tax for wealthy.

A Dub in Glasgo

Why not put everybody on a flat 15% tax? I would prefer if the reliefs, write offs and tricks were found and closed.

Earthman - http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=2011546&postcount=24

RainyDay

RainyDay wrote:

Carting out expensive items is not a sign of wealth. It is a sign of debt. I was amazed to overhear (OK - I was doing my very best to earwig) a couple purchasing a €4k plasma screen asking for the in-store finance package (APR around 29% iirc). If you can't afford to buy such luxury items, you really shouldn't be going into debt (very expensive debt) to get them.

Indeed I'm sure that happens but the people that I saw yesterday were paying with either credit cards or cash.
If they weren't maintaining those cards they would be declining the purchase.
The fact remains that there is oodles of earnings in this country, there may be oodles of debt too, but for the large part its a well maintained debt. Theres hundreds of houses being built in my area anyway and not much sign of re possessions.

I didn't see any such allusions on this thread. I saw direct statements that those with very high incomes should pay the same level of tax as the rest of us. No more, no less.

Which is an opportunity open to all just as much as the opportunity to avail relatively of tax reliefs is open to all.

bonkey wrote:

Because those benefits are designed purely and solely to benefit the rich - they are benefits which typically are not available to the lower earner, or are simply not cost-effective (as the accountant costs would be as high, if not higher, then the money being saved).
jc

I disagree, accountants costs are tax deductable at whatever rate you are on, you don't have to be super rich to buy as your home a house with some form of sectioned relief on it.
I have one friend for instance who is a wood work teacher and who works after school putting in kitchens, tiling and all sorts of carpentry and building work.He's very highly motivated and clearly works very hard but aint uber rich by a long shot yet he is living in a sectioned house and has bought another one which he is doing up himself.
The money he is earning outside of teaching is covering his mortgage costs.

If you want to keep it equal, then view it as a call to remove these "certain reliefs" from everyone. The net effect is the same, and - to be honest - thats how it would be implemented anyway.

Well yeah thats true to an extent, it wouldnt help my friend above or anyone who aspired to becoming wealthy but then thats subjective isn't it?

What you're arguing seems to be that removing existing inequality is not about equity and fairness....which would be counter-intuitive.

No I am not.
What you said previously there regarding abolishing the reliefs for everybody would be equality and fairness but doing so may cause other problems like deadening some of the incentives to rise up a salary scale if a government decided it had to rise tax rates to cover increased expenditure in areas benefiting from the schemes.
What I am consistantly arguing for in this thread is for some regard for the fact that people have earned this money beyond the point that they need have done and are being encouraged to do something non frivolous with it.

bonkey

Earthman wrote:

I disagree, accountants costs are tax deductable at whatever rate you are on,

So?

Do the math. If you are paying tax at 20% (I'm picking easy numbers, not real figures) and spend €1000 on an accountant per year, thats a whole €200 you get back on your tax bill. So if your accountant doesn't save you more than an additional €800 on top of what he costs himself, you're still worse off.

Until you get to the point where what the accountant is able to save you is over and above the cost of the accountant, you're worse off. Now, if accountants were able to make everyone better off, why wouldn't they be touting aggressively for this business? The fact that they aren't suggests that its because they also know that its just not worthwhile below a certain earnings-threshold.

you don't have to be super rich to buy as your home a house with some form of sectioned relief on it.

Nice sweeping statement, but I'm pretty sure if you look at the typical minimum cost of such an item, and work out the percentage of the population who can afford to pay such prices for houses, you will end up well below 50%.

You mightn't need to be super-rich, no. You will just need to be in the top n%, where the lower a value n has, the more you get to save off your tax bill both as a percentage, and as a hard value.

Well yeah thats true to an extent, it wouldnt help my friend above or anyone who aspired to becoming wealthy but then thats subjective isn't it?

But its not about helping people to become wealthy. Its about rewarding them unnecessarily for having become wealthy. They're wealthy - what do they need additional tax breaks over and above the non-wealthy for?

What I am consistantly arguing for in this thread is for some regard for the fact that people have earned this money beyond the point that they need have done

Thats a semantic argument. Anyone earning above minimum wage has earned money above the point that they "need have done". Why don't we give all of them tax breaks, but instead set the bar at some notional higher point, and say "this is the "more than you need have done" earnings-point after which you get rewarded".

More importantly, having earned more than they need have done, why should they pay less overall tax then had they not done so? Why not say that they pay the same tax as you or I on the first (picking an easy number) €250,000, and everything after that is valid for these dodges, or at a lower rate, or just plain tax-free? But telling someone that earns €1,000,000 that his tax-contribution to the state should be less then the guy who earns €40,000 isn't showing a regard to his extra earnings...its spitting in the face of the €40,000 earner and saying that he has to pay for the running of the state but only because he's not rich enough.

and are being encouraged to do something non frivolous with it.

Non-frivolous as compared to paying tax? First time I've seen a suggestion that tax is frivolous...

jc

bonkey

bonkey wrote:

So?

Do the math. If you are paying tax at 20% (I'm picking easy numbers, not real figures) and spend €1000 on an accountant per year, thats a whole €200 you get back on your tax bill. So if your accountant doesn't save you more than an additional €800 on top of what he costs himself, you're still worse off.

jc

Bonkey obviously in that case yes,It's not practical but you are going way down beyond the point of middle income to give me that example.
You may as well bring up the case of some one who is unemployed... as being a reason for in equity.
If you want to do that,I raise another example of an old school pal of mine , the same age as me who has never worked a day in his life and never will, he's always been on some social scheme or other through no disability, just total laziness.
Should we remove the incentives for people to invest their earnings just because it's unfair to him? It would be the egalitarian thing to do after all.

Nice sweeping statement, but I'm pretty sure if you look at the typical minimum cost of such an item, and work out the percentage of the population who can afford to pay such prices for houses, you will end up well below 50%.

Are you saying less than 50% of families own their own homes here? could you give me a link to that, because it would be news to my impression.
And again I see these houses every day and the builders aren't putting them up for the cod, they are occupied, either by people that can afford the market rent or by home owners.

Thats a semantic argument. Anyone earning above minimum wage has earned money above the point that they "need have done". Should we give all of them tax breaks?

The fact is, that we are! ... down to even simple rent relief, I saw a trend in this thread towards removing the relative ability of the large earner to gain more from these reliefs (with I might add again non frivolous side effects) than those who may not yet have attained that income level.

More importantly, having earned more than they need have done, why should they pay less overall tax then had they not done so? Why not say that they pay the same tax as you or I on the first (picking an easy number) €250,000, and everything after that is valid for these dodges, or at a lower rate, or just plain tax-free? But telling someone that earns 1,000,000 that his tax-contribution to the state should be less then the guy who earns €40,000 isn't showing a regard to his extra earnings...its spitting in the face of the €40,000 earner and saying that he has to pay for the running of the state but only because he's not rich enough.

I've put the word dodges in bold in the above statement because it seems to be indicative again of an ideological objection to what people who become wealthy enough can be encouraged to do with their loot.

Non-frivolous as compared to paying tax? First time I've seen a suggestion that tax is frivolous...

Bonkey if you take the time to read back over my initial contributions to this thread, you will see where I pointed out the difference between encouraging people to put a portion of their income that would otherwise be taxed plus that which would not have been taxed(the after tax bit) into these schemes is where the individual is being encouraged to be non frivolous with the larger sum.
Without the schemes , he could be frivolous with the entire remaining untaxed sum.
Nowhere does that even hint at me saying tax is frivolous.
To save you time I'll quote myself from earlier in the thread and link you:

Effectively what I am talking about here now is allowing Joe soap to be involved in basic public private partnerships and essentially that is what BES schemes and Sectioned housing are-The government invests what you might pay in extra tax and you invest what would have been your after tax income in an activity that promotes growth rather than in a frivolous activity.

and that was said here

Sleepy

MrPudding wrote:

Is this a comment on the tax free nature of income earned from arts? Personally I think that is fair enough.

I agree with it. I don't have an artistic bone in my body and so will never benefit from it but I think it is a good idea. The thing to remember is that the tax free bit only works on the earnings directly from artistic works. Pretty much anything they do with the money afer that is taxed. I know they will have accountants to help then reduce the amount of tax they will pay but they will still pay DIRT tax, VAT, VRT and stuff like that.

You also picked some of Irelands highest earning artists, what about the majority of artists that don't earn millions? Personally I would rather see the bloodstock industry pay a bit of tax than artists.

MrP

Promoting the Arts is fine and good but once an artist is earning more than the average industrial/commercial wage why should the rest of the country continue to support them?

The exemption should only apply to say the first €30,000 of an artists income, after that point they should face the same tax laws as the rest of us.

bonkey

Earthman wrote:

Bonkey obviously in that case yes,It's not practical but you are going way down beyond the point of middle income to give me that example.

Am I? Then why aren't the accountants touting for far more business from the middle-income earners? Equally, why does the article discsuss techniques that the super-rich are using to pay no tax. Why doesn't it discuss the techniques that everyone earning average or above can use to pay no tax?

You may as well bring up the case of some one who is unemployed... as being a reason for in equity.

Why would I? They've already been given all the equitability they could possibly have, on teh grounds that their net contribution to the government is negative (i.e. they are a net receiver of money). They're already paying less than the mid-income earners and the millionaires.

While the unemployed may or may not receive sufficient amounts to reach an acceptable standard of living, we are not discussing the social welfare payments, but rather who funds that system.

Should we remove the incentives for people to invest their earnings just because it's unfair to him?

No, we should ensure that investment of earnings is fairly done. Removing the tax that was paid on other earnings because of the investment is not fair.

Look - I have no problem saying that someone can have the tax back on any money they invest (as long as they are taxed on profit and on divestiture of the investment). What I have a problem with is that these millionaires areavoiding paying tax on all of their earnings, not just on the part that was invested.

Are you saying less than 50% of families own their own homes here?

You referred to the guy who could afford to buy a sectioned house. How you could interpret my response to mean that I was referring to "any house" is beyond me.

The fact is, that we are!

/me checks back to the original article. Yup...it does say that the ultra-rich are paying no tax. Now you're telling me that everyone earning enough to be taxed is getting these tax breaks? So no-one is paying tax?
Or everyone could avoid paying tax if we only went to an accountant?

Or would you not agree that everyone is not in this position...

Bonkey if you take the time to read back over my initial contributions to this thread, you will see where I pointed out the difference between encouraging people to put a portion of their income that would otherwise be taxed plus that which would not have been taxed(the after tax bit) into these schemes is where the individual is being encouraged to be non frivolous with the larger sum.

So if you work out the math....the only way one can avoid paying tax is to invest all of your money, because anything you don't invest gets taxed by that logic.

So how are the ultra-rich paying no tax??? They're not investing every penny, unless you count their rich lifestyles etc. as an investment as well.

Without the schemes , he could be frivolous with the entire remaining untaxed sum.

Could be, yes. Equally, he could choose to invest the after-tax amount instead, and also stand to gain from return-on-investment.

You seem to be suggesting that the only reason some of these people are investing is because they're being given an incentive over and above the return on investment to do so. So is there some critical threshold? a X% return wouldn't be enough, but X% plus a reduction in this years tax bill is?

To save you time I'll quote myself from earlier in the thread and link you: and that was said here

Yeah, I'm reading that and seeing the term "what you might pay in extra tax" and not understanding how "extra" means "any". Again, the article is complaining about people who are given the ability to pay a sum total of 0 Euro and 0 cent to the government as their tax-bill, not people who avoid paying tax on large percentages of their earnings because they re-invest.

jc

A Dub in Glasgo

I have already asked Earthman on 2 occassions to elaborate on his statement he made which implies that the PAYE worker can do a lot of these write offs.

Actually there are plenty of tax breaks for the paye earner including many of write offs leading to this sensationalist headline.

bonkey

bonkey wrote:

Am I? Then why aren't the accountants touting for far more business from the middle-income earners? Equally, why does the article discsuss techniques that the super-rich are using to pay no tax. Why doesn't it discuss the techniques that everyone earning average or above can use to pay no tax?

Bonkey, it's true that they aren't advertising,I've not seen too many accountantants advertising widely ever really although around BES closing time, there were many fund arrangers advertising their wares without too many restrictions as to who got involved,iirc there might have been a minimum investment in some cases which may have left it outside your 20% taxpayers in some cases pocket but not middle income earners.

Equally, why does the article discsuss techniques that the super-rich are using to pay no tax. Why doesn't it discuss the techniques that everyone earning average or above can use to pay no tax?

Because thats the focus of the article Bonkey and the focus of the labour party bringing up the topic in the first place.
Thats journalism Bonkey and is just as important as say an article highlighting the black economy which aint as much of an issue nowadays because we have low direct taxation. It's the issue of the day, it's news.

While the unemployed may or may not receive sufficient amounts to reach an acceptable standard of living, we are not discussing the social welfare payments, but rather who funds that system.

I wasn't discussing social welfare either.
I mentioned him merely to present the other extreme where the person hasn't earned enough to avail of the funds and to pass comment on whether the existence of individuals who abstain from active earning is reason enough to abolish incentives from active earners.

No, we should ensure that investment of earnings is fairly done. Removing the tax that was paid on other earnings because of the investment is not fair.

Why is it not fair, if for one it's only removed relative to how much you earn and done to encourage those with more wherewithall relative to others(money that they they have earned) to invest not just what would otherwise be taken in tax but the rest aswell in a non frivolous activity?

Could be, yes. Equally, he could choose to invest the after-tax amount instead, and also stand to gain from return-on-investment.

Yes but with these schemes there is certainty that those availing of them are investing in non frivolous activities.
If they don't partake theres no certainty and the money left over after tax can be used on anything.

You referred to the guy who could afford to buy a sectioned house. How you could interpret my response to mean that I was referring to "any house" is beyond me.

I take it then that you weren't saying that way less than 50% of families here own their own homes,I'll admit theres some difficulty with supply and demand on houses, there should be more supply, perhaps there should be an incentive for landowners to supply the land I know for a fact in co wicklow unless you are zoned near a town,even the family of a landowner have great difficulty getting planning permission for a house on their own land.

Look - I have no problem saying that someone can have the tax back on any money they invest (as long as they are taxed on profit and on divestiture of the investment). What I have a problem with is that these millionaires areavoiding paying tax on all of their earnings, not just on the part that was invested.

But thats only because they have earned enough money to wipe out their taxable income with these schemes, others on less can only wipe out some, but the former have made more of an individual impact with what they have done.
Everything in life is relative.

So how are the ultra-rich paying no tax??? They're not investing every penny, unless you count their rich lifestyles etc. as an investment as well.

Without access to their accounts,I couldn't give a definitive answer to that, but I'd hazzard a guess that it wouldn't be possible for them to have a zero liability every year as they would then exhaust their savings from years that they did actually have a taxable income.
They have to be living on something.It's very likely that their lavish lifestyles( and I say that loosely as I dont even know if they have one as the individuals names arent here in front of us) are funded out of wealth which thay have legally earned and legally invested.
It's true that the end result of a BES scheme could be that you get your money back at the end of 5 years or whatever but thats part of the incentive, you could just as easily lose your shirt on one of them.

You seem to be suggesting that the only reason some of these people are investing is because they're being given an incentive over and above the return on investment to do so. So is there some critical threshold? a X% return wouldn't be enough, but X% plus a reduction in this years tax bill is?

Yes they are, the incentive is there to encourage them to invest in something that otherwise wouldn't be attractive.It's a form of public private partnership as I mentioned earlier.

Yeah, I'm reading that and seeing the term "what you might pay in extra tax" and not understanding how "extra" means "any".

It's relative as I said , they earned enough to take maximum advantage of the various schems, their input and the net effect of their input via the schemes is greater.
Whether you or anyone has a problem with that, probably equates to you or anyone having a problem with someone opting out of earning through laziness at the other end of the scale.

Again, the article is complaining about people who are given the ability to pay a sum total of 0 Euro and 0 cent to the government as their tax-bill, not people who avoid paying tax on large percentages of their earnings because they re-invest.

Yes and the reason for that is?
yup they have invested suffecient of their own earned income in the schemes to have that net effect on their tax liability.
They are doing the exact same as others who don't earn as much but are taking perhaps bigger risks in the process.

A Dub in Glasgo

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

I have already asked Earthman on 2 occassions to elaborate on his statement he made which implies that the PAYE worker can do a lot of these write offs.

Hobbes replied to you earlier,I'm assuming you have access to the internet:rolleyes: theres plenty of pdf files on www.revenue.ie that should get you started on your interest in this matter without me doing the research for you.

A Dub in Glasgo

Earthman wrote:

Hobbes replied to you earlier,I'm assuming you have access to the internet:rolleyes: theres plenty of pdf files on www.revenue.ie that should get you started on your interest in this matter without me doing the research for you.

Hobbes said go and see an Accountant :rolleyes:

As for checking out the revenue site... no thanks. It was you who made the rather bold statement that PAYE workers can access the write offs that would result in the same kind of tax incentives. You obviously posted that statement with some knowledge of the situation but you do not back it up!!! Not one example.

:rolleyes:

A Dub in Glasgo

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

t was you who made the rather bold statement that PAYE workers can access the write offs that would result in the same kind of tax incentives.

Well if you actually bothered to read the article in the first place, you would discover that two of the eleven people involved are PAYE workers...
QED

A Dub in Glasgo

I did notice that but I don't know any PAYE workers on 1Million plus salaries therefore I don't think the fact that they were PAYE workers was the reason for paying no tax.

What about someone on median salary in Ireland? What chances do they have of availing of all these loopholes, tricks, write offs and incentives? Do the Revenue Commissioners give the median PAYE guy a chance to avail of these said schemes. Over to you

A Dub in Glasgow

A Dub in Glasgow wrote:

Over to you

yes
Have a look at the revenue website for details.

A Dub in Glasgo

OK

so you can't actually back up your statements

A Dub in Glasgo

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

OK

so you can't actually back up your statements

Errrr
No I refuse to be a default proxy browser of the revenue website for you.
If you read this thread, I've provided examples of where lower income paye earners are also availing of these schemes...
Are you purposefully pretending they are not there, because if you are my next reply will be a waste of the resource that is my time, ie it will be pointing you to the exact posts in this very thread.
I've already pointed out that me becoming a proxy browser of the revenue site where all the information you requre is available (it's not in code or anything) would also be a waste of the resource that is my time.

Putting foward reasonable points in relation to the use of the schemes talked about in this thread, though is in my view not a wastefull alllocation of time on my part, it's actually a worth while exercise of a point of view.

You on the other hand seem in this thread, rather than engage in discussion like the rest of us here prefer to filibuster despite the answers to your questions featuring throughout the thread...

Hobbes

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Still does not elaborate how a PAYE worker can avail of these magical write offs, incentives and 'tricks' (I assume you mean truthful tax avoidance)

I am a PAYE worker. As I said get a tax consultant.

Victor

RainyDay wrote:

And while we are at it, why is the mortgage interest relief given to property investors uncapped/unlimited, while the relief offered to home owners has a fairly low cap. Why should the state subsidise investors to help them to outbid first time buyers?

Because the state also offers people with very expensive principal private residences tax relief on CGT. And a double tax break wouldn't be fair would it?

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Why not put everybody on a flat 15% tax? I would prefer if the reliefs, write offs and tricks were found and closed.

You appear to be misreading that. It's not a 15% tax rate, it's [the existing 42% rate less tax breaks, but a minimum of 15%]* 15% income tax is too low - not enough money would be brought in through income tax to fund government programmes. And while such a rate would attract some tax exiles, it wouldn't attract enough to balance the loss from people currently paying 42%.

I disagree, accountants costs are tax deductable at whatever rate you are on, you don't have to be super rich to buy as your home a house with some form of sectioned relief on it.

While tax-deductable, accountants still cost money (but one hopes the pay their keep) and if you are paying negligible tax anyway, the become "less" tax-deductable.

What I am consistantly arguing for in this thread is for some regard for the fact that people have earned this money beyond the point that they need have done

Fair enough ...

and are being encouraged to do something non frivolous with it.

... but is horse racing really that non frivolous? It's an essential service that puts roofs over heads and food on tables (AFAIK horse meat is illegal here)?

Are you saying less than 50% of families own their own homes here? could you give me a link to that, because it would be news to my impression. And again I see these houses every day and the builders aren't putting them up for the cod, they are occupied, either by people that can afford the market rent or by home owners.

I imagine 80%+ of families could not afford a tax-incentivised home, because price ~= normal value/(100%-42%)

* The federal tax rate in the USA sometimes had things like 80% federal tax rate, but a maximum of 70%. During WWII top tax rates reached something like 90% as an anti-profiteering measure. In the UK, I think the top rate technically went over a nominal 100%.

Sleepy

In all fairness, there's a lot of horse****e being hawked here. Of course these schemes aren't accessible to the oridnary worker.

Given that - based on CSO figures - the average industrial wage is €27,000, how can you propose it's worthwhile for the average worker to hire a tax consultant Hobbes?

How can anyone justify someone with an income ten times the average industrial wage paying no tax whilst the person on the AIW is paying approximately 16% of their income in tax?

Earthman, how can you claim that one would be left with 40 - 50% of their earnings if they earned over a certain level when the highest rate of tax in this country is 42%, is only payed on earnings above €28,000 and is subject to the standard personal tax credits? Unless the governmnet have actually brought in a third tax band I haven't heard of yet, I'd like to see how your maths work out.

Nobody in this country pays 42% of their income in tax. It's the highest rate you can be taxed on a portion your income. An Irish worker on 30K a year (hardly a massive wage level) pays an average of 18.1% tax. To my mind, this is the VERY MINIMUM percentage that someone earning above that level should be able to reduce their tax to. [Source: http://www.budget.gov.ie/2004/AvgTaxrates.asp]

Yes, some of these tax breaks help stimulate areas of the economy in the public interest but can it really be argued that the building, development or horse racing industries need stimulation? They're already over-heated: only those earning four times the average industrial wage can now afford to borrow to purchase an average house in Dublin. Even in a dual income family, this would still require that both partners earned twice the average industrial wage!

[Source: Fianna Gael Website](granted the source is slightly out of date and biased but house prices in Dublin are still rising faster than wage levels so I think it's a pretty fair statement).

Ireland is no longer an affordable country for anyone that's not priveleged enough to have a job paying 40/50K+. Is it any wonder we're a nation in debt?

Sleepy

Sleepy wrote:

Earthman, how can you claim that one would be left with 40 - 50% of their earnings if they earned over a certain level when the highest rate of tax in this country is 42%, is only payed on earnings above €28,000 and is subject to the standard personal tax credits? Unless the governmnet have actually brought in a third tax band I haven't heard of yet, I'd like to see how your maths work out.

That 40-50% represents the max possible left over after PAYE and PRSI, and taking a hit on BIK's etc in a worst possible tax take scenario,single person,no reliefs whatsoever, it varies obviously, and yeah as you say people are usually left with more, but the point I was making remains the same, the individual that invests in a scheme is investing monies that they would otherwise be free to do with as they like (ie their after tax money if not partaking in a scheme) . To partake in the scheme, they must invest the entire sum or else be taxed on what they do not put in.

only those earning four times the average industrial wage can now afford to borrow to purchase an average house in Dublin. Even in a dual income family, this would still require that both partners earned twice the average industrial wage!

Some lenders are handing out a multiple of 6 times wage when calculating mortgages now but generally it's 4 times,thats still enough to buy a semi D in my area.
If you're married and both working and both on the average industrial wage, with savings, you'd be stretched to afford a house in Dublin, these days parents generally help-but thats a supply side issue with housing and nothing to do with tax relief's.
In the cynical world that we live in,as you know most house sellers used factor the first time buyers grant into the price of the house.
I've said all along that the take up of reliefs and the benefit from them is relative to what you earn.
Everybody earning and paying tax can engineer some kind of use of reliefs.
What I don't particularally like about this end of the discussion is it borders on resentment towards people who work damn hard to attain higher income.
They are given the same choice as anybody to either let that income be taxed or to enter a scheme, the effect of which is relative to the amount you can put in and the amount you can put in depends on what you earn

Ireland is no longer an affordable country for anyone that's not priveleged enough to have a job paying 40/50K+. Is it any wonder we're a nation in debt?

Again this is all relative.
If it's as gloomy as you say, could you explain why,emigration is at an all time low and why we have tens of thousands from abroad working here?
Why aren't we back at the situation of the 80's and early 90's with parents crying after the Xmas break as they wave their kids off on planes and boats to the four corners of the planet?

Sleepy

Earthman wrote:

the point I was making remains the same, the individual that invests in a scheme is investing monies that they would otherwise be free to do with as they like (ie their after tax money if not partaking in a scheme) . To partake in the scheme, they must invest the entire sum or else be taxed on what they do not put in.

That would be fair enough if the schemes were actually of enough benefit to society at large to justify the loss of tax revenue. Can you honestly maintain that investment in rental properties, horse racing etc. are of that much benefit to the public at large? Horse racing has always been a sport for the wealthy and all the schemes put in place in the housing/development areas have done is raise property prices to a position that boarders on the insanity of 80's Japan.

Some lenders are handing out a multiple of 6 times wage when calculating mortgages now but generally it's 4 times,thats still enough to buy a semi D in my area.

A semi detached home in your area costs less than 120K? Where are you living?

If you're married and both working and both on the average industrial wage, with savings, you'd be stretched to afford a house in Dublin, these days parents generally help-but thats a supply side issue with housing and nothing to do with tax relief's. In the cynical world that we live in,as you know most house sellers used factor the first time buyers grant into the price of the house.

And what about those without wealthy parents? Or those of us that are single?

I've said all along that the take up of reliefs and the benefit from them is relative to what you earn.
Everybody earning and paying tax can engineer some kind of use of reliefs.
What I don't particularally like about this end of the discussion is it borders on resentment towards people who work damn hard to attain higher income.
They are given the same choice as anybody to either let that income be taxed or to enter a scheme, the effect of which is relative to the amount you can put in and the amount you can put in depends on what you earn

Are you trying to insinuate that those of us that don't earn massive salaries don't work as hard as those that do? Frankly that's nonsense. Should the fact that one person has had opportunities another has not had entitle them to shirk their civic duty of paying tax? Don't get me wrong, I'm all for capitalism and the opportunity for people to increase their income levels, I just don't think that the self-styled "elite" should be excused from civic duties.

Again this is all relative. If it's as gloomy as you say, could you explain why,emigration is at an all time low and why we have tens of thousands from abroad working here? Why aren't we back at the situation of the 80's and early 90's with parents crying after the Xmas break as they wave their kids off on planes and boats to the four corners of the planet?

Well, for a start, I'd say it's largely due to the fact we have cheap third level education (thereby reducing the numbers on the live register and helping attract foreign investment). I'm sure the fact we have low corporation taxes has a large part to play in the levels of foreign investment in this country too (and who can argue that it's on this house of cards we developed our "tiger" economy?).

Finally, have you ever looked into the possibility of emmigration? I certainly have and believe me, while I could earn a hell of a lot more money in the states than I do here, getting a green card or a company to sponsor you for a working visa is nigh on impossible.

Sleepy

Sleepy wrote:

That would be fair enough if the schemes were actually of enough benefit to society at large to justify the loss of tax revenue. Can you honestly maintain that investment in rental properties, horse racing etc. are of that much benefit to the public at large? Horse racing has always been a sport for the wealthy and all the schemes put in place in the housing/development areas have done is raise property prices to a position that boarders on the insanity of 80's Japan.

I keep hearing horse racing mentioned, probably because it's a convenient scapegoat as an impression of wastefullness... does anyone have figures on how much these 11 people invested in that sector??

A semi detached home in your area costs less than 120K? Where are you living?

South Wicklow
No you'd get a nice one for about 240k, well within the range of a married couple-both working.
Have a look here theres actually a lot of people selling their Dublin houses paying no CGT as it's their principal private residence and buying down here within an hour from south Dublin.
And yes these are another set of PAYE tax payers availing of a substantial tax relief.

And what about those without wealthy parents? Or those of us that are single?

Well I was actually not only talking about parents who give savings to their kids but about those who take out a new mortgage or re-mortgage a nearly finished mortgage to raise a deposit for their kids to buy a house.
This is off topic,rants on this subject should be in another thread tbh.

Well, for a start, I'd say it's largely due to the fact we have cheap third level education (thereby reducing the numbers on the live register and helping attract foreign investment). I'm sure the fact we have low corporation taxes has a large part to play in the levels of foreign investment in this country too (and who can argue that it's on this house of cards we developed our "tiger" economy?).

And yes...
But if things are as bad as you say they are, why are people here at all?
Theres 21 other E.U countries they could move to freely.
The states is out now due to the new restrictions on entry there, ie you are logged entering and leaving...
But prior to 2001 you could still go there to work illegally and indeed a good proportion of those that were being waved off in the planes after XMAS each year were illegals.

Finally, have you ever looked into the possibility of emmigration? I certainly have and believe me, while I could earn a hell of a lot more money in the states than I do here, getting a green card or a company to sponsor you for a working visa is nigh on impossible.

Well as I said theres 21 other E.U countries you could go to, why isn't there mass emigration to those countries?
I'll tell you why, 'cause most of those economies are more sluggish than ours and people are actually better off here relatively to the extent that it's not worth their while moving ergo you should be thankfull for what you've got tbh-nowheres perfect and theres a lot worse opportunities than Ireland.

Sleepy

Earthman wrote:

I keep hearing horse racing mentioned, probably because it's a convenient scapegoat as an impression of wastefullness... does anyone have figures on how much these 11 people invested in that sector??

No, but we're not exclusively talking about those 11 people any more are we. Can you explain why ANYONE can get a taxbreak for making money off of horseracing? or investing in an area so overheated that someone on the average industrial wage can't afford a one bedroom apartment/bedsit within an hour or two of their workplace?

South Wicklow
No you'd get a nice one for about 240k, well within the range of a married couple-both working.
Have a look here theres actually a lot of people selling their Dublin houses paying no CGT as it's their principal private residence and buying down here within an hour from south Dublin.
And yes these are another set of PAYE tax payers availing of a substantial tax relief.

I see your point about not paying CGT but that is genuinely open to the majority of the tax-paying public. The tax-breaks in question are only open to the wealthy in practice.

And yes...
But if things are as bad as you say they are, why are people here at all?
Theres 21 other E.U countries they could move to freely.
The states is out now due to the new restrictions on entry there, ie you are logged entering and leaving...
But prior to 2001 you could still go there to work illegally and indeed a good proportion of those that were being waved off in the planes after XMAS each year were illegals.

Well as I said theres 21 other E.U countries you could go to, why isn't there mass emigration to those countries?
I'll tell you why, 'cause most of those economies are more sluggish than ours and people are actually better off here relatively to the extent that it's not worth their while moving ergo you should be thankfull for what you've got tbh-nowheres perfect and theres a lot worse opportunities than Ireland.

mmm, lets see, language barriers would be a big one to block people from 20 of those 21 countries and England has never been the most hospitable of countries to us Irish has it?

Sleepy

Sleepy wrote:

No, but we're not exclusively talking about those 11 people any more are we. Can you explain why ANYONE can get a taxbreak for making money off of horseracing?

Well I thought we were.I'm not here to defend horse racing, but I do find it amusing that when faced with a myriad of other reliefs, we're left chiefly complaining about only one trojan horse(pardon the pun) relief in the discussion which would be a mere drop in the ocean of all the other reliefs.
It's extremely relevant to the thread though if it can be shown that the 11 people that formed the sensation headline all invested in horse racing to end up paying zero tax...

Us singletons are still screwed

Depends on your earnings,if it's below the attainability of the market rate of houses these days, then you are to an extent-get thee a partner

mmm, lets see, language barriers would be a big one to block people from 20 of those 21 countries

So you're saying the opportunities aren't available there? what do you complain of re: Ireland so?
As I say we're relatively not too badly off here.I don't blame you for moaning though,a dumb priest never got a parish as they say down here in the country, but moaning in my view is better done at the ballot box in a focused way towards the politicians not doing the job you want tbh (or in the sack either... )

and England has never been the most hospitable of countries to us Irish has it?

Well it was Irelands bread-basket for decades, we did have a fair share in building the motorways there and the money was welcome when sent home.