Time to Tax the Rich

ZYX

So why not. Lets tax the rich. Lets tax those with most disposable income. Make them pay. Just have to find out who they are.

Example 1. Single person earning €35,000 a year with no special allowances has a take home pay of €2596 a month.

Example 2: Public sector worker earning €105,000 a year in Dec 2009 and supporting a family also no special allowances, has take home pay of €4777.

So clearly the person on €35,000 has the greatest take home pay person (even if you exclude the children)

So lets tax the rich. Young single people.

faceman

I hate suggestions of blanket taxes regardless of who they are targetting at. Just because on paper someone has a higher disposal income does not necessary mean they have more disposable cash. Their mortgage could be high, car loans etc just like everyone else.

Also if you tax high earning entrepreneurs to hard, they will just pack their stuff and move to another country or give up investing in Ireland.

Im not saying we tax those on lower income to compensate either.

however on re-reading your post, im not sure my comment is relevent. You has confused me!

Riskymove

the tax base does need attention in this country (e.g. half of the workforce do not pay income tax at all etc)

however, starting from a point of view of "lets get them folks over there" is not a very constructive approach

ZYX

Everyday on this site someone says "why aren't the government making the rich pay more" or some such words. The problem is it is very hard to say who the rich are.

I am guessing that the majority of people on this site are single and would earn about €35,000 a year. They of course do not consider themselves well off and demand cuts for everyone else. I am trying to point out that they might actually be wealthier than someone earning three times their income.

Barracudaincork

So you suggest you tax on someone on their disposible income?

The issue with tax is that there is no fool proof way of making it fair for everyone, there are many suggestions on how to reform the tax systems including the height tax, but no sure fire way has arisen yet.

kippy

ZYX wrote: »

Everyday on this site someone says "why aren't the government making the rich pay more" or some such words. The problem is it is very hard to say who the rich are.

I am guessing that the majority of people on this site are single and would earn about €35,000 a year. They of course do not consider themselves well off and demand cuts for everyone else. I am trying to point out that they might actually be wealthier than someone earning three times their income.

How are you measuring wealth?

Of course, a guy earning 100k, who has a 2k per month mortgage, healthcare of 3 grand a year for his family of two, tax, PRSI, Pension contributions, car/home/life insurance/car tax/fuel/oil/food/clothes costs will probably have less disposable income than a guy on 30K a year living with his parents.
I dont get the point though.............

ZYX

Barracudaincork wrote: »

So you suggest you tax on someone on their disposible income?

The issue with tax is that there is no fool proof way of making it fair for everyone, there are many suggestions on how to reform the tax systems including the height tax, but no sure fire way has arisen yet.

Well concentrate tax changes on the lower rate. That would increase tax for everyone. Reduce the exemption limits. Remove the system of individualisation as at present a family earning 70K can take home more than a family earning 120,000.

ei.sdraob

ZYX wrote: »

So lets tax the rich. Young single people.

go ahead and watch the young and single (no family tying them down) leave for greener pastures abroad

oh and kiss goodbye to them money spend educating these people (in majority of cases) to 3rd level standard

ZYX

kippy wrote: »

How are you measuring wealth?

Of course, a guy earning 100k, who has a 2k per month mortgage, healthcare of 3 grand a year for his family of two, tax, PRSI, Pension contributions, car/home/life insurance/car tax/fuel/oil/food/clothes costs will probably have less disposable income than a guy on 30K a year living with his parents.
I dont get the point though.............

One person earns 35K. Takes home 2596 a month to support 1 person.
Family earn 105k take home 4777 to support 2 adults and children. I am not counting mortgages or anything else

ei.sdraob

ZYX wrote: »

One person earns 35K. Takes home 2596 a month to support 1 person.
Family earn 105k take home 4777 to support 2 adults and children. I am not counting mortgages or anything else

who will perform these calculations and taxation collections? Revenue??


last i checked the public sector workers are striking/working to rule already

god forbid you suggest more work is added to the existing lot :eek:

BrownianMotion

Your examples are set up to suggest that we should overtax young people on an average wage in order to undertax the six figure wage of a public servant. Plus the take home pay figure for €35,000 is incorrectly high.

Given how many public/private mud-slinging matches appear here I think if this was a serious suggestion rather than an attempt to start another argument you would have used different examples.

Are you a journalist for the Irish Independent by any chance?

ixoy

You need to take into account other factors though. For example, many of the young people on this 35k would, if they've bought, had to by during the boom and thus would have higher mortages. Conversely, if you're on 6 figures, you've been earning longer and would more likely to have bought earlier.

You're also removing any incentive for young people to work here and, of course, withdrawing money from the economy in the end.

Riskymove

ZYX wrote: »

Everyday on this site someone says "why aren't the government making the rich pay more" or some such words. The problem is it is very hard to say who the rich are.

I am guessing people dont always mean well-salaried people when they talk about the rich..certainly I dont...the guy on 107k that you are talking about is one of those basically paying most of the income tax in this country, i would not necessarily call him "rich" given the costs in this country...obviously I wouldn't call him poor either

I have in mind the beneficiaries of all the wealth which was generated over the boom, a lot of that money is still out there...generated by tax-breaks, property bubble etc

Nidot

I think earnings need to be evaluated on the basis of ability. The amount you earn gross is directly linked to your ability in a role and the demand for your skills in this role.

The amount you take home net is based on your personal circumstances. This means that a person with more needs (i.e. children, mortgage etc) receive tax allowances to help them with these expenses.

If people look at it on the basis of tax allowances offered then single people with no allowances is subsidising the married person with 3 dependents.

If it was the case that we paid people on their needs rather than their ability this would be foolish as it would mean someone could earn more money just by having more kids.

As it stands having tax reliefs for dependents, carers, mortgage interest relief, we already tax the rich so as others (i.e. those who's needs dictate they need increased earnings - kids, mortgage, dependents) can avail of these reliefs/allowances. People need to realise where the money comes from to allow the governement to offer these reliefs.

kippy

I recommend closure of this post before it gets stupid.

It seems to advocate taxing disposable income (which when you think about it is already taxed in the form of VAT/Excise already/DIRT already)

Nidot

kippy wrote: »

I recommend closure of this post before it gets stupid.

It seems to advocate taxing disposable income (which when you think about it is already taxed in the form of VAT/Excise already/DIRT already)

Agreed its definitely a rediculous posting

Riskymove

ei.sdraob wrote: »

who will perform these calculations and taxation collections? Revenue??

last i checked the public sector workers are striking/working to rule already

god forbid you suggest more work is added to the existing lot :eek:

come on, we don't need to turn EVERY thread into a public/private bashing contest

Your examples are set up to suggest that we should overtax young people on an average wage in order to undertax the six figure wage of a public servant. Plus the take home pay figure for €35,000 is incorrectly high.

the public/private tags would be irrelevant from a tax point fo view

BrownianMotion

Riskymove wrote: »

come on, we don't need to turn EVERY thread into a public/private bashing contest



the public/private tags would be irrelevant from a tax point fo view

Agreed, but they were the examples that were included in the original post as bait, which people are already biting.

kippy

ZYX wrote: »

One person earns 35K. Takes home 2596 a month to support 1 person.
Family earn 105k take home 4777 to support 2 adults and children. I am not counting mortgages or anything else

You're figures are incorrect anyway:
Single on 35k takes home: 2367
Married person (public sector and assumeing he DOESNT transfer his unworking wifes tax credits to himself, which they should) with 2 kids: 4777 (I think if the credits were transfered this would be much higher.......

Riskymove

BrownianMotion wrote: »

Agreed, but they were the examples that were included in the original post as bait, which people are already biting.

well as I say they are irrelevant from a tax point of view, private and public pay same tax

Barracudaincork

ZYX wrote: »

Well concentrate tax changes on the lower rate. That would increase tax for everyone. Reduce the exemption limits. Remove the system of individualisation as at present a family earning 70K can take home more than a family earning 120,000.

How? Can you show me how you calculate that?

BrownianMotion

Riskymove wrote: »

well as I say they are irrelevant from a tax point of view, private and public pay same tax

Yes I know that, that's why I said agreed. My point which you are missing is that this guy is just attempting to start an argument by posting a ridiculous suggestion in the form of pitting a public sector worker v a private sector worker.

Riskymove

BrownianMotion wrote: »

Yes I know that, that's why I said agreed. My point which you are missing is that this guy is just attempting to start an argument by posting a ridiculous suggestion in the form of pitting a public sector worker v a private sector worker.

I realise that :pac:

now you are missing my point that we should just ignore the public/private tags in his example and debate/discuss/ridicule his suggestion without resorting to taking the bait and bashing private/public

ZYX

Nidot wrote: »

I think earnings need to be evaluated on the basis of ability. The amount you earn gross is directly linked to your ability in a role and the demand for your skills in this role.

The amount you take home net is based on your personal circumstances. This means that a person with more needs (i.e. children, mortgage etc) receive tax allowances to help them with these expenses.

I agree totally

Nidot wrote: »

If people look at it on the basis of tax allowances offered then single people with no allowances is subsidising the married person with 3 dependents.

How?


The figures I used came from www.taxcalc.eu

As I have said people constantly say public sector workers should face up to the economic realities and take their pay cuts. I agree with this and I am not public sector. However tax payers also have to face up to their responsibilities and face tax rises. Most people here seem to aggree with this but constantly say tax people over 100,000 (obviously saying this group should pay more is ok. Saying those earning 35K should pay more is divisive.)

Riskymove

ZYX wrote: »

How?

the person on 35 has no allowances = paying all tax he should be

other person gets tax reliefs, therefore he is being subsidised

ZYX

Riskymove wrote: »

the person on 35 has no allowances = paying all tax he should be

other person gets tax reliefs, therefore he is being subsidised

And the allowances are worth How Much?

Riskymove

ZYX wrote: »

As I have said people constantly say public sector workers should face up to the economic realities and take their pay cuts. I agree with this and I am not public sector. However tax payers also have to face up to their responsibilities and face tax rises. Most people here seem to aggree with this but constantly say tax people over 100,000 (obviously saying this group should pay more is ok. Saying those earning 35K should pay more is divisive.)

the bottom line is that no-one is forcing anyone to have a mortgage, a spouse or kids to support, there are choices to be made

frankly being on €100k would give you far more financial freedom to do this than being on €35

on your logic a single person earning €100k should be absolutely crucified!

BrownianMotion

Riskymove wrote: »

I realise that :pac:

now you are missing my point that we should just ignore the public/private tags in his example and debate/discuss/ridicule his suggestion without resorting to taking the bait and bashing private/public

Haha apologies I didn't really look at it from the point of view that it was a genuinely serious suggestion.:eek:

kippy

ZYX wrote: »

I agree totally



How?


The figures I used came from www.taxcalc.eu

As I have said people constantly say public sector workers should face up to the economic realities and take their pay cuts. I agree with this and I am not public sector. However tax payers also have to face up to their responsibilities and face tax rises. Most people here seem to aggree with this but constantly say tax people over 100,000 (obviously saying this group should pay more is ok. Saying those earning 35K should pay more is divisive.)

Again, recheck your figures. The single persons take home is incorrect and the married person is not transferring unused tax credits. If that is the basis for the argument its pretty poor. The married person is taking at least 2.2k more a month home........ to pay for his family.
Not THAT many people her are advocating further taxation of the rich or anyone for that matter. Just a review and broadening of the tax bracket followed by a review of minimum wage, social welfare and further reviews of Public sector pay.

I dont particularily want to pay any more tax than I currently am, nor do a particularily want to have to take any more cuts (pension levey and recent pay cut were enough).
I've already cut my spend based on my income levels dropping and that in itself multiplied by all those other people in the same position is bad for part of the economy. The knock on effects of paycuts/higher taxation are very very negative. While I know paycuts are needed in the PS, we whould now begin to concentrate on streamlineing of operations etc and look towards creating more private sector jobs through whatever means are available to us.
Completly off the topic of this thread but I feel the thread isnt that on topic anyway.

Sleepy

The tax base needs to be looked at significantly alright.

Personally, I'd be of the opinion that almost everyone working should be contributing something so would lower the personal tax credits to ensure that everyone is hit for some amount of tax. If you're working part-time, you should only be receiving part of your tax credits.

Taxes on the transfer of assets between generations should be raised and simplified (i.e. remove lots of the loopholes). Very much a personal opinion but I believe a society which encourages each generation to fend for itself rather than live off the labours of their forebears will ultimately be both more equitable and productive.

Remove pretty much every loophole and tax avoidance scheme in existance. We waste more money in foregone taxes and direct support of horse-racing than we spend on every other sport combined. This is madness. I'm all for tax breaks for things like R&D or measures than encourage entrepeneurial (rather than speculative) behaviour but I believe our taxation system is in need of such a radical overhaul in this regard we're probably best starting from a point of having no breaks and then identifying areas where we can use measured, targeted tax breaks.

Oh, and if it's not already taxed, employer pension contributions should be considered taxable income.

Riskymove

ZYX wrote: »

And the allowances are worth How Much?

it would depend on exact circumstances

well, you'd pay less of your tax at the higher rate for a start

plus a higher tax credit I think

you could also get mortgage interest relief if eleigible