Time to Tax the Rich

Barracudaincork

Riskymove wrote: »

it seems that he is talking about individualisation, although he doesn't really make that clear in his OP

I think he also calculated the net income for a public worker which presumably includes the levy

Thanks I agree it did appear like that, but i didnt really want to assume that was the case and wanted to give the OP a chance to explain.

ZYX

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I think that in the medium term we need an increase in taxation to compensate for the drop in exchequer revenue from stamp duty on property taxes, from VAT on building and on high living, and from VRT.

ZYX's original post is a challenge: to identify how we might broaden the tax base with minimum social injustice. What is fresh about it is that there isn't a simplistic assumption that it is solely a matter of income level -- that a fair tax system should take proper account of the taxpayer's circumstances. Of course there is room to argue about the weight to be given to various things.

Some of the responses look to me like self-interest dressed up as high principle.

Thank you. Yes I have become distracted from the original point but you have sumarized it nicely.

Barracudaincork

ZYX wrote: »

I know that is why I said sorry. 3 times. Sorry again.



Because I was showing how people are taxed differently. That you cannot simply say "they earn over 100K so they can pay more".

Looks like we posted at the same time

Ok no more sorry's needed, i just really didnt want to misread you and what you had meant.

I agree with your last statement, it wont always be the fairer way of taxing someone.

ZYX

ei.sdraob wrote: »

the thing that OP is missing

is that single young people already pay more taxes and less benefits/credits than a married couple with kids would get lets say

so how to square that circle?

Like what? Ignore mortgages as either could have one or not.

hmmm

The OP is proposing a thinly disguised massive transfer of wealth from single people (or those with small families) to those with large families. Like the discussions on child benefit, I'm not sure why society has decided that people who choose to have children should be subsidised.

Taxing disposable income is an interesting idea. If that idea ever took root I'd immediately buy a BMW and do all my shopping in BTs on credit. Happy days as my shopping will be subsidised by savers and the prudent spenders.

ei.sdraob

ZYX wrote: »

Like what? Ignore mortgages as either could have one or not.

top of the head

the married person tax credit
and of course child benefit

both of the above are a carrot and a stick used by govt to get people to marry and have kids

.

johnnyskeleton

hmmm wrote: »

The OP is proposing a thinly disguised massive transfer of wealth from single people (or those with small families) to those with large families. Like the discussions on child benefit, I'm not sure why society has decided that people who choose to have children should be subsidised.

Taxing disposable income is an interesting idea. If that idea ever took root I'd immediately buy a BMW and do all my shopping in BTs on credit. Happy days as my shopping will be subsidised by savers and the prudent spenders.

Surely the converse is true, and the best way to tax disposable incomes is to tax the things done with disposable incomes i.e. increase V.A.T. on non-essentials, excise on alcohol & tobacco, V.R.T. on fancy cars, D.I.R.T. on savings etc?

It is suggested that we already have a high level of stealth/consumption taxes relative to tax on income. This is personally annoying and can result in cross border smuggling of goods, but as a general proposition it is a good thing as taxing income is taxing productivity whereas taxing consumtion is taxing spending. I don't believe we can spend our way out of recession.

However, the point is well made though that if we were to tax people on the basis of what they are not spending per month we would end up with some funny results.

hmmm

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

it is a good thing as taxing income is taxing productivity whereas taxing consumtion is taxing spending. I don't believe we can spend our way out of recession.

I agree with you, in an ideal world we'd have low taxes on income or companies and high taxes on consumption. This can't work though in a world where people can choose to consume in a second state without paying the consumption tax (e.g. going to NI to buy booze or buying online). It's all a very delicate balancing act with no real right answer..

ZYX

ei.sdraob wrote: »

top of the head

the married person tax credit
and of course child benefit

both of the above are a carrot and a stick used by govt to get people to marry and have kids

.

Well I had already included the married persons tax credit so you can ignore that one.

ZYX

hmmm wrote: »

The OP is proposing a thinly disguised massive transfer of wealth from single people (or those with small families) to those with large families. Like the discussions on child benefit, I'm not sure why society has decided that people who choose to have children should be subsidised.

Taxing disposable income is an interesting idea. If that idea ever took root I'd immediately buy a BMW and do all my shopping in BTs on credit. Happy days as my shopping will be subsidised by savers and the prudent spenders.

For the last time I am not talking about taxing disposable income. My point is people on about 35K a year seem to say on this site that they cannot afford to pay more tax. They are saying that people on higher incomes are the ones who should pay more tax.

I am simply pointing out that if you look at after tax income someone on 35K a year may well have a higher after tax income than someone on 100K (ignoring mortgages and even children) and so could afford higher tax rates as easily if not more so than the higher earner.

Barracudaincork

ZYX wrote: »

For the last time I am not talking about taxing disposable income. My point is people on about 35K a year seem to say on this site that they cannot afford to pay more tax. They are saying that people on higher incomes are the ones who should pay more tax.

I am simply pointing out that if you look at after tax income someone on 35K a year may well have a higher after tax income than someone on 100K (ignoring mortgages and even children) and so could afford higher tax rates as easily if not more so than the higher earner.

Are you comparing like with like above? ie is the person earning 35K and 100K the same person, single, paye employment no further credits? Or are the situations of the two people different?

jimmycrackcorm

Excaptain wrote: »

Fair play Tipp Man, alas someone is making sense.

I hate this BS that everyone spouts out all the time of hit the rich, they can afford it blah, blah, blah. That may be true but folk forget that it was these people's entrepreneurship that created a lot of jobs in this country and as a result contributed to the overall tax take in the country. People like Denis O'Brien get such bad publicity because they are tax exiles. Why are we a nation of begrudgers? If people have earned their millions fair play, let them enjoy it. Everyone has to pay a share, end of.

Denis O'Brien is a bad example. His wealth was created by a poor licencing system for mobile phones (how much did the govt. get for the licence vs how much did he get when selling it on to BT....). NTR and the M50 is another example of how poorly structured national asset licencing is.

Also DOB moved residence to Portugal specifically for the purposes of legal tax avoidance. While legal, it was morally incorrect.

hiorta

Who defines 'rich'?

Riskymove

Barracudaincork wrote: »

Are you comparing like with like above? ie is the person earning 35K and 100K the same person, single, paye employment no further credits? Or are the situations of the two people different?

indeed

I still fail to see how anyone earning €35k a year could have a higher net income than someone on €100k a year

none of the figures pointed to bear that out to date

Excaptain

jimmycrackcorm1 wrote: »

Denis O'Brien is a bad example. His wealth was created by a poor licencing system for mobile phones (how much did the govt. get for the licence vs how much did he get when selling it on to BT....). NTR and the M50 is another example of how poorly structured national asset licencing is.

Also DOB moved residence to Portugal specifically for the purposes of legal tax avoidance. While legal, it was morally incorrect.

I'm not a DOB defender or anything like it, I'm just using him as an example. I fail to see how how is mobile phone licensing system and its failures falls at his feet? Who gave Eircel the license in the first place?
The second point is true. He used existing tax legislation to his advantage and why not? The laws are there for everyone, super rich or not. Let me ask you something. Have you ever claimed back medical/dental expenses or paid into a pension fund as a way to avoid paying tax? My point is if anyone in this country could change places with DOB they would without fail even if that meant avoiding paying tax.

Tipp Man

hiorta wrote: »

Who defines 'rich'?

Well the unions thought it was anyone earning over 100k, but failed to consider that a couple of teachers aged 35 are probably earning a good bit more than that

ei.sdraob

Tipp Man wrote: »

Well the unions thought it was anyone earning over 100k, but failed to consider that a couple of teachers aged 35 are probably earning a good bit more than that

don't forget the beards themselves with their 6 figure salaries for providing invaluable service to the nation

kippy

Tipp Man wrote: »

Well the unions thought it was anyone earning over 100k, but failed to consider that a couple of teachers aged 35 are probably earning a good bit more than that

35 Year old teachers earning over 100K...............where are you getting that from?
If they are it isnt from teaching. Yeah they earn good money but nothing like that........

Riskymove

kippy wrote: »

35 Year old teachers earning over 100K...............where are you getting that from?
If they are it isnt from teaching. Yeah they earn good money but nothing like that........

he means if 2 teachers are a couple they could earn over €100k a year on aggregate

I have heard that said a few times when the €100k figure was bandied about but I dont see it myself. Tax is based on individualisation and I would have thought any call for a tax on earning over €100k would be based on an individual rather than household income?

BrownianMotion

Excaptain wrote: »

I'm not a DOB defender or anything like it, I'm just using him as an example. I fail to see how how is mobile phone licensing system and its failures falls at his feet? Who gave Eircel the license in the first place?
The second point is true. He used existing tax legislation to his advantage and why not? The laws are there for everyone, super rich or not. Let me ask you something. Have you ever claimed back medical/dental expenses or paid into a pension fund as a way to avoid paying tax? My point is if anyone in this country could change places with DOB they would without fail even if that meant avoiding paying tax.

There's a big difference between making use of intentional tax-breaks and declaring yourself resident in another country to avoid tax. Tax relief on pension payments is to encourage people to plan for their future, removing the duty of care from the State. I fail to see how that is comparable with DOB's situation.

There are also plenty of wealthy business people in this country who have the option to avoid tax as he has done, and yet choose not to. So your argument of sure everyone would do it if they could doesn't wash.

Though I do agree with your general point, Denis O'Brien aside!

Tipp Man

Riskymove wrote: »

he means if 2 teachers are a couple they could earn over €100k a year on aggregate

I have heard that said a few times when the €100k figure was bandied about but I dont see it myself. Tax is based on individualisation and I would have thought any call for a tax on earning over €100k would be based on an individual rather than household income?

Already we have a situation where a married person with 1 income of 100k is significantly worse off (about 8k) than 2 people on 50k

I fail to see how the 100k household is richer than the 2x50k household. Taking childcare into it they would be roughly the same so to take a figure of 100k it would have to be household income

Now you would imagine the person on 100k has more responsibilty than those on 50k so he is working harder for his money so again how is this household richer??

By the way it is about time they did away with individulisation, it had a time and place but that is gone

Guell72

Person on 100K pays how much tax?
Person on 25K pays how much tax?

The most stupid thread in history.
Some people (usually those who dont actually pay tax) just dont get that people earning more money actually pay more tax.

Tipp Man

Just to back up my 2 teachers earning over 100k comment

Say they graduate at 23 and start working (at point 3 on scale) they receive their annual increment on the pay scale so after 12 years teaching (age 35) they are at point 15

Now according to the pay scale a teacher on point 15 is earning €49,996 (after the pay cuts of last budget, it was well over it last year), so 2 times that is 100k

Now bare in mind that i have included NO allowances here, the couple could easily be on 110k after bonuses for Hdip, degree, masters etc

Thats how its done

Link: http://www.asti.ie/pay-and-conditions/pay/salary-scale/

Riskymove

Tipp Man wrote: »

Already we have a situation where a married person with 1 income of 100k is significantly worse off (about 8k) than 2 people on 50k


By the way it is about time they did away with individulisation, it had a time and place but that is gone

all I was saying is that when someone says "I think there should be a higher tax rate for people earning over €100k" that they mean an individual earning over €100k not a household

I am not arguing that it is correct

I also agree about individualisation

Barracudaincork

Tipp Man wrote: »

By the way it is about time they did away with individulisation, it had a time and place but that is gone

Just out of interest, what method of taxation do you suggest?

Tipp Man

Riskymove wrote: »

all I was saying is that when someone says "I think there should be a higher tax rate for people earning over €100k" that they mean an individual earning over €100k not a household

I am not arguing that it is correct

I also agree about individualisation

Sorry wasn't pointing that at you, was just trying to emphasise to people that just a household could be better off by 2 earning less

Riskymove

Barracudaincork wrote: »

Just out of interest, what method of taxation do you suggest?

well basically individualisation was introduced so that families with two people working would be better off tax wise than a family with one earner....with the aim of encouraging people out of the home and into jobs

In the present circumstances there is not much need for that and some sort of levelling the playing field may be in order

Tipp Man

Riskymove wrote: »

well basically individualisation was introduced so that families with two people working would be better off tax wise than a family with one earner....with the aim of encouraging people out of the home and into jobs

In the present circumstances there is not much need for that and some sort of levelling the playing field may be in order

Agreed, i think it was a fairly good idea at the time as we needed more workers in the work force and it was a good way of encouraging people into the workforce

Times have changed dramatically however so it needs revision (I'm single so has no effect on me). But a major stumbling block to changing it could be lost revenue which has been estimated at something like 700m on 2007 figures (surely a fair bit smaller now)

kippy

Tipp Man wrote: »

Just to back up my 2 teachers earning over 100k comment

Say they graduate at 23 and start working (at point 3 on scale) they receive their annual increment on the pay scale so after 12 years teaching (age 35) they are at point 15

Now according to the pay scale a teacher on point 15 is earning €49,996 (after the pay cuts of last budget, it was well over it last year), so 2 times that is 100k

Now bare in mind that i have included NO allowances here, the couple could easily be on 110k after bonuses for Hdip, degree, masters etc

Thats how its done

Link: http://www.asti.ie/pay-and-conditions/pay/salary-scale/

Sorry,
You are indeed correct. I missed the "couple" in your statement and took it as there are a couple (ie more than one) teacher in the country who are on over 100K a year.
There are of course couples of teachers whose combined incomes are in excess of 100K pa.

Sleepy

I'd also like to see the tax scenario not differentiate between married and un-married couples.

Guell72

I think most people who want the rich taxed more actually mean that they want anyone who earns more than them(with a bit of a margin so that they are ok if their income increases) to be taxed more.

Revenue would take more in if they taxed begrudgery.
People in Ireland are more concerned with making sure others who have more, get it taken away, than they are about working to better their own position.

Riskymove

Guell72 wrote: »

Revenue would take more in if they taxed begrudgery.

that would generate a sustainable Toger economy alright...that bubble would never burst!

Tipp Man

Guell72 wrote: »

I think most people who want the rich taxed more actually mean that they want anyone who earns more than them(with a bit of a margin so that they are ok if their income increases) to be taxed more.

Revenue would take more in if they taxed begrudgery.
People in Ireland are more concerned with making sure others who have more, get it taken away, than they are about working to better their own position.

Wow top post and spot on

MrsNY

Thanks to whoever put up that taxcalc link. I never knew that a PS worker on the same gross would take home so much less than me. I'm (obv) a private sector worker but havent really been all that interested in the public v private "debate" as I have friends and family members in the PS and never fancied a row over it.
Plus I dont believe that simply cutting PS pay is the answer to the countries problems.

it is clear that we need to reform our whole system of taxation but is taxing the "rich " really the way to go?
Wont they just take themselves and their money off to Switzerland or wherever the cool place is to go to avoud paying up?

P. Breathnach

MrsNY wrote: »

... it is clear that we need to reform our whole system of taxation but is taxing the "rich " really the way to go?
Wont they just take themselves and their money off to Switzerland or wherever the cool place is to go to avoud paying up?

Many of those who can do that have already done so, even with our present tax rates. But they are in and out of the country so often that you would hardly notice they are resident elsewhere.

The next tranche of rich people might be less mobile. I can't imagine people like hospital consultants and senior counsel (perhaps milking a tribunal) managing to maintain their incomes from a base in Monaco or Lichtenstein.

amen

There are of course couples of teachers whose combined incomes are in excess of 100K pa.

I wouldn't get hung up on that. I would be more concerned at the couple who are both civil servants (teachers, garda, AOs etc) and earning a join income of 100,000. Would be interesting to see how the split of second house owners between public/private sector workers, new car purchases etc.

As for an earlier comment about increased taxes driving out young business people that won;t happen. There are a small number of individuals who will create a business worth millions and will employ 10s of others.

Increasing tax on those on higher income is a good idea.

kippy

amen wrote: »

I wouldn't get hung up on that. I would be more concerned at the couple who are both civil servants (teachers, garda, AOs etc) and earning a join income of 100,000. Would be interesting to see how the split of second house owners between public/private sector workers, new car purchases etc.

As for an earlier comment about increased taxes driving out young business people that won;t happen. There are a small number of individuals who will create a business worth millions and will employ 10s of others.

Increasing tax on those on higher income is a good idea.

Okay.
The reason Public servants may have second homes, brand new cars, whatever is generally because they are seen as a decent risk by the bank......Its no like they arent paying taxes on these items anyway..........
I'd reckon that the split would be a lot different to what you would be expecting.

ei.sdraob

kippy wrote: »

Okay.
The reason Public servants may have second homes, brand new cars, whatever is generally because they are seen as a decent risk by the bank......Its no like they arent paying taxes on these items anyway..........
I'd reckon that the split would be a lot different to what you would be expecting.

ah come on now

we all know that "risk" played no factor in how money was handed out during the boom

picpress

MrsNY wrote: »

Thanks to whoever put up that taxcalc link. I never knew that a PS worker on the same gross would take home so much less than me. I'm (obv) a private sector worker but havent really been all that interested in the public v private "debate" as I have friends and family members in the PS and never fancied a row over it.
Plus I dont believe that simply cutting PS pay is the answer to the countries problems.

Thanks MRS NY for pointing that out. As the OP has said that people single on 35K are better off and should be taxed but one should consider that hitting PS workers at or below 35k would just not be fair considering the pain they have already suffered.

WalterMitty

picpress wrote: »

Thanks MRS NY for pointing that out. As the OP has said that people single on 35K are better off and should be taxed but one should consider that hitting PS workers at or below 35k would just not be fair considering the pain they have already suffered.

They are still far better off than private sector equivalent here and the person doing their job in most other EU countries.

Guell72

WalterMitty wrote: »

They are still far better off than private sector equivalent here and the person doing their job in most other EU countries.

How can you say that when you dont even know what their job is, or the rate that that job would pay in other countries?
Oh, and last I checked we live and work in Ireland, not some random EU country.
More random begrudgery. Boards stinks of it.

So what if someone makes more money than you. Get over it. Make career choices that will bring you up instead of trying to bring others down.

Begrudgery is an Irish sickness. Its worse than swine flu. Its pathetic. Listen to yourselves.

Tax begrudgery. Make an absolute fortune in Ireland. Probably 90% of the begrudgery tax take could be taken from a few members on boards.

A couple of the guys I work with were on a rant at lunch yesterday giving out about this and that. I had to laugh. 2 Guys on over 80K each with 25 days holidays, company car, 10 - 20% bonus, free VHI for them and their families, free company doctor, 10% salary paid into pension by company, 7 hour working day, meal allowance of €120 a month. and much more.
And they are giving out about others because they have been asked to take a pay cut of 5%. I told them to grow a pair and refuse the cut and call the company's bluff. If they are any good at their jobs they will get another easily. But it was easier for them to complain about others than deal with their own shortcomings.

WalterMitty

Guell72 wrote: »

How can you say that when you dont even know what their job is, or the rate that that job would pay in other countries?
Oh, and last I checked we live and work in Ireland, not some random EU country.
More random begrudgery. Boards stinks of it.

So what if someone makes more money than you. Get over it. Make career choices that will bring you up instead of trying to bring others down.

Begrudgery is an Irish sickness. Its worse than swine flu. Its pathetic. Listen to yourselves.

Tax begrudgery. Make an absolute fortune in Ireland. Probably 90% of the begrudgery tax take could be taken from a few members on boards.

A couple of the guys I work with were on a rant at lunch yesterday giving out about this and that. I had to laugh. 2 Guys on over 80K each with 25 days holidays, company car, 10 - 20% bonus, free VHI for them and their families, free company doctor, 10% salary paid into pension by company, 7 hour working day, meal allowance of €120 a month. and much more.
And they are giving out about others because they have been asked to take a pay cut of 5%. I told them to grow a pair and refuse the cut and call the company's bluff. If they are any good at their jobs they will get another easily. But it was easier for them to complain about others than deal with their own shortcomings.

Official stats from CSO and Eurostat prove my contention. Garda here gets much more than EU average as do most other public sector jobs. The public sector use their power to extort above market rates for their positions . It is relevant to compare us to other EU countries as we are in an moneatry union with many european countries and the more expensive our public sector are the higehr the burden on the wealth creating sector of economy and the less services that can be provided.
We spend more per capita on health than the excellent french system yet our system is much worse because SALARIES eat up all the resources. Get real, it's not begrudgery to want your taxes to be spent in an efficient and effective manner, and looking at Euro area i can see that aint happening. We are not a rich country and cannot afford to keep our public/semi sector workers among the best paid in Europe, its not fair on rest of society. These high public/semi public sector costs also drive up costs in rest of economy.

namenotavailablE

We spend more per capita on health than the excellent French system

You may have more recent statistics than I have but that statement seems to be incorrect according to the following (taken from the WHO database).The statistics refer to the data available for the timeframe 2005-2008.


Per capita expenditure on health at average exchange rate:

France $4,056
Ireland $3,888

Count Dooku

namenotavailabl wrote: »

You may have more recent statistics than I have but that statement seems to be incorrect according to the following (taken from the WHO database).The statistics refer to the data available for the timeframe 2005-2008.


Per capita expenditure on health at average exchange rate:

France $4,056
Ireland $3,888

Probably it should mean that we spend more on overpaid staff then France and much less spend on beds in hospitals.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/4223425/Britain-has-fewer-hospital-beds-than-Lithuania-and-Hungary.html

The number of hospital beds per 100,000 inhabitants

Germany 829.1
Czech Republic 817.0
Lithuania 801.0
Hungary 792.1
Austria 770.9
Latvia 755.4
France 707.5
Finland 695.6
Belgium 672.3
Slovakia 671.4
Romania 658.6
Poland 647.5
Bulgaria 621.4
Luxembourg 569.4
Estonia 565.3
Switzerland 555.6
Croatia 545.0
Ireland 524.7
Slovenia 477.5
Greece 473.8
Macedonia 463.1

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Guell72

WalterMitty wrote: »

Official stats from CSO and Eurostat prove my contention. Garda here gets much more than EU average as do most other public sector jobs. The public sector use their power to extort above market rates for their positions . It is relevant to compare us to other EU countries as we are in an moneatry union with many european countries and the more expensive our public sector are the higehr the burden on the wealth creating sector of economy and the less services that can be provided.
We spend more per capita on health than the excellent french system yet our system is much worse because SALARIES eat up all the resources. Get real, it's not begrudgery to want your taxes to be spent in an efficient and effective manner, and looking at Euro area i can see that aint happening. We are not a rich country and cannot afford to keep our public/semi sector workers among the best paid in Europe, its not fair on rest of society. These high public/semi public sector costs also drive up costs in rest of economy.

Wow.
Imagine how much revenue would earn of you if there were a begrudger tax.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

ei.sdraob

Guell72 wrote: »

Wow.
Imagine how much revenue would earn of you if there were a begrudger tax.

imagine how much more money we have if whats already collected is spend wiser?

irishh_bob

Guell72 wrote: »

Wow.
Imagine how much revenue would earn of you if there were a begrudger tax.

or how large a source of revenue you would be if thier was a tax on naff comments

amen

Now, now. We Irish are fortunate to have the best medical consultants that Sudan can provide.

thats a great point.

Drop the salary of consultans by 30%. If the Irish consultants want to leave to go else where let them. Let the non national doctors stay and take the jobs(yes I realise we would be taking them from poorer third world countries)

Out of interest does anyone know how many NCHD are non national and how many consultants are non national?