Is different tax brackets a good idea?

Chuck Stone · 10-01-2012 3:48pm

smash wrote: »

No you wouldn't. New PPS cards could be issued and voucher credits added every week. These cards could then be used like debit cards in shops. Easy to tell a till not to accept it if there's alcohol or tobacco being purchased.

First of all it's a patently stupid idea trying to micro-manage the behaviour of people on welfare but I'll play this stupid game for amusement.

Firstly what about law-abiding citizens who have a few cans of beer on a Saturday night? Should they be stopped from doing this? How would you propose to stop this with out this stupid game turning into a complex police-state fantasy?

On top of this what's to stop an alcoholic or drug addict from going into the shop and doing say €80 worth of shopping and then coming out and swapping it for drugs or drink worth a lot less? NOTHING. Do you see how patently stupid this idea is?

smash wrote: »

It's all relative, and someone on 60k (which lets face it isn't a massive wage) will have higher outgoings than someone on a low wage.

They will have higher outgoings only if they choose to. An arse can only sit on one seat.

Paying VAT on goods and services hits people on middle and lower incomes far more than those on higher incomes.

smash · 10-01-2012 3:50pm

Benny_Cake wrote: »

What you are advocating is libertarianism. I don't agree with that, in fact I think it's borderline immoral, but it's a political position. So why aren't you advocating the abolition of social welfare altogether instead of dreaming up schemes to stop welfare recipients from buying certain things?

You see, what I've suggested means that those who are scrounging off the state will have their essentials covered and they'll have an incentive to go and work if they want the luxuries. What you're suggesting means that those who actually do contribute will pay more and have their luxuries reduced to cater for the scroungers.

The whole Sinn Fein attitude of taxing the rich sickens me, because they target the weak. They prey on uneducated people in lower class areas and suck them in instead of encouraging them to do something with their lives.

smash · 10-01-2012 3:58pm

Chuck Stone wrote: »

First of all it's a patently stupid idea trying to micro-manage the behaviour of people on welfare but I'll play this stupid game for amusement.

Nobody is saying you have to. It's fairly easy to issue credits instead of money.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Firstly what about law-abiding citizens who have a few cans of beer on a Saturday night? Should they be stopped from doing this? How would you propose to stop this with out this stupid game turning into a complex police-state fantasy?

Did I say stomp this out?

Chuck Stone wrote: »

On top of this what's to stop an alcoholic or drug addict from going into the shop and doing say €80 worth of shopping and then coming out and swapping it for drugs or drink worth a lot less? NOTHING. Do you see how patently stupid this idea is?

Who cares if they do? Really, the only thing patently stupid here is that you're making up silly scenarios in your head. It's a very simple idea to understand and requires no enforcement. A PPS card can always be used as a prepaid credit card and credit cards can have rules set at top level. It's all very very easy.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

They will have higher outgoings only if they choose to. An arse can only sit on one seat.

That is a really silly argument. Because lets face it, a lot of people have children and pay high childcare, and a lot of people have a mortgage that they can cover. But not if you start increasing the tax on what they earn. Meanwhile someone on low income gets a free house or rent allowance and free money.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Paying VAT on goods and services hits people on middle and lower incomes far more than those on higher incomes.

Point? Everyone pays the same amount of VAT... If they don't want to pay it they can shop in lidl.

Liam Byrne · 10-01-2012 3:58pm

smash wrote: »

Liam Byrne wrote: »

They don't need a large mortgage.

They already have them.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Anything up to 15 or 20K is required to get by (and will be spent, therefore feeding the economy and paying 23% VAT on that amount) whereas anything above that is optional spending and may never end up in the economy.

Talk about a communist view. I don't want to work my ass off to pay for sh*t for other people and fund the poor. I want to do it so I have enough money to live comfortably myself. Your attitude is that I shouldn't have that even though I'm working for it.

Where did I suggest that you have to "pay for sh*t for other people and fund the poor" ?

If you want to work harder to get more than you need, then that's up to you.

I'm just pointing out the fact that someone on lower wages has no choice but to spend everything, whereas those who earn more can choose to spend or not.

So 20% tax + 23% VAT (not to mention stealth taxes) amounts to approximately 40% tax.

juan.kerr · 10-01-2012 3:59pm

smash wrote: »

The whole Sinn Fein attitude of taxing the rich sickens me, because they target the weak. They prey on ....

Not to mention their other activities...

Liam Byrne · 10-01-2012 3:59pm

juan.kerr wrote: »

Liam Byrne wrote: »

They don't need a large mortgage.

The same argument could be used to justify removing rent allowance and providing these people with centralised accommodation similar to the accommodation centres used for asylum applicants.

Do they really need to be in private accommodation?

Agreed.

veryangryman · 10-01-2012 4:03pm

smash wrote: »

Not true, because a person on 60k is probably paying a large mortgage and not getting a hand from the government.

Is that YOU Padraig Flynn?

One chooses to take a Mortgage out - it is not a necessity. I say this as a mortgage holder.

smash · 10-01-2012 4:04pm

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Where did I suggest that you have to "pay for sh*t for other people and fund the poor" ?

If you want to work harder to get more than you need, then that's up to you.

And if you don't want to work hard then other people will pay for you. Get it?

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I'm just pointing out the fact that someone on lower wages has no choice but to spend everything, whereas those who earn more can choose to spend or not.

Spend everything? They can get a free house, medical card and other benefits. How do they have to spend everything?

Liam Byrne wrote: »

So 20% tax + 23% VAT (not to mention stealth taxes) amounts to approximately 40% tax.

So take 41% tax + 23% VAT (not to mention stealth taxes) and it amounts to approximately????? go work it out. The high earners already cover the cost for most of the government tax take.

veryangryman wrote: »

One chooses to take a Mortgage out - it is not a necessity. I say this as a mortgage holder.

So how would you feel if the government upped your tax and you couldn't afford it, fell in arrears, had it repossessed... while a guy down the road on the scratch gets a free house?

Liam Byrne · 10-01-2012 4:04pm

juan.kerr wrote: »

smash wrote: »

They already have them.

Talk about a communist view. I don't want to work my ass off to pay for sh*t for other people and fund the poor. I want to do it so I have enough money to live comfortably myself. Your attitude is that I shouldn't have that even though I'm working for it.

It's a generally the 'have nots' who have little to lose that advocate socialism/communism. (No offence Liam Byrne).

Rubbish. It's those of us who don't see money as the be-all and end-all that roll out eyes when people start talking about silly money and money they'll never need.

It wouldn't matter whether or not I had more - I'd still have the same view. I already have more than a lot of people and even though the recession has hit hard I can appreciate that fact.

If I was paid €100,000 a year in the morning for 10 years I would retire early and do community work.

But as I said, that's because money is a bartering tool, not something valuable in itself.

Liam Byrne · 10-01-2012 4:06pm

smash wrote: »

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Paying VAT on goods and services hits people on middle and lower incomes far more than those on higher incomes.

Point? Everyone pays the same amount of VAT... If they don't want to pay it they can shop in lidl.

Since when does LIDL not charge VAT ?

smash · 10-01-2012 4:07pm

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Since when does LIDL not charge VAT ?

Since they said they'll cover the extra 2% Or do you think that lower paid earners should pay no VAT at all?

Benny_Cake · 10-01-2012 4:10pm

smash wrote: »

Point? Everyone pays the same amount of VAT... If they don't want to pay it they can shop in lidl.

The point is that the lower paid pay a higher proportion of their income in the form of VAT. And I'm pretty sure you have to pay VAT on purchases in Lidl!

Liam Byrne · 10-01-2012 4:12pm

smash wrote: »

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Since when does LIDL not charge VAT ?

Since they said they'll cover the extra 2% Or do you think that lower paid earners should pay no VAT at all?

Ridiculous misrepresentation. The answer to that mischevious question is quite obviously no, although I do believe that basic essentials (bread, milk, heating and electricity) should be exempt from VAT.....but that would apply to everyone.

smash · 10-01-2012 4:12pm

Benny_Cake wrote: »

The point is that the lower paid pay a higher proportion of their income in the form of VAT.

Well there's at least one incentive for them to work harder

Benny_Cake wrote: »

And I'm pretty sure you have to pay VAT on purchases in Lidl!

Read the post above yours.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

The answer to that mischevious question is quite obviously no, although I do believe that basic essentials (bread, milk, heating and electricity) should be exempt from VAT

Right... So you want to give the lower paid even more free or cheaper stuff and you want the higher paid to have their income reduced even further and have to pay more for stuff.

I might as well give up work now, sounds like I'd be better off.

Chuck Stone · 10-01-2012 4:17pm

smash wrote: »

Nobody is saying you have to. It's fairly easy to issue credits instead of money.

In your fantasy world of micro-management of people is it? Lol.

Did I say stomp this out?

So how do you tell the difference between someone who drinks a couple of beers at the weekend and someone who drinks 4 nights a week? Where do you draw the line in this strange fantasy land you have such a hankering for? Who draws the line? You?

Who cares if they do?

Their children? Their families? Society? People with a sense of social justice?

Really, the only thing patently stupid here is that you're making up silly scenarios in your head.

You have your ridiculously stupid ideas put to the test and the person asking the questions is creating scenarios? Lol.

Tough **** if questions about your dystopia don't conform to your flaccid pontificating.

It's all very very easy.

In your mind obviously - seems to be the theme here. In the real world it is nothing short of a nightmare proposal.

That is a really silly argument. Because lets face it, a lot of people have children and pay high childcare, and a lot of people have a mortgage that they can cover. But not if you start increasing the tax on what they earn. Meanwhile someone on low income gets a free house or rent allowance and free money.

People in the middle get it in the neck. Nobody's arguing otherwise.

Everyone pays the same amount of VAT... If they don't want to pay it they can shop in lidl.

VAT is a flat tax so it has a proportionately greater impact on people on middle and lower incomes. Unless of course they live in a cave and wash their clothes in a river.

syklops · 10-01-2012 4:18pm

laugh wrote: »

Vouchers would become currency? really?

If you had a job would you swap cash for vouchers?

Why not have the person's pps number on their voucher and require that it must match a presented card for the shopkeeper to accept it?

Why not have a picture on the card?

Here in the Czech Republic we get luncheon vouchers. They are a tax free benefit given to employees. Employees pay for half of them, the company pays for the other half taxfree. It is meant to be only used for food, but there are a few shops that accept them for alcohol.

A mate of mine was in a strip club and the stripper asked if he wanted a lap dance, and he said he couldnt afford the price she asked for and she said "I also take luncheon vouchers", and he said "Really?" and she said "Of course! A stripper has to eat too you know".

You can make rules that the vouchers can't be used to pay for alcohol or tobacco, but in these hard times particularly, the struggling shop keeper is the one to decide whether to accept the voucher(which represents money to him) or reject it and say, "Sorry you cant use that voucher for Benson and Hedges and a naggin of Vodka". That's twenty euro that could be in his pocket or the pocket of someone less scrupulous.

They would become a currency. The Government could spend millions securing the system, with barcodes and pictures and smart cards, but there would still be ways around it.

Cool Mo D · 10-01-2012 4:21pm

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

There is because we will encourage more entrepeneurs and encourage more effort from employees which will add to the output of the economy making everyone's economic standard of living better. We'd need to look at some hard figures before we can come to conclusions of what would and wouldn't happen as there are too many interrelated varialbles.

Entrepreneurs don't pay income tax, they make money from the profits of their business. Therefore they will not benefit from a flat tax. To help entrepreneurs, we need to make it easy to start businesses, and reform our bankruptcy law to stop punishing those who try and create new businesses if they don't succeed. We need a culture where talented people are encouraged to try and start businesses, rather than take 'safe' professional positions.

Ironically, it is high paid workers in secure positions that aren't creating jobs, like doctors, accountants and middle managers, that would benefit the most from a flat tax. Now, these are all important jobs, but we have plenty of talented people joining these fields already, and what we need now are a generation of new start-up founders, to refresh our broken economy. Your argument for a flat tax is based on what you feel is right ideologically, not what is actually good for the country.

smash · 10-01-2012 4:24pm

Chuck Stone wrote: »

In your fantasy world of micro-management of people is it? Lol.

So how do you tell the difference between someone who drinks a couple of beers at the weekend and someone who drinks 4 nights a week? Where do you draw the line in this strange fantasy land you have such a hankering for? Who draws the line? You?

Facepalm Facepalm Facepalm... :rolleyes:

Really, do you not understand that rules can be set on a credit card on what can be purchased with it?

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Their children? Their families? Society? People with a sense of social justice?

So how will it be any different? I'd considering limiting their exposure a better option than not.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

In your mind obviously - seems to be the theme here. In the real world it is nothing short of a nightmare proposal.

No, in the real work assigning a rule to a credit card is very very simple.

syklops · 10-01-2012 4:28pm

Really, do you not understand that rules can be set on a credit card on what can be purchased with it?

I dont think that functionality currently exists. My corporate credit card can be used to buy anything, even though I am only allowed expense certain things. Do you know for a fact that that functionality exists? Or are you speculating? I suspect it would be difficult to implement.

No, in the real work assigning a rule to a credit card is very very simple.

I don't think it is. Think about the authorization process. The credit card machine contacts the bank, sends the authorization token and the amount to be authorized. The banks computer checks that that amount is available as funds for the card and based off of that says yes or know. The Credit Card terminal doesn't send the goods to the bank, just the amount.

To implement what you suggest, would involve upgrading the current system, including upgrading every credit card terminal in every shop, garage and restaurant through out the state. Not as easy as just clicking your fingers.

Galtee · 10-01-2012 4:31pm

smash wrote: »

Facepalm Facepalm Facepalm... :rolleyes:

Really, do you not understand that rules can be set on a credit card on what can be purchased with it?

So how will it be any different? I'd considering limiting their exposure a better option than not.

No, in the real work assigning a rule to a credit card is very very simple.

Rules on a credit card? And how exactly does that work?

Chuck Stone · 10-01-2012 4:34pm

smash wrote: »

Facepalm Facepalm Facepalm... :rolleyes:

The facepalm is on you. Bigtime.

The state attempting to micro-manage what people spend money on is a very stupid idea. They can't even prevent people from trading shit in high security prisons and you in your boundless naivety think it would be 'lol easy-peasy trust me' when applied to the 450,000 people currently unemployed?

Lol. Stupid idea is stupid.

smash · 10-01-2012 4:39pm

syklops wrote: »

I dont think that functionality currently exists. My corporate credit card can be used to buy anything, even though I am only allowed expense certain things. Do you know for a fact that that functionality exists? Or are you speculating? I suspect it would be difficult to implement.

Galtee wrote: »

Rules on a credit card? And how exactly does that work?

It's programming. The rules would be simple as long as the associated products had a rule assigned to the barcode too which could be implemented at shop level during a stock take or as new products come in.

Either way, the point of the whole argument is that if you're getting something for free from the state so you can feed and clothe your family then extra enforcement should be put in place to limit the abuse. That's the bottom line.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

The facepalm is on you. Bigtime.

The state attempting to micro-manage what people spend money on is a very stupid idea. They can't even prevent people from trading shit in high security prisons and you in your boundless naivety think it would be 'lol easy-peasy trust me' when applied to the 450,000 people currently unemployed?

Lol. Stupid idea is stupid.

Like I said, once you're on the dole over 3 years then you're on food stamps. That'll be incentive enough to sort yourself out.

Chuck Stone · 10-01-2012 4:48pm

smash wrote: »

Like I said, once you're on the dole over 3 years then you're on food stamps. That'll be incentive enough to sort yourself out.

Let's say there are 200,000 people still on the dole in 3 years time (highly likely I would say) and we actually manage to put together some fantastically complex system of surveillance...

umm.. na, forget it - I'm out.

The idea isn't really worth examining for merit.

syklops · 10-01-2012 4:49pm

smash wrote: »

It's programming. The rules would be simple as long as the associated products had a rule assigned to the barcode too which could be implemented at shop level during a stock take or as new products come in.

Its not just at shop level. The bank authorises the transaction. Currently it just authorises the amount. The work involved in matching every barcode to a particular 'type' of product, and then upgrading the banks computer system to be able to authorise individual transactions outweighs the benefits such a system would bring with it.

Toby Take a Bow · 10-01-2012 4:49pm

smash wrote: »

Spend everything? They can get a free house, medical card and other benefits. How do they have to spend everything?

People on lower incomes aren't necessarily entitled to these things. People with no income or incredibly low incomes might be entitled to these things.

smash wrote: »

Since they said they'll cover the extra 2% Or do you think that lower paid earners should pay no VAT at all?

Not passing on the 2% VAT increase (for now) doesn't actually mean you're not paying VAT in LIDL.

Facepalm indeed.

Benny_Cake · 10-01-2012 4:50pm

smash wrote: »

It's programming. The rules would be simple as long as the associated products had a rule assigned to the barcode too which could be implemented at shop level during a stock take or as new products come in.

Either way, the point of the whole argument is that if you're getting something for free from the state so you can feed and clothe your family then extra enforcement should be put in place to limit the abuse. That's the bottom line.

What you are talking about here is an IT project on a massive scale. Now I'm sure a lot of consultants and contractors would be more than happy to see something like this go ahead as there would be months if not years of work in it. But the cost to the taxpayer would be massive. And the only reason I can see for such a project is petty spite.

veryangryman · 10-01-2012 4:53pm

smash wrote: »

So how would you feel if the government upped your tax and you couldn't afford it, fell in arrears, had it repossessed... while a guy down the road on the scratch gets a free house?

This is already happening with the household charge and imminent water/property taxes with those on welfare getting council housing.

Personally i feel a sense of pride in being able to pay my bills. The same principle applies worldwide (progressive taxation). Would i rather have the cash? Of course. But you get nowhere in life crying to the government. Sort yourself out first.

smash · 10-01-2012 5:02pm

Toby Take a Bow wrote: »

Not passing on the 2% VAT increase (for now) doesn't actually mean you're not paying VAT in LIDL.

Facepalm indeed.

Which is why I said "Everyone pays the same amount of VAT... If they don't want to pay it they can shop in lidl."

veryangryman wrote: »

This is already happening with the household charge and imminent water/property taxes with those on welfare getting council housing.

Personally i feel a sense of pride in being able to pay my bills. The same principle applies worldwide (progressive taxation). Would i rather have the cash? Of course. But you get nowhere in life crying to the government. Sort yourself out first.

You didn't answer the question... "how would you feel if the government upped your tax and you couldn't afford it, fell in arrears, had it repossessed... while a guy down the road on the scratch gets a free house?"

veryangryman · 10-01-2012 5:03pm

smash wrote: »

Which is why I said "Everyone pays the same amount of VAT... If they don't want to pay it they can shop in lidl."

You didn't answer the question... "how would you feel if the government upped your tax and you couldn't afford it, fell in arrears, had it repossessed... while a guy down the road on the scratch gets a free house?"

Bad. Now your question is answered.

Going back to the current situation (where this has not happened to me or anyone i know), i refer back to my previous post

smash · 10-01-2012 5:21pm

veryangryman wrote: »

Going back to the current situation (where this has not happened to me or anyone i know), i refer back to my previous post

...

you get nowhere in life crying to the government. Sort yourself out first.

I agree, and it's what I'm doing. I don't live off the state, never have and never will.

Shanegggg · 10-01-2012 5:31pm

I think some people are missing the point.

Should the government be telling people what they can and can't do? No.
I think the point is that the dole/social welfare is meant for essential items and should be enforced in such a way. After all, the dole is optional, if you want to spend your own money on non essential items (not just alcohol and cigarettes), get a job and away you go.

Benny_Cake · 10-01-2012 5:31pm

smash wrote: »

I agree, and it's what I'm doing. I don't live off the state, never have and never will.

You won't accept social welfare if you lose your jobs? You'll refuse the state pension?

smash · 10-01-2012 5:40pm

Benny_Cake wrote: »

You won't accept social welfare if you lose your jobs? You'll refuse the state pension?

I'd work hard to get another job. And my contributions pay for my state pension too.

Chuck Stone · 10-01-2012 5:47pm

smash wrote: »

I don't live off the state

Everyone 'lives off the state' to one degree or another. You benefit from statutory policing, fire services, roads, sewers etc.

Also, the state has it's hand in making plenty of jobs worthwhile by creating laws that allow corporations to monopolize markets.

More people benefit from the state than first meets the eye.

RichieC · 10-01-2012 5:51pm

Hey smash, where will the higher earners go that there isnt a progressive tax system?

smash · 10-01-2012 5:57pm

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Everyone 'lives off the state' to one degree or another. You benefit from statutory policing, fire services, roads, sewers etc.

Also, the state has it's hand in making plenty of jobs worthwhile by creating laws that allow corporations to monopolize markets.

More people benefit from the state than first meets the eye.

Yea that's kind of taken as a given in any first world country.

RichieC wrote: »

Hey smash, where will the higher earners go that there isnt a progressive tax system?

People will go wherever they'll get least screwed.

Galtee · 10-01-2012 6:11pm

smash wrote: »

Yea that's kind of taken as a given in any first world country.

People will go wherever they'll get least screwed.

Unless they can't afford it and are hence easy prey.

Mark200 · 10-01-2012 6:31pm

juan.kerr wrote: »

Mark200 wrote: »

I think it's only fair that those who can afford to give more do give more.

I don't 'get' this point, naver have.

It may make sense in an ideal world but there are so many distortions and inequities in the the current system.

A system where claiming welfare (and the associated add ons - medical card, rent allowance etc) is more attractive than working has failed us (the taxpayer).

I don't see how taxing minimum wage workers at 30-40% would create an incentive to work.

Toby Take a Bow · 10-01-2012 7:38pm

smash wrote: »

Which is why I said "Everyone pays the same amount of VAT... If they don't want to pay it they can shop in lidl."

Ah. Your response was to someone asking 'since when did LIDL not charge VAT, so a little confusing there.

smash wrote: »

I agree, and it's what I'm doing. I don't live off the state, never have and never will.

You have lived off the state, you are living off the state and you will live off the state. Unless you live in a cave. I take it you were born in a hospital, have used a hospital at some point in your life, have an education (primary, secondary or third-level), have used public transport. All of these are subsidised by the state, so if you use them, you have lived off the state.

mossyc123 · 10-01-2012 7:52pm

smash wrote: »

Dramatically reduce dole and issue food stamps which can not be used for alcohol or tobacco products!

20 cigarettes give nearly €7 straight back to the exchequer through VAT and excise.

Im not sure about Alcohol but i's guess it's a fair few quid aswell per pint/can.

You probably couldn't of come up with a worse proposal for welfare reform in purely economic terms.

Shanegggg · 10-01-2012 10:00pm

mossyc123 wrote: »

20 cigarettes give nearly €7 straight back to the exchequer through VAT and excise.

Im not sure about Alcohol but i's guess it's a fair few quid aswell per pint/can.

You probably couldn't of come up with a worse proposal for welfare reform in purely economic terms.

If they weren't able to buy non essential items such as cigarettes, they actually save the full 9 euro or what ever it is for a packet these days!

Yes they'd be getting some of the money back but they're be losing 2 euro per packet sold in your case!

Is different tax brackets a good idea?

Comments