Dont cut our pay, Tax everyone else instead!!!

c montgomery

So this is the public sectors unions solution to our current financial mess. Tax Everyone!!!

Do they even know the basics of economics? Currently we have reached the point of diminishing returns with regards to tax increases, the more you increase tax the less tax you actually take in.

The unions however believe that by maintaining the inflated salaries of the their members and then taxing everyone else including themselves will solve the problem. WTF

I have taken a pay cut of 11% already this year, i dont have a pension, my job is not secure and i have been subjected to all the same income levies as everyone else.

Im sick of hearing the unions talk about the 10% + pay cut they have taken this year already. You havent taken a pay cut, you have been subjected to the same levies as everyone else in the country and now you have to make a small contribution towards your pension (a pension which is insanely generous)

Lower paid civil servants should not have to take a cut but as the average industrial wage is 33,000 or thereabouts, maybe people in the public sector earning 50,000 + could take a cut. This cut could then increase as earnings increase.

If the government increase tax for everyone and leave the Public sector alone i doubt they would last til February. People will have just had enough!

NewDubliner

c montgomery wrote: »

I have taken a pay cut of 11% already this year, i dont have a pension, my job is not secure and i have been subjected to all the same income levies as everyone else.

If your employer is not deducting the PRSI that will ultimately entitle your to a state-guaranteed pension, worth considerably more than what you paid in, you should report him immediately.

c montgomery

I meant i dont have a private pension, im still entitled to the basic state pension as far as i am aware. I think????

ParkRunner

c montgomery wrote: »

So this is the public sectors unions solution to our current financial mess. Tax Everyone!!!

Do they even know the basics of economics? Currently we have reached the point of diminishing returns with regards to tax increases, the more you increase tax the less tax you actually take in.

The unions however believe that by maintaining the inflated salaries of the their members and then taxing everyone else including themselves will solve the problem. WTF

Is their position not to tax the uber-wealthy slightly more and make up the rest of the required savings for this year through expenditure cuts?

dresden8

EF wrote: »

Is their position not to tax the uber-wealthy slightly more and make up the rest of the required savings for this year through expenditure cuts?

You can't tax the uber-wealthy. They don't like paying tax. So there.

mikemac

EF wrote: »

Is their position not to tax the uber-wealthy slightly more and make up the rest of the required savings for this year through expenditure cuts?

Expenditure cuts like public service wage cuts?

P. Breathnach

c montgomery wrote: »

... Do they even know the basics of economics? Currently we have reached the point of diminishing returns with regards to tax increases, the more you increase tax the less tax you actually take in...

That's a big claim. Can you back it up?

ParkRunner

mikemac wrote: »

Expenditure cuts like public service wage cuts?

Who knows? Not me, not you, until we do Im living as if I am earning 5% less, minimum.

...i forgot the uber-wealthy should not be required to pay taxes, bless their cotton socks.

Warfi

c montgomery wrote: »

I have taken a pay cut of 11% already this year, i dont have a pension, my job is not secure and i have been subjected to all the same income levies as everyone else.

At least you have a job

Stark

c montgomery wrote: »

I meant i dont have a private pension, im still entitled to the basic state pension as far as i am aware. I think????

Get a private pension then.

dresden8

EF wrote: »

Who knows? Not me, not you, until we do Im living as if I am earning 5% less, minimum.

...i forgot the uber-wealthy should not be required to pay taxes, bless their cotton socks.

I think you'll find they're silk socks. Or some advanced space-age material.

Screw you and your chav-tastic cotton.

Stark

P. Breathnach wrote: »

That's a big claim. Can you back it up?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve . The folks in the Department of Finance will tell you that we're currently past the peak of the curve at present. Same issue is occurring with the tax intake on cigarettes.

jhegarty

dresden8 wrote: »

You can't tax the uber-wealthy. They don't like paying tax. So there.

You can't tax the uber-wealthy too much because they will move to Monaco at the drop of a hat.


You have to keep it at a level where becoming a tax exile is too much effort.

mickoneill30

EF wrote: »

Who knows? Not me, not you, until we do Im living as if I am earning 5% less, minimum.

...i forgot the uber-wealthy should not be required to pay taxes, bless their cotton socks.

In the Sunday Business Post of 01/03 (I know the date because there was a thread about it at the time) it had the article that 47% of the states income tax comes from 6% of the people. I'm not in the rich category but I don't think we can just keep looking at the rich and saying they should pay more taxes. Maybe they should but it won't fix our problems.

rugbyman

nice answer Stark,

by the way p.brethnach, may i ask, when you asked for the back up, did you not believe the poster?
regards rugbyman

dresden8

rugbyman wrote: »

by the way p.brethnach, may i ask, when you asked for the back up, did you not believe the poster?

Forum rule, when you post "facts" you should be able to link to proof.

dresden8

jhegarty wrote: »

You can't tax the uber-wealthy too much because they will move to Monaco at the drop of a hat.

That's what I said, rich scum would rather not pay tax. It's beneath them.

I didn't think we were disagreeing.

c montgomery

P. Breathnach wrote: »

That's a big claim. Can you back it up?

Vat.

Since Vat was increased in December to raise extra taxes, vat returns have nosedived.

stereo_steve

dresden8 wrote: »

That's what I said, rich scum would rather not pay tax. It's beneath them.

I didn't think we were disagreeing.

If someone earns a lot of money and pays the higher rate of tax on it , what's the problem?

Why should they have to pay more tax again? The wealthy already pay enough tax. The social welfare in this country is at insane levels.

P. Breathnach

rugbyman wrote: »

nice answer Stark,

It's not really an answer. The Laffer curve is beloved of doctrinaire right-wingers, and is invoked at every opportunity as if tax yields were already at their maximum.

It's an observable phenomenon that people generally would prefer not to pay tax than to pay it. But that proves nothing.

by the way p.brethnach, may i ask, when you asked for the back up, did you not believe the poster?

I didn't, and I still don't. Certain taxes might be at their maximum yield capacity, but it is not obvious to me that all are. Property tax is currently very low, at €200 p.a. on properties other than PPR. There seems to be plenty of scope for increase there.

P. Breathnach

c montgomery wrote: »

Vat.

Since Vat was increased in December to raise extra taxes, vat returns have nosedived.

Not necessarily because of a very small increase in the rate of tax. It's a fair guess that they would have nosedived anyway.

c montgomery

Warfi wrote: »

At least you have a job

Stark wrote: »

Get a private pension then.

This is my exact point.


I have a job, not secure but at least a job. The public sector workers want their jobs with complete security, massive pensions and no performance reviews. And now they want you to pay more for it.

c montgomery

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Not necessarily because of a very small increase in the rate of tax. It's a fair guess that they would have nosedived anyway.

Ill stick to the facts;)

itsonlywords

stereo_steve wrote: »

If someone earns a lot of money and pays the higher rate of tax on it , what's the problem?

Why should they have to pay more tax again? The wealthy already pay enough tax. The social welfare in this country is at insane levels.

I assume that you mean Social Welfare allowances that people did not pay into?There are many people on Jobseekers Allowances and Benefits that paid in for 30 and 40 years. Now you want to cut them? Rubbish. TD's and Ministers and the spongers in public services who are overpaid on their goodbye money and inflated pensions that they never paid into should have their wages and pensions cut to the same rate as a person on the average industrial wage. That is fair and equiptable. Cut doctors wages as they are paid from the public purse and we cant afford it.

c montgomery

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I didn't, and I still don't. Certain taxes might be at their maximum yield capacity, but it is not obvious to me that all are. Property tax is currently very low, at €200 p.a. on properties other than PPR. There seems to be plenty of scope for increase there.

If the govt brought in manditory taxes like this that are unavoidable if you owned property sure they would increase revenue.

I was talking about income tax as this is the tax that the unions are calling to be increased rather than have pay cuts.

Its crazy.
Imagine if a company was going out of business as their product was not selling. The company says it will have to reduce wages but the employees union comes up with a "better" plan, lets just charge more for our product.

As i said, crazy!

Stark

It's not like we're going into this blind. We have first hand experience of what happened in the 80s when we kept hiking up taxes ad naseum without looking at spending cuts. And the turnaround that followed when we finally decided to cut both taxes and spending.

MrMicra

Stark wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve . The folks in the Department of Finance will tell you that we're currently past the peak of the curve at present. Same issue is occurring with the tax intake on cigarettes.

I favour aggressive reductions in the public sector pay bill (ideally through pay reductions) however the Laffer curve has been discredited.

I accept that here is a tipping point in tax at which evasion becomes endemic and socially acceptable. However aggressive enforcement, and social pressure, can move this point up the scale markedly.

As an example in the 1980s when the top rate of tax was 60% evasion was endemic. It was normal (not legal and I am not suggesting that it was moral or acceptable) to double pay for goods on and off the books. Large companies did this as did professionals like solicitors and barristers.
The top tax rate in Ireland was lower than the UK which didn't have this culture of tax evasion (at least not to the same extent tax evasion was more common there thanit is now too). The Inland Revenue were more frightening than the Revenue Commissioners.

There is no reason to believe that we are anywhere near the point at which tax revenue might fall as a result of increasing rates.

Wikipedia wrote:

Demonstrated Wrong by Actual Results
Actual collected tax revenue slowed[6] after cutting taxes according to the Laffer Curve, instead of accelerating as predicted.

stereo_steve

itsonlywords wrote: »

I assume that you mean Social Welfare allowances that people did not pay into?There are many people on Jobseekers Allowances and Benefits that paid in for 30 and 40 years. Now you want to cut them? Rubbish. TD's and Ministers and the spongers in public services who are overpaid on their goodbye money and inflated pensions that they never paid into should have their wages and pensions cut to the same rate as a person on the average industrial wage. That is fair and equitable. Cut doctors wages as they are paid from the public purse and we cant afford it.

I'd love for someone to add up the amount of PRSI someone on the average age pays over a period of 30 - 40 years ( with inflation). Then work out what you get for it, say 20 years pension maybe 6 months/1 year with job seekers allowance. It might silence the "I'm entitled to it crowd, I paid for it"

I don't know the figures but I'd imagine PRSI is a very good investment for the average person, no doubt subsidised by the tax payer ( ie mostly from the wealthy).

Don't get me wrong I earn under the average wage in the private sector. I very much want to see public expenditure slashed to balance the books. I just cringe every time I hear people say tax the wealthy. It's not the way to have a healthy economy.

MrMicra

c montgomery wrote: »

Ill stick to the facts;)

That would be an interesting development! So far we have assertions without fact.

MrMicra

Stark wrote: »

It's not like we're going into this blind. We have first hand experience of what happened in the 80s when we kept hiking up taxes ad naseum without looking at spending cuts. And the turnaround that followed when we finally decided to cut both taxes and spending.

I agree that we need spending cuts and we need them now. However one of the problems in the '80s was that there was no stick for the Revenue Commissioners to use to beat evaders. Had there been the tax base would have been wider and some of the cuts that were made would have been unnecessary.

MrMicra

stereo_steve wrote: »

Don't get me wrong I earn under the average wage in the private sector. I very much want to see public expenditure slashed to balance the books. I just cringe every time I hear people say tax the wealthy. It's not the way to have a healthy economy.

Every society depends on taxing the wealthy. You can only tax people who've got money! IMH we have a very generous tax system for people who take the trouble to structure their affairs properly.