Will you protest tax increases?

Naz_st

I think protesting the tax increases would be pointless and ultimately very destructive to the process of turning around this economy.

But they have to make this a serious budget, a major move, or they needn't bother. In fact if you're not shocked and dismayed on April 7th, they probably haven't done enough. I just hope that they hit everyone sufficiently so as to reduce the number of calls of "it's not fair, they only hit x sector" or "they're targeting us, why should we have to pay only". Everyone needs to feel the pinch from social welfare to the high earners. And tax increases alone won't cut it - they still need to reduce the outgoings (this is where they'll probably bottle it).

And none of it will be acceptable if they don't drastically tackle the TD remuneration package, which is a scandal in the current climate.

nesf

smallBiscuit wrote: »

Me too, you reduce my wages with more tax, you also start taxing my other half. Bingo, I believe with our combined income we are now entitled to state assistance (only a small bit, but I think it will cover the extra tax we will have to pay) and medical card.

Which is cheaper? Robbing the poor or not putting them in the position where you are going to take the money with the right hand and hand it back with the left (hey it's a bit like a reversal of most government schemes, give with the right and take with left)

I'm 33 years old, been working since I was 17 and have never claimed any assistance from the government. Do this and I have to, the mortgage has to be fed

Eh, the problem is that we won't be able to borrow all we need right now at reasonable interest rates for a variety of reasons (from the sheer size of our deficit of 33% of total spending to the interest rate hike charged on our borrowing by the market to the US hoovering up all the available credit).

We don't have a choice as a nation but to cut spending and raise taxes.

Naz_st

smallBiscuit wrote: »

Folks, I think we're missing the point of my original post. it is not a problem with tax increases they have to happen. It is taxing the bottom rung of society. It's taking money off people who haven't got any.
Akin to asking somebody with only one kidney to donate a kidney. Might save somebody else, but it will kill them

It's been discussed explicitly on other threads before, but it boils down to this: If you cut everything but social welfare, it disincentivises people to get a job. Why go get a minimum wage job when your social welfare + rent allowance is almost equivalent? Our social welfare is 3 times higher that the job seekers allowance in the U.K. at the moment.

Tech3

Naz_st wrote: »

Our social welfare is 3 times higher that the job seekers allowance in the U.K. at the moment.

The cost of living in the U.K is a lot less compared to living in the R.O.I. I still believe its too high and a slight reduction off this might be required for some people.

Naz_st

tech2 wrote: »

The cost of living in the U.K is a lot less compared to living in the R.O.I. I still believe its too high and a slight reduction off this might be required for some people.

Yes, true, but the cost of living is not 3 times higher over here.

Anyway, I'm not in any way advocating a slashing of social welfare to match the U.K. just that some decrease in line with the average % hit in take home pay of everyone else hit by the budget would seem reasonable and appropriate.

ixoy

No because it needs to be done - for the reasons highlighted above.

Would like to see the public sector tackled harder - making necessary job cuts and wage cuts and of course numerous reforms to working practices. It'll be a difficult one, but a necessary one if there's to be any real chance of getting out of this.

McCruiskeen

It is taxing the bottom rung of society

Sorry Mate, but a contributor to the current financial problems in this country is that the 40% of people in the country don't pay a nickle. That's 900,000 people. I hate to break it to you but the the average tax rate on the average income in the OECD (rich country equivalents) is 35%. Here it's about 6-7 % if you don't have kids. (you probably come up a few quid to the good if you have kids)

As much as people blame "evil property developers" for all this countries ills, all they did was contribute a massive amount of tax in recent years which allowed the rest of us to get away with seriously low tax rates.

That's finished. I know the Revenue Commissioners have been shouting at the government since 2004 that this source of taxation was not gonna be consistent and that it was essetially a windfall tax, but I don't remember any of the opposition parties running on a manifesto to save 10% of GDP and massively increase taxation on personal income in the last election.

Income levy is evil, all Sean's (Mr Anglo evil banker etc) fault, FF and evil property developers fault, blah, blah blah ( lets get distracted by the indo "exclusive" on discraceful TD expenses, blah, blah blah, Rome is burning!!!!!!!!!

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Lockstep

Meh, I earn minimum wage, I don't mind paying extra tax. I'm fairly low maintenance anyway.


It's hitting my parents hard though (both part-time public sector workers)

jdivision

This tax the rich thing doesn't work anymore, they become tax exiles, witness the surge in numbers last year. More will follow this year. You have to tax everybody really, a situation where somebody earning nearly E20k a year doesn't pay income tax isn't sustainable TBH

is_that_so

No, we're old enough and bold enough to take it but I for one want it all spelt out. We can't continue to blame everyone else by pulling the "poverty trap" line. There are a lot more more "poor" people than rich and it's natural to assume that we will have to play our part as well.

johnnyskeleton

smallBiscuit wrote: »

So, reading the comments in the papers and on the news, it looks like that good ol Cowen and Co have decided that they are going to do the fair and just thing in the budget and tax those who are paid so low they can't afford to pay it. Will you protest?

Me, I'm already thinking of slogans for my poster, I was thinking of going with roop eht ot evig dna hcir eht morf ekaT. dooH niboR
But I'm not sure if people would get it

Incidentally I was reading in the Indo last week the fact that a 1% increase on the rich man's tax would produce more money than a 5% tax on the poor.
Also AFAIK they intend to do it by lowering the tax bottom. Which means we will all pay it - that's the argument, a "fair tax". I in my madness think that the people who should pay for the failed tiger are those that benefited by it

Let me ask you this - which is more important to you, a few quid extra in your pocket or the country staying solvent?

The government can't shoulder every demand from every citizen, and everyone has to contribute something to government funding. You talk about how a 1% increase at the higher level would produce more money than a 5% increase at the lower end. Well I think you might be wrong, but in any event that statistic just goes to show how the few higher earners pay the majority of taxes, while a large number at the bottom pay little or no tax. How is this fair? Well, there is a good email going around (posted here) that explains in everyday language how this is not not fair. It also explains another important economic principle, which is the laffer curve.

Basically, there is a certain level of taxation at which the total tax take will be less than it will be at a lower rate. This is because if people perceive taxes to be too high, they will work less overtime, try to get paid under the counter and, ultimately, leave the country for somewhere with lower taxes. If we simply slap a higher tax on higher income earners this would be politically great, and you will have the same amount of money in your pocket. However, the government finances will be much worse because the rich will use ways to avoid paying this new tax. Net result we all lose.

What you are saying is that someone else should pay, and you are saying that those who benefitted from the failed celtic tiger should pay for it. I have a different slant - those who caused the celtic tiger to fail should pay for it. That latter group includes anybody who took out a mortgage which they now find difficult to pay, which to be honest would include as many lower paid people as it would the higher paid.

Time Magazine

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Basically, there is a certain level of taxation at which the total tax take will be less than it will be at a lower rate.

Nowhere near d/dRate Revenue = 0.

In other words, we could increase the tax rate on the higher band quite considerably to increase revenue.

Galmay

McCruiskeen wrote: »

I earn 30,000 grand a year and just got a 10% paycut, 2 masters degrees and could be sacked tomorrow (sorry but no sympathy for pension levy moaners, yes I only have 19 days off a year no matter how much I fiddle and I am very tired)

.

I know also that there are many in the public sector on 30k or less with 3rd level qualifications on temperory contracts who are paying the pension levy (ie pay cut) and could be let go tomorrow who have no sympathy for private sector employees moaning about the public sector and their own 10% pay cut! Basically everyone is feeling the pain so wouldnt it be better if we didnt spend half our time blaming each other when we all know who the real culprits are.

As to the topic it looks inevitable that the tax base will have to be broadened. 40% of earners outside the tax net is unheard of in most countries, but basically it was affordable in the celtic tiger era and one of the few things i will credit FF with for helping the less well off in the good times. But since they helped fcuk up everything else its still their fault they have to end it!! Remember that in June!

If it is "seen" to be done in a fair way, they will probably manage to avoid widescale protests. That means also tackling TD and ministerial pay, their overpaid(those higher up) and underused civil servants and outside advisers, stop paying seanad members and councillors so fecking much, end or for gods sake cap at a reasonable figure all expenses, some measures against property developers and bankers (for the sheer popularity and distraction of it). Similar measures should be announced in the HSE to show they are serious about ending wastage and getting value for money, get rid of as many of the duplicated and frankly dangerous know nothing managers and stop ending the temperory contracts of the much needed health care staff. Redundancy schemes for the civil service/public sector over the longer term whould also be announced, and if they highlight some of the savings that An Bord Snip have already decided on that would also show more "fairness".

Realistically though, this is FF we are talking about so I'll meet you all on the streets on April 8th!

Tech3

Naz_st wrote: »

Yes, true, but the cost of living is not 3 times higher over here.

Anyway, I'm not in any way advocating a slashing of social welfare to match the U.K. just that some decrease in line with the average % hit in take home pay of everyone else hit by the budget would seem reasonable and appropriate.

I would agree with everything you say here. Some products in the U.K can be nearly as twice the cost of it in this country. We need a restructure the social welfare payment especially with so many mortgage payers on the dole at the minute. They would be severly hit if the social welfare payment is to be decreased.

silverharp

The Economist wrote: »

Nowhere near d/dRate Revenue = 0.

In other words, we could increase the tax rate on the higher band quite considerably to increase revenue.

The moral question though is should they push it too that point? Any increases by the gov. is an arbitary decision by the state to transfer savings from one group to sustain possibly dubious gov. functions. many of which have added to the cost of doing business here in the first place.
From my point of view raising taxes just refects the gov. lack of ability to control the army of clients that make a living sucking at the taxpayers tit.
I cant think of many businesses that have raised prices in the last year , they are doing the logical thing of cuting costs in order to survive and remain competitive.

Sand

Raising taxes is a fairly bad idea, only acceptable in a limited fashion - i.e. bringing people back into the tax system. Tax tends to discourage the activity it is levied on. We dont want to discourage economic activity. The 80s were a time of much higher taxes, and yet mysteriously high unemployment, mass emigration and weirdly enough low tax revenues. And all that in a time of global economic growth. Returning to the tax and spend model will be even less successful this time around.

So whats the alternative?

The real solution will be slashing government spending on pointless vanity projects. Decentralisation is only an example. The HSE is another. The crazy contracts given to consultants. Raising taxes is just an excuse not to actually carry out reform of the spending and the public service in this country. The social partnership agreements of the past few years all need to be reviewed. The solution to every problem has been to boost spending on it massively.

You can see why the government is terrified of messing with the spending side of things, and much prefers raising taxes instead. The PAYE wage slaves are too public spirited and too disorganised to effectively protest against it. Whereas the trade unions are the exact opposite - completely self interested and highly organised in defending their mercs and perks.

And if they were to seriously tackle spending, theyd need to lead by cutting their own wages and getting rid of talking shops like the Seanad. And turkeys never vote for christmas.

Darragh29

It doesn't matter how much more they take off us in tax, if they are STILL p*ssing our hard earned money all over the world. Yesterday's Irish Daily Mail covered Martin Cullen's St. Patricks Day junket to Miami...

(1) Cost of "Premier" seat with Aer Lingus to Heuston: 5,660 Euro.

(2) Cost of a "sumptuous meal" for 24 guests at one of the most expensive restaurants in Texas, Christ only knows how much that will cost, you could pencil that in at anything up to 3K and the rest of it.

(3) Another couple of thousand p*ssed around Texas and Miami, up to 2K for a tickets into a conference for something or other.

(4) Cost of accommodation at Miami's finest 5 Star Hotel, whatever you're having yourself Minister.

The important thing here there is no evidence of any actual return on this outlay, no analysis or an attempt at an analysis with a view to seeing how we might benefit from such crazy spending in a severe recession.

If there was no possibility of securing investment based on this kind of expenditure, then this idiot shouldn't have been allowed off the Island at the taxpayers expense.

This is why I'll be protesting at any movement by this government to increase taxes, these people are hopelessly INEPT, I wouldn't send one of them down to the chipper for a bag of chips for fear they would make a b*lls of it. Yes we need to increase taxes, but before we do that, we need a government that knows how to find value for money and the worst luck we have had this year was that the hopelessly useless Martin Cullen wasn't firmly strapped to that helicopter door that fell to the ground last month.