How It Effects Three Different Income Earners

PeakOutput

Ellian wrote: »

I wouldn't go so far as to say "yay communism", but I've always been a big believer in the John Rawls Veil of Ignorance theory when it comes to taxation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veil_of_ignorance

Basically, if you feel that if the deck were re-shuffled and you had no idea if you were going to stack near the top or the bottom, would you consider any level to be fair? It's obviously got a hint of the utopian about it, but it's a nice ideal to aspire to. For me anyway.

there is one problem with the theory and that is it dosnt account for personal motivation and ambition it dosnt matter were in the deck you end up if you have the motivation and ambition you can move up. alot of people couldnt be arsed and so they stay at the bottom of the deck and expect the rest to subsidise them, sad really

Bruthal

PeakOutput wrote: »

one of my fathers friends (an it manager) was just saying the other day that there are 90K unfilled it jobs in this country and they just cant find quality people to fill them. ill have to ask him for his reference next time i see him

there are jobs out there if you ahve the skills and are willing to work for less then you were on before

Well why are we not hearing about these 90,000 jobs then, is it a secret society they are in? I mean you had to be told by your fathers friend.

PeakOutput

robbie7730 wrote: »

Well why are we not hearing about these 90,000 jobs then, is it a secret society they are in? I mean you had to be told by your fathers friend.

here is a good place to start

jobs.ie

Bruthal

PeakOutput wrote: »

here is a good place to start

jobs.ie

O great, irelands problems over, what were they all going on about.

PeakOutput

robbie7730 wrote: »

O great, irelands problems over, what were they all going on about.

people have lost there jobs

there are more unemployed then jobs

it is not true that there are no jobs thats all i was saying, change industry / work for less and apply everywhere and you have a fairly good chance of finding work somewhere. even if its for minimum wage and you were working for 100k 3 years ago its better then leeching off the dole

these are the things that people who have been on the dole for a year to 18 months need to be doing

Bruthal

PeakOutput wrote: »

people have lost there jobs

there are more unemployed then jobs

it is not true that there are no jobs thats all i was saying, change industry / work for less and apply everywhere and you have a fairly good chance of finding work somewhere. even if its for minimum wage and you were working for 100k 3 years ago its better then leeching off the dole

these are the things that people who have been on the dole for a year to 18 months need to be doing

Yes i take what you and others are saying, but its very tough times for a lot in ireland now, and people going on about how hard they worked for their large salaries, as if no one else works hard except them. And there are plenty of people on the dole that are not leeching off it. Its so easy for some people to look down on others, and thats the way ireland is in general anyway. If there were only leechers on it then the dole numbers would not really increase would they? The numbers increase because jobs are gone.

PeakOutput

robbie7730 wrote: »

Yes i take what you and others are saying, but its very tough times for a lot in ireland now, and people going on about how hard they worked for their large salaries, as if no one else works hard except them. And there are plenty of people on the dole that are not leeching off it. Its so easy for some people to look down on others, and thats the way ireland is in general anyway. If there were only leechers on it then the dole numbers would not really increase would they? The numbers increase because jobs are gone.

this has been done to death

no1 has said everyone on the dole is a leecher, long term unemployed are leechers

being long term unemployed on the dole should not be an option

sure your man in this thread is complaining that the dole is going to be reduced by 14% over 4 years and he is going to have to take that cut. it shouldnt be in his plan to be on the dole in 4 months not to mind 4 years its ridicolous.

peoples sense of entitlement is really starting to annoy me. why should someone who is working be taxed until they have the same disposable income as someone who is not working? and i know you didnt suggest that robbie but the other lad did and the fact that even one person in this country believes that is an absolute joke

Bruthal

PeakOutput wrote: »

this has been done to death

no1 has said everyone on the dole is a leecher, long term unemployed are leechers

being long term unemployed on the dole should not be an option

sure your man in this thread is complaining that the dole is going to be reduced by 14% over 4 years and he is going to have to take that cut. it shouldnt be in his plan to be on the dole in 4 months not to mind 4 years its ridicolous.

peoples sense of entitlement is really starting to annoy me. why should someone who is working be taxed until they have the same disposable income as someone who is not working? and i know you didnt suggest that robbie but the other lad did and the fact that even one person in this country believes that is an absolute joke

Yea i agree there somewhat anyway.

Kristopherus

robbie7730 wrote: »

I hinted at it in post #78 i think it was.

So in effect the minimum wage earners are losing €39 a week just from their hourly rate. That does sound to me to be brutal, im not on it myself, but i can still see how that would be a non incentive to work. And that is a huge amount out of a disposable income, which does not really exist on the minmum wage anyway after bills etc.

The reduced rate is for new entrants to the workforce. People currently on it will not be reduced, so are not taking the €39 hit. The newcomers will not be taking a hit either as they will be new.

Capt'n Midnight

jjmcclure wrote: »

Its a Loreal thing, "Because we are worth it".

I have paid over €75k in tax this year. More than my fair share. That’s 75 months of dole money for someone!!!

What did I get for my €75k. Not much:
Roads - No that’s my €1600 road tax
Health Care - No that’s my private insurance
Schools - Well kind of but there’s money handed over there also.

If me and all the other "High Earners" left tomorrow the country is finished!!

In the UK you'd most likely be paying 50% on a good on a good bit of your wages.

http://listentotaxman.com/index.php - please let us know the difference between here and the UK

I doubt it would be a huge % and there are the costs of moving and the problem of getting the same income over there

Capt'n Midnight

cson wrote: »

The pound of flesh mentality is astounding from certain elements. You do know and understand that if you initiate an effective tax rate of the 60% proposed in this thread, the vast majority of earners liable for that threshold will leave? i.e. 60% of nothing is nothing.

Where will they move to , other countries are also putting up income tax

it's only 60% of the last euro not the first one and it was worse back in 1979
also you can offset against pension and mortgage to a certain extent

but overall the % drop in disposable income for low income families is much greater than for more affluent ones

Tipp Man

I bloody hate the term progressive tax system, its a pile of crap and leads to debates like this, I'm paying too much tax, no your not paying enough tax blah blah blah

A flat rate tax would elimate all this nonsense. Elimate all credits and everybody pay exactly the same rate of tax from 1 Euro income to whatever. Everybody pays the same percentage so no more arguing about hitting high earners, low earners and everybody in between

You also dramatically reduce the disincentive to work, currently a huge amount of factory workers (as an example) who earn close to the standard rate cut off won't do overtime as when they look at their payslip half their overtime is gone as they hit the higher rate. A flat rate on all income rewards those who work harder and improve there employment opportunities

And the administration of this system is so much easier to manage, for everybody, revenue, employers and most of all taxpayers. Taxpayers know exactly how much a pay increase or promotion will lead to an increase in their back pockets

Whats even more amazing is that if every single earner in the country paid a flat tax on all income it has been suggested that a rate of about 25% would cover our current tax take

I always here people who want to tax the "rich" talk about equality and how badly off they are, well if you want equality this is far and away the fairest way to tax people - after all we are all equal aren't we

Padkir

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

it was worse back in 1979

But back in 1979 it didn't work, so what makes you think it will work now?

Capt'n Midnight

Padkir wrote: »

But back in 1979 it didn't work, so what makes you think it will work now?

Not quite sure what you think didn't work.

People didn't leave the country because of tax, they left because they could not get jobs


People only revolted because the farmers had just got a reprieve on a 2% tax, there still isn't that level of anger at other tax payers now.

Tipp Man

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Not quite sure what you think didn't work.

People didn't leave the country because of tax, they left because they could not get jobs


People only revolted because the farmers had just got a reprieve on a 2% tax, there still isn't that level of anger at other tax payers now.

Its not just people leaving the country - that phrase is bandied about to much. Although a certain proportion of well off people will leave (or not come at all)

Its to do with the fact that the CAPITAL will leave the country. People will not invest in Irish companies, they will not take risks and they will be completly discouraged from. There will be no incentive to generate wealth in this country - whats the point in going to the risk and hassle (and it is a lot of hassle) of starting a business, expanding a business or working hard to get yourself up the corporate ladder when you will spend more than half the year working for the government in the form of tax - with nothing only abuse hurled your way to pay more

Can you not see that extremely high tax rates are a complete disincentive to work or to take risk? Why would you bother??

As i said above flat tax - everybody pays the same rate - and its a great INCENTIVE to work harder and progress yourself

johnnyskeleton

robbie7730 wrote: »

Yea but when the businessman`s productive investments go badly wrong maybe the "layabout" minimum wage earner will bail him/them out.

No. First of all I don't believe in any of these bailouts and am against them. The two things are not connected.

Second, the "layabout" I refer to is not a minimum wage earner but someone on the dole, hence the reference to 10k p.a. as opposed to 15k.

Third, the level of tax payable by a minimum wage earner, even under the new changes to the tax system, fall far short of the cost of the bailout. The tax that they will pay (and bear in mind that minimum wage earners have been able to work tax free for the last 4-5 years) doesn't even cover the benefits they get by way of schools and hospitals etc. Also, if they have children, they will be net beneficiaries rather than net taxpayers, in that they will get more free money from the government than they will pay to it.

Bruthal

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

No. First of all I don't believe in any of these bailouts and am against them. The two things are not connected.

Second, the "layabout" I refer to is not a minimum wage earner but someone on the dole, hence the reference to 10k p.a. as opposed to 15k.

Third, the level of tax payable by a minimum wage earner, even under the new changes to the tax system, fall far short of the cost of the bailout. The tax that they will pay (and bear in mind that minimum wage earners have been able to work tax free for the last 4-5 years) doesn't even cover the benefits they get by way of schools and hospitals etc. Also, if they have children, they will be net beneficiaries rather than net taxpayers, in that they will get more free money from the government than they will pay to it.

Well i was actually saying the low earners will be hit hardest. Plenty on this dont seem to think so. No point goin on about percentages etc, and saying whats connected and whats not. The abyss here we come.

JamesBond2010

can i just Say it is all the "Rich"certain ones that have the country ****ed with their corruption ur dont see many corrupt min wage workers do U. it is 50/50 on the working hard some have while others are just lazy beeps.
bye

Anan

I just got this in my inbox....

Suppose that every evening, 10 men go out for beer and the bill for
all ten comes to £100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our
taxes, it would go something like this :-

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay £1.
The sixth would pay £3.
The seventh would pay £7.
The eighth would pay £12.
The ninth would pay £18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay £59.

So, that's what they decided to do....... The 10 men drank in the bar
every evening and were quite happy with the arrangement, until one
day, the owner said, "Since you are all such good customers, I'm
going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by £20".

Drinks for the 10 men would now cost just £80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So
the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free.
But what about the other six men? The paying customers? How could
they divide the £20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair
share? They realised that £20 divided by six is £3.33. But if they
subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the
sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.

So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each
man's bill by a higher percentage the poorer he was, to follow the
principle of the tax system they had been using, and he proceeded to
work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.

Therefore, the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing.
The sixth now paid £2 instead of £3 (33% saving).
The seventh now paid £5 instead of £7 (28% saving).
The eighth now paid £9 instead of £12 (25% saving).
The ninth now paid £14 instead of £18 (22% saving).
The tenth now paid £49 instead of £59 (16% saving).



Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four
continued to drink for free. But, once outside the bar, the men began
to compare their savings.

"I only got a pound out of the £20 saving," declared the sixth man.
He pointed to the tenth man, "but he got £10!"
"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a pound
too. It's unfair - he got 10 times more benefit than me!"
"That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get £10 back,
when I got only £2? The wealthy always win!"
"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison, "we didn't get
anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!"

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine
sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay
the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have
enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists, labour unions and government
ministers, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest
taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax
them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not
show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where
the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.



For those who understand, no explanation is needed.
For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.

---

JamesBond2010

Corrupt rich bankers screwed up the country anyway it is all their fault!!!! so they should pay back what they conned off people and companies