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

Time to Tax the Rich

Options
2456

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    ZYX
    Registered Users Posts: 882 ✭✭✭ZYX


    Riskymove wrote: »
    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!

    No one is talking about mortgages and no allowance covers the gap.

    I fully appreciate that it is very hard to take personal circumstances into account. A simple increase in basic rate of tax would seem to be the fairest way. It affects everyone. The thing is when people come on here and say ridiculous things like "tax everyone over 100k at 60%" or other such nonsense why don't the same people who are complaining about this thread complain about that.


  • Options
    #33
    Riskymove
    Registered Users Posts: 10,888 ✭✭✭✭Riskymove


    ZYX wrote: »
    I fully appreciate that it is very hard to take personal circumstances into account. A simple increase in basic rate of tax would seem to be the fairest way. It affects everyone.

    but the guy on €100k would pay more then too
    The thing is when people come on here and say ridiculous things like "tax everyone over 100k at 60%" or other such nonsense why don't the same people who are complaining about this thread complain about that.

    well obviously on one level, as you suggest, there would be more people on boards earning around €35k or less than there are over €100k

    on another level, what you originally suggested, a kind of system to tax people based on disposable income is pretty outlandish; far more so than any suggestion to introduce a higher tax rate for high earners
    A simple increase in basic rate of tax would seem to be the fairest way

    actually there is a growing body of work about "optimal tax" which advocates one single tax rate without any allowances for everyone as being "fair"


  • Options
    #34
    Excaptain
    Closed Accounts Posts: 86 ✭✭Excaptain


    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. I have read post #14 about 5 times and unless I'm thick I miss the point completely.


  • Options
    #35
    ZYX
    Registered Users Posts: 882 ✭✭✭ZYX


    Riskymove wrote: »

    but the guy on €100k would pay more then too

    but it would be fairer.

    Riskymove wrote: »
    well obviously on one level, as you suggest, there would be more people on boards earning around €35k or less than there are over €100k

    on another level, what you originally suggested, a kind of system to tax people based on disposable income is pretty outlandish; far more so than any suggestion to introduce a higher tax rate for high earners


    I never said tax disposable income. I said if we want to tax the rich we need to decide who is rich.


  • Options
    #36
    ei.sdraob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob


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

    that wasnt the intent, was pointing out an obvious flaw in this plan ;)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    Riskymove
    Registered Users Posts: 10,888 ✭✭✭✭Riskymove


    I never said tax disposable income
    ZYX wrote: »
    Lets tax those with most disposable income.

    ahem?
    ei.sdraob: that wasnt the intent, was pointing out an obvious flaw in this plan

    I think we can all see what your intent was


  • Options
    #38
    ZYX
    Registered Users Posts: 882 ✭✭✭ZYX


    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    that wasnt the intent, was pointing out an obvious flaw in this plan ;)

    The problem was caused mainly by Charlie McCreevy in one budget ie individualisation of tax system. It could easily be changed and may well reduce the current unemployment rate.


  • Options
    #39
    Tipp Man
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,025 ✭✭✭Tipp Man


    Isn't it obvious to everyone that we need to broaden the tax take and actually have more people contributing a sustainable amount??

    Far too many people in this country not paying tax at all, its take take take for too many


  • Options
    #40
    ZYX
    Registered Users Posts: 882 ✭✭✭ZYX


    Riskymove wrote: »
    ahem?


    But you don't tax the disposable income. You change the allowances that people seem to think exist. There are minimal allowances so increase these. As I said scrap individualisation of tax system.


  • Options
    #41
    Barracudaincork
    Closed Accounts Posts: 773 ✭✭✭Barracudaincork


    Was the link to Taxcalc meant to be the answer? If so i used that link and a family earning 70K gets an annual tax home pay of €50,488 and a family earning 120K gets €75,339. Why is the family earning 70K better off?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    kippy
    Registered Users Posts: 18,601 ✭✭✭✭kippy


    Barracudaincork wrote: »
    Was the link to Taxcalc meant to be the answer? If so i used that link and a family earning 70K gets an annual tax home pay of €50,488 and a family earning 120K gets €75,339. Why is the family earning 70K better off?
    They are not.........they are taking home 25K less.........


  • Options
    #43
    Riskymove
    Registered Users Posts: 10,888 ✭✭✭✭Riskymove


    ZYX wrote: »
    As I said scrap individualisation of tax system.

    that is not magically going to sort out the problems with our tax take/ tax base

    what benefit exactly do you see from that?


  • Options
    #44
    Barracudaincork
    Closed Accounts Posts: 773 ✭✭✭Barracudaincork


    kippy wrote: »
    They are not.........they are taking home 25K less.........


    I know but ZYX said that the person earning 70K is better off and for the life of me, i cant work out why!


  • Options
    #45
    Excaptain
    Closed Accounts Posts: 86 ✭✭Excaptain


    Tipp Man wrote: »
    Isn't it obvious to everyone that we need to broaden the tax take and actually have more people contributing a sustainable amount??

    Far too many people in this country not paying tax at all, its take take take for too many

    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.


  • Options
    #46
    ZYX
    Registered Users Posts: 882 ✭✭✭ZYX


    Barracudaincork wrote: »
    Was the link to Taxcalc meant to be the answer? If so i used that link and a family earning 70K gets an annual tax home pay of €50,488 and a family earning 120K gets €75,339. Why is the family earning 70K better off?

    Yes, sorry I got confused with my public and private incomes. Sorry about that.

    Yes the couple earning €35000 each would take home €56849 and the couple earning €120,000 from one worker would take home €75,339 a difference of €18500.(despite earning 50K more)

    Sorry.


  • Options
    #47
    P. Breathnach
    Registered Users Posts: 12,089 ✭✭✭✭P. Breathnach


    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.


  • Options
    #48
    Barracudaincork
    Closed Accounts Posts: 773 ✭✭✭Barracudaincork


    ZYX wrote: »
    Yes, sorry I got confused with my public and private incomes. Sorry about that.

    Yes the couple earning €35000 each would take home €56849 and the couple earning €120,000 from one worker would take home €75,339 a difference of €18500.(despite earning 50K more)

    Sorry.

    But you said the family earning 70K earns more, they dont by your calculation here again, they earn 18,500 less. And why arent you comparing like with like, ie both families either have two or one incomes?


  • Options
    #49
    Riskymove
    Registered Users Posts: 10,888 ✭✭✭✭Riskymove


    Barracudaincork wrote: »
    But you said the family earning 70K earns more, they dont by your calculation here again, they earn 18,500 less. And why arent you comparing like with like, ie both families either have two or one incomes?

    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


  • Options
    #50
    ei.sdraob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob


    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?


  • Options
    #51
    ZYX
    Registered Users Posts: 882 ✭✭✭ZYX


    Barracudaincork wrote: »
    But you said the family earning 70K earns more, they dont by your calculation here again, they earn 18,500 less.

    I know that is why I said sorry. 3 times. Sorry again.
    Barracudaincork wrote: »
    And why arent you comparing like with like, ie both families either have two or one incomes?

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


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    Barracudaincork
    Closed Accounts Posts: 773 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #53
    ZYX
    Registered Users Posts: 882 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #54
    Barracudaincork
    Closed Accounts Posts: 773 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #55
    ZYX
    Registered Users Posts: 882 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #56
    hmmm
    Registered Users Posts: 11,205 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #57
    ei.sdraob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭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

    .


  • Options
    #58
    johnnyskeleton
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 14,508 Mod ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #59
    hmmm
    Registered Users Posts: 11,205 ✭✭✭✭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..


  • Options
    #60
    ZYX
    Registered Users Posts: 882 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    ZYX
    Registered Users Posts: 882 ✭✭✭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.


Advertisement