An Bord Snip Nua

bmaxi

dresden8 wrote: »

You'd be surprised how little tax those people in 100k high end trucks pay.

What would happen with taxation is that self-certifying farmers and self-employed would keep their big trucks and their child benefit and the normal everyday PAYE sap would get shafted.

Same thing happened with third level grants and fees when they were around.

I can remember before fees were abolished, filling out the grant application for my daughter. There were two sections, one for farmers/self employed and one for PAYE workers. In the self employed section there were all sorts of deductions allowed, upkeep of premises, depreciation of machinery are two that spring to mind but there were many more, whereas in the PAYE section all that was required was your PRSI NO. Of course PAYE workers don't upkeep their premises or have machinery depreciate. Given the cavalier attitude Government departments have to receipting of expenses I'm pretty sure these people could virtually write their own receipts.
I can remember also, PAYE being welcomed as a boon to the ordinary taxpayer as it would take the uncertainty out of your tax liability but now, as a captive audience, we can see how iniquitous and inequitable it is.

ParkRunner

Alan Rouge wrote: »

If there's an idea at the heart of McCarthy's report, it is to target the most vulnerable in society - because they are the easiest to get to. Raising the top rate of tax on the highest earners in this country however, is a sacred cow to some people .

If these cuts are implemented we will see an even more unequal society and we can expect crime levels to soar even further as well as the quality of life for many people to plummet.

There are already signs that the Gardai are revolting from my own experiences today. It looks like these recommendations will have to be implemented and we haven't even heard what the Commission on Taxation have to say. As the people are not being given an opportunity to vent their anger through a general election, it seems Lisbon will be the unfortunate victim!

K4t

EF wrote: »

As the people are not being given an opportunity to vent their anger through a general election, it seems Lisbon will be the unfortunate victim!

I highly doubt that. People are far too scared atm to risk further wrath from the EU on top of everything else. Lisbon will pass easily imo.

is_that_so

One of the things An Bord Snip Nua highlights is how predictable the nation's response is. The public unions threaten Armageddon and the rest of us go off on a rant about how the "vulnerable" will be most hit. As Richard Bruton pointed out we can't tax our way out of this mess, even if it makes most of us feel good to see yet another slice taken off the "rich". Neither can we cut our way out of it but we need to make some serious inroads into a public spending bill we can no longer afford.

I had thought that collectively we understood how bad things were but it looks like we don't by our usual foot-stamping, fist-shaking tantrums. Some of these cuts must be made in some form or another. There is no choice and it's just a question of degree. In an ideal world all would and we'd be back in clover in a couple of years.

IMO the report is a discussion document and a good foundation to determine what can be done. Much as I dislike this ultimately doomed government I would give them some credit if they are prepared to go anywhere near the totals suggested.

K4t

is_that_so wrote: »

even if it makes most of us feel good to see yet another slice taken off the "rich". .

The rich are laughing right now, especially after today.

dresden8

K4t wrote: »

The rich are laughing right now, especially after today.

The rich can still buy football clubs, they aren't worried about A&E charges, no matter how many legs they lose.

Smoking ban and drink driving rules can't be biting that deep.


http://www.independent.ie/national-news/chawke-is-talk-of-the-toon-as-he-swoops-for-ailing-magpies-1818904.html

turgon

K4t wrote: »

The rich are laughing right now, especially after today.

dresden8 wrote: »

The rich can still buy football clubs, they aren't worried about A&E charges, no matter how many legs they lose.

Did it ever occur to yee that maybe they've worked their behinds off and took a lot risk to attain this wealth? Or because they are rich do we just label them abusers and milk them for all they've got?

pmacdot

Darragh29 wrote: »

Am listening to RTE1 here, Jesus I'm sick of all these union representatives queueing up to pick a fight. Peter Mc Loone now weighing in for a row after the break.

What parrallel universe are these people living in???? Half of my mates are now unemployed! These guys on the radio still have their snouts in the trough, they've bullied pay increases out of us for years and now the chickens have come home to roost.

We need a TV documentary along the lines of Channel 4's "Wifeswap", but instead of two couple's swapping their wives for a week, we get a public sector worker and a private sector worker to swop roles for a week.

We'd soon see how the public sector worker would cope with coming in to work on a Saturday FOR FREE, seeing their colleagues being let go because the company can't afford to keep them on, and then you having to do their job FOR FREE as well!!!

How would be public sector worker deal with being handed a wages cheque on Friday but being told not to lodge it until the following Tuesday because the bank won't honour it until then???

This is what is going on in the private sector up and down the country. I've a mate with three weeks wages cheque's up on his bedroom wall, they've all bounced, but he's still working (basically for free), to see if he can help get his employer out of the hole he is in at the moment...

Your points are full of stereotyping and prejudice. Cant you see the government , the bankers and their economists helped by the media have played a blinder dividing public sector and private sector workers!! It honestly defies belief that the average public sector worker is now been harangued and demonized for a situation not of their making. The subtext of all commentary is that PS workers are a waste of space and don't really work at all! I definitely do not remember a big queue to become one during the boom. I never received a bonus in my working life. When the going was good we were the poor relation looked down on and suddenly we are the luckiest employees in the world. Great myth that we do not work, you might get a bloody shock if you switched places. There are many people who have worked in both sectors remember, its swings and roundabouts. Why did you not join the Civil Service? Who exactly stopped you, or your mates, looking at bounced cheques? Why not direct your spleen to the bankers, the fraudsters,the political parties who repeatedly failed to heed the fact that stamp duty was a temporary bonanza. The interest rates were too low and that because we had no control over rates we should have regulated and regulated lending very strictly indeed. Why not look at facts instead of now believing the new concenscus of PS bashing.The developers who believed the hype, the regulator who failed to keep lending practices sane and all those who made out like bandits and are now crying into their soup and all we can talk about is how wasteful and indulged the PS worker is. It is tantamount to incitement to hatred. Hitler played the same game with regard to the Jews.
We all know that something has to be done but what about the Private Sector workers who are still doing very well, have they no role in bailing out the country and the stupid government? There is no measure of equality and fairness in any of this.

K4t

turgon wrote: »

Or because they are rich do we just label them abusers and milk them for all they've got?

Did I say that?

turgon

Alan Rouge wrote: »

Raising the top rate of tax on the highest earners in this country however, is a sacred cow to some people.

Because having a low rate of tax encourages people to get ahead in work, work overtime, and set up their own businesses thereby helping the economy and providing jobs.

But such lateral thinking doesnt appeal to you. Take the rich for what theyve got, sure dont they have enough of it!!

JasonBourne 2.0

It never occurred to you that by giving welfare people money, it is necessary to take it off of others?

It never occurred to you that if retailers and financial institutions continue to fail as a result of deteriorating market conditions that government expenditure on social welfare will surge as unemployment increases. They'll be taking a lot more off others then, wont they buddy.

BTW did you work as the financial controller in a company I used to work in, where the receivor arrived in one day, because of the company's lack of cash flow ?

Seriously take a look at the difference between the classical and keynesian approach to economics. The US government took a classical approach in the 1930's which severley lengthened the great depression. do you want us to follow the same route. If the government took their heads out of their a@ses and spent money on job creation and introduced higher taxes for those on higher incomes we might be heading down the same road as obama and co. who have taken a keynesian approach.

It seems like all we hear these days is that everybody should share the pain, which is actually code for sure lads taxing us isnt goin to make much of a difference so well just let yous lower and middle class boys suffer and solve the problem from the breadline while we continue to look after ourselves.

turgon

K4t wrote: »

Did I say that? No.

No. Yey tour suggestion that the rich are "laughing" insinuates that you believe the rich have gotten "away" in this scenario. It would follow that you think they shouldnt have gotten away. It would follow you think they should be taxed more.

Forgive me for being too presumptive, but I find that usually this opinion goes hand in hand with thinking the rich are evil.

turgon

JasonBourne 2.0 wrote: »

It never occurred to you that if retailers and financial institutions continue to fail as a result of deteriorating market conditions that government expenditure on social welfare will surge as unemployment increases. They'll be taking a lot more off others then, wont they buddy.

Sorry, but what exactly is your point?

JasonBourne 2.0 wrote: »

If the government took their heads out of their a@ses and spent money on job creation and introduced higher taxes for those on higher incomes we might be heading down the same road as obama and co. who have taken a keynesian approach.

Is this your idea of job creation? Raising taxes to give people more reasons not to set up businesses. Give foreign companies another reason not to come here?

JasonBourne 2.0 wrote: »

It seems like all we hear these days is that everybody should share the pain, which is actually code for sure lads taxing us isnt goin to make much of a difference so well just let yous lower and middle class boys suffer and solve the problem from the breadline while we continue to look after ourselves.

if I remember correctly it was high earners who got the brunt of the first emergency budgets through tax levys.

K4t

turgon wrote: »

but I find that usually this opinion goes hand in hand with thinking the rich are evil.

No, but taxable yes.

turgon

K4t wrote: »

No, but taxable yes.

Do you not realize what this will do to entrepreneurship and innovation?

pmacdot

irish_bob wrote: »

by european standards most of our public servants are vastly over paid , ed walsh from the university of limerick was on matt cooper earlier , irish teachers are 75% higher paid then thier french counterparts , irish teachers are 55% higher paid than thier finnish counterparts , irish nurses are over 30% higher paid than thier uk counterparts , irish consultants are paid more than double of what they are paid in germany , irish police are paid more than double of what they are paid in australia , all theese countries are wealthier than ireland , somethings gotta give

Amazing stuff this, I wonder what the cost of living and housing is in these countries? How the hell were any of the groups you mention able to afford houses at the ridiculous inflated prices. Blame the banks, property developers,builders for ten times salary requirements to buy a dog box in Ireland. Lie damned lies and statistics. cop on and stop scapegoating ordinary workers because your own bubble has burst.

turgon

pmacdot wrote: »

Blame the banks, property developers,builders for ten times salary requirements to buy a dog box in Ireland.

But never blame the homeowner who voluntarily agreed to buy it.

dresden8

turgon wrote: »

Do you not realize what this will do to entrepreneurship and innovation?

Dare we tax the rich?

What will Dutch businessman Bono and his mates make of it?

Cnuts.

turgon

dresden8 wrote: »

Dare we tax the rich?

What will Dutch businessman Bono make of it?

Cnuts.

Again, do you not realize what this will do to entrepreneurship and innovation?

K4t

turgon wrote: »

Do you not realize what this will do to entrepreneurship and innovation?

Yes but I'm sure you have a very different view to mine so please enlighten me.

Sparks

turgon wrote: »

Did it ever occur to yee that maybe they've worked their behinds off and took a lot risk to attain this wealth? Or because they are rich do we just label them abusers and milk them for all they've got?

I think it's more because of what those risks were, namely being caught doing something distinctly dodgy, as now being revealed by tribunals...

irish_bob

pmacdot wrote: »

Amazing stuff this, I wonder what the cost of living and housing is in these countries? How the hell were any of the groups you mention able to afford houses at the ridiculous inflated prices. Blame the banks, property developers,builders for ten times salary requirements to buy a dog box in Ireland. Lie damned lies and statistics. cop on and stop scapegoating ordinary workers because your own bubble has burst.

no lies here and your union tutored spin wont veil the truth with me

pmacdot

turgon wrote: »

But never blame the homeowner who voluntarily agreed to buy it.

Unbelievable comment ,I saw people so terrified that they would never be able to afford a house rushing in to buy. The media and banks kept talking about affordability not value for money. Housing is not some luxury and many were caught between high rents or long mortgages and were not eligible either for council or affordable housing (reduced price). The government, the media, (property advertising), banks, builders and developers all made out like bandits.
There was no regulation full stop. Bad Bad government.

turgon

K4t wrote: »

Yes but I'm sure you have a very different view to mine so please enlighten me.

So you suggest taxing the rich. There are two rationales against this.

Firstly, you are reducing peoples disposable income. Less income = less shopping = less money for shops = less jobs. For one person losing income this makes no difference. What you suggest is reducing the income of hundreds of thousands of people. Much of this money you tax will be money that was going to shops (and being Taxed at VAT, Corporation and Income anyway).

Secondly, we must encourage people to work. Its common knowledge that if the higher tax band is raised too high people stoop working overtime. It becomes financially infeasible. But more importantly, a lower high tax band encourages people to set up businesses. They see money to be made, and the ability to keep most of it, so they take the risk and set up the business. Usually providing employment.

As well as this, foreign companies must consider the higher Tax band. Google, for instance, may create 2 jobs in the morning - director of operations in Ireland and director of operations in, say, Denmark. They offer the same salary but the key is one country will be charging more income tax than the other. So the smart educated people will go to Denmark because that is where the money is.

That is of course assuming Google is set up in Ireland. But supposing Yahoo want to set up here. If the tax rate is to high they know they will not be able to attract the highly educated people they need. So instead they go to Denmark.

turgon

Sparks wrote: »

I think it's more because of what those risks were, namely being caught doing something distinctly dodgy, as now being revealed by tribunals...

And to think that I was the one being accused of generalizations. Do you honestly believe the vast majority of the "rich" (for the sake of this debate anyone on the higher tax band) is dodgy?

pmacdot wrote: »

Unbelievable comment ,I saw people so terrified that they would never be able to afford a house rushing in to buy.

Thats their fault for acting impulsively, not mine.

pmacdot wrote: »

The media and banks kept talking about affordability not value for money.

Thats their fault for listening to that drivel, not mine.

pmacdot wrote: »

Housing is not some luxury and many were caught between high rents or long mortgages and were not eligible either for council or affordable housing (reduced price).

Perhaps they werent eligible because they could afford it then? Unless you want to argue that social welfare rates are too low.

Have you ever heard of the term "personal responsibility"? I know its not heard that much these days...

JasonBourne 2.0

Sorry, but what exactly is your point?

If we put over 17000 more out of work as you must have neglected to read in my last post and cut social welfare, this will have a knock on effect on consumer spending and borrowing. if the retail and financial sectors take a hit as a result of this reduced consumption this will lead to higher unemployment as businesses shut down due to deteriorating conditions. The more people that are unemployed the higher spend on social welfare will be further affecting the government defecit. An bord snip will only have a short term effect on finances as in the long term the above will begin to take place.

Is this your idea of job creation? Raising taxes to give people more reasons not to set up businesses. Give foreign companies another reason not to come here?

I didnt say they should increase corporation tax did i. how about higher income tax for those who earn over 100,000 etc. Spend money on construction projects such as metro to get people off social welfare and paying tax. How about renewing social partnerships to attract investment or the 1c text tax that was previously talked about.

if I remember correctly it was high earners who got the brunt of the first emergency budgets through tax levys.

yeah those CEO'S who took home around 1 million in bonuses were really hit hard werent they. poor guys:(

dresden8

turgon wrote: »

Again, do you not realize what this will do to entrepreneurship and innovation?

Do you mean the "risk takers" and "wealth makers".

Do you mean the "risk takers" who took the risks, but when the consequences blew up in their faces they went running to the public purse for salvation?

Do you mean the "wealth makers" who kept the wealth but when the wealth turned into losses ran to the public purse to absorb their losses?

My ass is sore from the reaming I've taken.

upthedub

The people that did this report are all wealthy,so they will never experience social welfare etc just like the government so why would they care

turgon

JasonBourne 2.0 wrote: »

If we put over 17000 more out of work as you must have neglected to read in my last post and cut social welfare, this will have a knock on effect on consumer spending and borrowing.

And yet raising taxes wont? I mean for gods sake at least have a coherent argument.

JasonBourne 2.0 wrote: »

I didnt say they should increase corporation tax did i. how about higher income tax for those who earn over 100,000 etc.

To say corporation tax is the only tax variable when deciding to set up a business is being very very naive.

JasonBourne 2.0 wrote: »

Spend money on construction projects such as metro to get people off social welfare and paying tax.

You do realize that metros are very complex projects? We cant simply draft those on the welfare to start digging a tunnel. And what benefits would the metro have, financially? Im sure like every other state controlled transport venture it will nothing more than a huge money hole.

JasonBourne 2.0 wrote: »

How about renewing social partnerships to attract investment

I cant believe you just said that. Social partnership has been the leading factor in destroying our investment attractiveness. Minimum wage - 2.5/3 times that of Poland (= Dell leaving Ireland)? Why is that? Social partnership.

JasonBourne 2.0 wrote: »

yeah those CEO'S who took home around 1 million in bonuses were really hit hard werent they.

Do you think CEO's unnecessary? Do you think these men/women who have control over millions (if not billions) of euro of money should be payed less?

turgon

dresden8 wrote: »

Do you mean the "risk takers" and "wealth makers".

Erm, I would say entrepreneurs is a tidier description, and far less manipulated than yours too.

dresden8 wrote: »

Do you mean the "risk takers" who took the risks, but when the consequences blew up in their faces they went running to the public purse for salvation?

A) I disagree with the bank bailout
Please enlighten me as to what percentage of entrepreneurs got bailouts. If you think about this its probably a lot smaller than you'd like it to be. Then exclude the banking sector and do same. Take a guess, I think this thread could do with some light entertainment.
C) When some homeowners "took the risks, but when the consequences blew up in their faces they went running to the public purse for salvation"

upthedub wrote: »

The people that did this report are all wealthy,so they will never experience social welfare etc just like the government so why would they care

Because, and heres a wild guess, their wealth depends on economic recovery?