taxation report - Tax hikes will exile well paid

LoLth

in addition: I would say that there are too many mid to mid-high income earners availing of tax breaks.

sort of why the pension levy and the income levy were a fair system, they were imposed on the gross pay and not subject to deductions which made sure that *everyone* paid their part. Personally I'd love to see the tax hike softened by an income levy rise instead as this would generate more revenue overall.

Tipp Man

LoLth wrote: »

in addition: I would say that there are too many mid to mid-high income earners availing of tax breaks.

sort of why the pension levy and the income levy were a fair system, they were imposed on the gross pay and not subject to deductions which made sure that *everyone* paid their part. Personally I'd love to see the tax hike softened by an income levy rise instead as this would generate more revenue overall.

So you think it is fair that a small business cannot use its capital allowances against the income levy?? Personally i find that grossly unfair and in my opinion the income levy needs to be abolished in the next budget and incorporated into the tax system

Mr. Presentable

There are too many people not paying any tax. Everyone should share the burden - even the low paid.

Oh, and the welfare system needs to be overhauled so people are not discouraged from working. I know of a couple, neither working, with two kids, a car, two foreign holidays and a house in a nice area all provided by the state. They took a decision when they got married to stop working and live the welfare lifestyle. There is too much of this.

LoLth

I'm not a CPA but I do know a bit about finance and accounting... isnt the capital allowance for use against capital assetss purchased for use in the business or for offsetting rental costs of premises? Whats capital and fixed assets got to do with a wage bill or a company's prsi contributions?

its a genuine question, I cant say if I agree with you or not (or even judge if its grossly unfair or not) if I am uncertain of the exact mechanic you are referring to.

Tipp Man

LoLth wrote: »

I'm not a CPA but I do know a bit about finance and accounting... isnt the capital allowance for use against capital assetss purchased for use in the business or for offsetting rental costs of premises? Whats capital and fixed assets got to do with a wage bill or a company's prsi contributions?

its a genuine question, I cant say if I agree with you or not (or even judge if its grossly unfair or not) if I am uncertain of the exact mechanic you are referring to.

Of course, always better not to make a rash statement:)

you are allowed to deduct capital allowances (usually 12.5% of the purchase cost of an asset) from your income to come to your taxable income, basically depreciation is allowed before you pay income tax. With the income levy it is calculated on the income before Cap allowances, thus making it more difficult for small businesses to re-invest and meaning that items which may be essential to run a business are becoming excessively expensive as they are not tax deductable

This is only on the part of the business owner and his personal tax bill, it has nothing to do with wages or PRSI of his employees, which is probably what you are aiming at??

irish_bob

Tipp Man wrote: »

Surely the problem is that there simply aren't enough people paying tax in this country and too many are paying at the lower rate.

If i am reading you correctly you want people earning over 50k to take the brunt of the hit by increasing the rate on them?? Without taking any allowance of the amount of people in this country that are paying very little if any tax, how is that equitable??

The problem in this country is that not enough are contributing enough, if i read your plan correctly you want to exagerate this even further??

plus those earning well in excess of 50 k tend to be employers in the private sector , if a private sector business has a net turnover of 250 k , then working under a 50% income tax rate , that business has a tax liability of 125 k , were this rate to be raised to 60% , the business would have a liability of 150 k which means the business would have to set aside an additional 25 k for the tax man , surely this money would be better spent employing someone who is now on the dole

50% is more than enough tax for anyone to be paying

irish_bob

nipplenuts wrote: »

There are too many people not paying any tax. Everyone should share the burden - even the low paid.

Oh, and the welfare system needs to be overhauled so people are not discouraged from working. I know of a couple, neither working, with two kids, a car, two foreign holidays and a house in a nice area all provided by the state. They took a decision when they got married to stop working and live the welfare lifestyle. There is too much of this.

you wont hear fergus finaly on the radio talking about them or father whats his name

_Kooli_

LoLth wrote: »

I would support raising income tax rates by a resonable flat rate across the baord. those earning more pay more as it is done on a percentage.

I would see this as a basic first step. Now, you'll get huge opposition to this with "the average PS wage is X" and "what about those on low incomes" etc etc. my comment would address these arguments.

take the average wage in both sectors and soften the blow for those below that wage. If, as the Public sector says, the vast majority are below the average then they should have no problem with this. If the private sector is right and the majority are actually around or above the average then more will be taxed and the public sector pays more tax by virtue of its higher pay rate.

similarly in the private sector: tax increase (of a moderate proportion). If as said by the public sector that the private sector have huge wages then grand, they will be taxed. If as espoused by the private sector the average inductrial wage is 38k then they can hardly object to a threshold of 50k as this will leave the majority of the private sector untouched.

By doign this, the governemt can raise revenue from both sectors in a fair and equitable manner. Without any targetting and without any favouritism (Cut the PS pay and PS hate govt. , dont and the private sector hates govt.) at least this way its fair.

those groups who want to protect the low income earner: satisfied

they tried to means test the medical card and look what happened. if the govt cant stick to its guns against a lobby group for pensioners (no disrespect intended) then how can we expect decent policy that isnt dictated by the group that shouts the loudest?

costs need to be cut. wages need to be reduced. If govt income increases at the same time then the cuts dont have to be as drastic (savings from cuts + govt. income increase balanced against deficit rather than just savings from cuts).

How about a levy of a few % across any income for all.
Even dole and childrens allowance.
The higher paid end up paying more. If you are on a low wage you pay very little.

Hellm0

To be honest, any country which imposes unreasonable taxes upon the wealthy is shooting itself in the foot. We should be attracting the wealthy, not driving them away.

Of course this presents problems in revenue. Problems which may be solved by indirect taxation such as VAT. Rather than punishing people for generating wealth, let revenue be generated by the economic activities which are involved in such (or the pursuit of luxuries, which no one can complain about being expensive).

dresden8

ei.sdraob wrote: »

heres an interesting article today (anyone have link to the actual report?)

anyways some interesting points highlighted for the "union"-ists

here we have some real numbers and facts for people to think about...



http://www.independent.ie/national-news/tax-hikes-will-exile-well-paid---lenihan-1937114.html

Interesting how anything now coming out of those idiots in Fianna Fail and the department of finance is now treated as gospel.

Those idiots have driven us over a cliff.

P. Breathnach

dresden8 wrote: »

Interesting how anything now coming out of those idiots in Fianna Fail and the department of finance is now treated as gospel.

Those idiots have driven us over a cliff.

I read the piece linked by ei.sdraob. The headline says: "Tax hikes 'will exile well-paid' - Lenihan". The piece itself does not say what, if anything, Brian Lenihan says about it. The headline is misleading.

So somebody in the Department of Finance might have put a particular point of view to the Minister. That sort of thing happens all the time. There is every chance that different views were also offered to him, perhaps even by the same official or officials. That's what happens: ideas are explored, and the Minister gets to choose.

And another thing that happens is that the Indo pursues its own agenda. We should remember that its principal shareholders are tax exiles, and possibly more in sympathy with the well-to-do than with the average punter.

dresden8

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I read the piece linked by ei.sdraob. The headline says: "Tax hikes 'will exile well-paid' - Lenihan". The piece itself does not say what, if anything, Brian Lenihan says about it. The headline is misleading.

So somebody in the Department of Finance might have put a particular point of view to the Minister. That sort of thing happens all the time. There is every chance that different views were also offered to him, perhaps even by the same official or officials. That's what happens: ideas are explored, and the Minister gets to choose.

And another thing that happens is that the Indo pursues its own agenda. We should remember that its principal shareholders are tax exiles, and possibly more in sympathy with the well-to-do than with the average punter.

Indeed, you can rest assured the Indo will not print a story saying that the rich should be squeezed until they squeak.

This story, I am confident, was leaked to a friendly journalist by a politico who is indeed His Masters Voice.

Unfortunately it has now become an axiom, accepted by many, that you cannot tax the rich or they will leave, like they did in the eighties.

Unfortunately it was the unemployed young who left in the eighties.

Denis O'Brien and his mates left even under our current "onerous" treatment of the rich.

Poor dears.

If only they'd stay gone and stop telling how to spend our money.

(And don't start me on famous Dutch businessman Bono).

NewDubliner

P. Breathnach wrote: »

So somebody in the Department of Finance might have put a particular point of view to the Minister. That sort of thing happens all the time. There is every chance that different views were also offered to him, perhaps even by the same official or officials. That's what happens: ideas are explored, and the Minister gets to choose.

Maybe one of Lenihan's handlers is lining himself up for a job with the Indo, when FF is kicked out? Or, maybe Lenihan authorised the leak himself, knowing that he could not be taken to task over something he did not say himself?

There's also the possibility that the Indo just made up the story of a leak, so as to give their master's opinion more crediility, it wouldn't be the first time

thebman

NewDubliner wrote: »

Maybe one of Lenihan's handlers is lining himself up for a job with the Indo, when FF is kicked out? Or, maybe Lenihan authorised the leak himself, knowing that h could not be taken to task over something he did not say himself?

There's also the possibility that the Indo just made up the story of a leak, so as to give their master's opinion more crediility, it wouldn't be the first time

I imagine the rag just made it up.

If you tax the rich they will leave but we were/are already taxing them so much they leave anyway even when times were good because it is cheaper for them elsewhere.

I'm not sure we can compete or want to compete with other countries on a race to keep rich people as rich as possible (not that I have anything against the rich but personally I'd pay tax here no matter how much it cost me out of civic duty which is probably part of the reason why I'll never be rich )