Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The Politics of Petulance

Options
2»

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    nuac
    Registered Users Posts: 6,769 ✭✭✭nuac


    F in B, noted. Should you not say "Fluttering"?


  • Options
    #33
    FlutterinBantam
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,575 ✭✭✭✭FlutterinBantam


    Yes I should, but it would not be in keeping with my persona.

    It should be "FluttherinBantam" to be honest.

    There shold be a little digemo like ' after the n to denote a missing letter.

    Sorry for going away from the subject.


  • Options
    #34
    optocynic
    Closed Accounts Posts: 755 ✭✭✭optocynic


    I am not wealthy. Or at least I do not consider myself wealthy.
    Honestly, last calendar year was the first time I earned 6 figures. But it took a LOT of hours and effort.
    I purchased a nice house in a nice area almost 3 years ago.

    But, some say this makes me wealthy. Idiots!!!
    I have virtually no disposable income, due to taxes, childcare, mortgage etc. I went to college. did a masters, studies HARD, work HARDER...

    Why should I be penalised more than others? Have I not earned the right to some comfort?


  • Options
    #35
    FlutterinBantam
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,575 ✭✭✭✭FlutterinBantam


    Of course you should be penalised in this state.

    Didn't you go out, work hard, look after yourself, scrimp and save to get where you are, never were a burden on the state.

    You should have left school at 16 and sat back while working the black economy while the state giroed the money into your account.

    You would have a lot more disposable income.:cool:


  • Options
    #36
    optocynic
    Closed Accounts Posts: 755 ✭✭✭optocynic


    FlutterinBantam wrote: »
    Of course you should be penalised in this state.

    Didn't you go out, work hard, look after yourself, scrimp and save to get where you are, never were a burden on the state.

    You should have left school at 16 and sat back while working the black economy while the state giroed the money into your account.

    You would have a lot more disposable income.:cool:


    I have nothing to add... they are the facts,the truth... the disgrace that is a society of panderers and clowns!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    amacca
    Registered Users Posts: 6,937 ✭✭✭amacca


    optocynic wrote: »
    I am not wealthy. Or at least I do not consider myself wealthy.
    Honestly, last calendar year was the first time I earned 6 figures. But it took a LOT of hours and effort.
    I purchased a nice house in a nice area almost 3 years ago.

    But, some say this makes me wealthy. Idiots!!!
    I have virtually no disposable income, due to taxes, childcare, mortgage etc. I went to college. did a masters, studies HARD, work HARDER...

    Why should I be penalised more than others? Have I not earned the right to some comfort?


    My point on this would be that you shouldn't pay more than others as a percentage of your income. There is no way you should be penalized more than others.

    I agree with a person such as yourself who studied hard and worked harder getting a better reward. I'm all for meritocracies, I think they are great.


    What I'm not in favour of is the current situation where very high earners can pay less (and sometimes much less) as a percentage of their gross take home pay than someone on a middle or low income.

    If the average tax taken from someone one 40k is say for example 30%, then the average tax taken from someone with 250k or 500k should also be at least 30% but at the moment its not even that.

    At the moment and as Ive posted before:

    New measures introduced since 2007 mean that those on 500k+ still are only liable for about the minimum tax rate of 20%

    earners between 250k and 500k have only seen their tax liability rise to about 14% since 2007

    also before the above, someone earning between 250k and 500k could shelter their income in such way that they only paid an effective rate of 5% in 2007 and previous years

    that's why some higher earners need to be targeted, so they actually pay their fair share, just like some lower earners claiming and doing nixers and thinking they have a god given right to state handouts also need to be targeted.


  • Options
    #38
    optocynic
    Closed Accounts Posts: 755 ✭✭✭optocynic


    amacca wrote: »
    If the average tax taken from someone one 40k is say for example 30%, then the average tax taken from someone with 250k or 500k should also be at least 30% but at the moment its not even that.

    At the moment and as Ive posted before:

    New measures introduced since 2007 mean that those on 500k+ still are only liable for about the minimum tax rate of 20%

    earners between 250k and 500k have only seen their tax liability rise to about 14% since 2007

    So, let's do some simple arithmetic here.
    30% of 40k = 12k per annum
    20% of 500k = 100k per annum

    Do you claim that the person earning 500k (obviously educated and hard working) is consuming 9 times more public services than the person on 40K? Of course they are not, but they are the entrepeneurs, creating jobs, creating profit, spending on goods and services etc. I do conceed that high earners should, ultimately, pay more in tax, but to say that 100k is not enough is just... well... rude!

    amacca wrote: »
    also before the above, someone earning between 250k and 500k could shelter their income in such way that they only paid an effective rate of 5% in 2007 and previous years

    that's why some higher earners need to be targeted, so they actually pay their fair share, just like some lower earners claiming and doing nixers and thinking they have a god given right to state handouts also need to be targeted.

    OK.. so 5% of 250k = 12.5k per annum... possibly a little low, but 5% of 500k is 25k... and this is only for non-PAYE earners.


Advertisement