Tax Donkey - Do you qualify

jjmcclure

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Why are you spelling out your tangible benefits received?

The Irish tax model is based on ability to pay, not tangible benefits received.

If you ever thought it was otherwise, then sorry but you're mistaken.

Why? Because the operations of the state bestow more intangible benefits than tangible benefits, and they generally accrue to a greater extent to those with assets.

Ability to pay is based on the aggregate benefits received including those intangible benefits you haven't mentioned.

It is the best paid individuals in society who tend to need access to human labour to enlarge their fortunes, they often need this labour to have received an education, they need reasonable corporate taxation, they need whole institutional structures who mainly exist to preserve monetary stability, such as the ECB, they need the machinery of state whose implementation of law and order protects the resources of asset owners.

Do we know life quality is roughly proportional to income in this country? Yes we do. How will we know when it ceases? When people with positive expectations start aspiring to slum life and unemployment.

In actual fact the intangible benefits could be viewed as detracting from my quality of life. e.g. grossly overstaffed public service which provides little or no benefit to my life but costs me a fortune in tax. I consider the public service to be intangible for some of the time e.g. before 10am and after 4pm:) and of course for an hour and a half at lunch time, and tea breaks/smoke breaks or when they are on "training".:rolleyes:

Cody Pomeray

Yes it could definitely be more efficient, but I'd suggest your way of thinking is very prone to the availability heuristic in what you've just said.

This availability bias ignores the unseen, taken-for-granted structural infrastructure that accrues to those who own assets, and the disproportionate reliance of what we call "the rich" on society.

If anything, the poor are probably more reliant on private enterprise than the rich are.

As sympathetic as I am to the concerns of marginal rate taxpayers, the identity of society's donkey is open to challenge.

zielarz

Now I understand why nobody was protesting against all the recent income tax/levy increases. Small minority of about 200,000 people/households pays most of the income tax, according to the data from 2010.

http://www.revenue.ie/en/about/publications/statistical/2011/income-distribution-statistics.pdf

Cody Pomeray

zielarz wrote: »

Now I understand why nobody was protesting against all the recent income tax/levy increases.

Just to be clear, the income tax rates have not increased since the Celtic Tiger era. The lower rate has remained the same, and the higher rate of income tax has fallen from 42% to 41% (Budget 2007).

Certainly there were changes to things like tax bands, but while these are also designed to be progressive, you must remember these have been introducing the very low paid into the income tax net, so I'm not sure why the very low paid shouldn't be upset too.

As for the USC, well anyone earning over €195 a week pays that.

The last two budgets have been harder on the lowest paid than on the middle income earners.

srsly78

Just to be clear, the overall tax rate has gone up by a lot - mainly because of USC. So what if they didn't increase the tax rates, they added a whole new tax that can hit you for 10%!

Cody Pomeray

Of course, but people who argue Ireland's 'extraordinary progressivity' prefer to focus on income tax, ignoring tax on income for no good reason except it manipulates the figures.

zielarz

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Just to be clear, the income tax rates have not increased since the Celtic Tiger era. The lower rate has remained the same, and the higher rate of income tax has fallen from 42% to 41% (Budget 2007).

Certainly there were changes to things like tax bands, but while these are also designed to be progressive, you must remember these have been introducing the very low paid into the income tax net, so I'm not sure why the very low paid shouldn't be upset too.

As for the USC, well anyone earning over €195 a week pays that.

The last two budgets have been harder on the lowest paid than on the middle income earners.

I am not talking about 2007, I am talking about the last 3 budgets. Every budget was increasing the payroll taxes. Does it matter if something is called PRSI/levy/solidarity contribution etc. if it's calculated against your income? It's still tax on income.

No, it's not true that lowest paid have been hit the most. You saw the data, even in 2010 the middle/high earners where paying the most. We've have more progressive system now than 3 years ago so the burden was shifted even more towards high earners. I am not saying that lower paid shouldn't be upset, they should but most of the increases went on the people at the marginal tax rate. It's a minority and nobody fights for their rights. At the same time homeowners are hit with relatively small tax of ~400 euro/year and there are major protests. Why? Because there are many homeowners in this country.

antoobrien

zielarz wrote: »

I am not talking about 2007, I am talking about the last 3 budgets. Every budget was increasing the payroll taxes. Does it matter if something is called PRSI/levy/solidarity contribution etc. if it's calculated against your income? It's still tax on income.

Not true, the last one actually reduced it (though only for the lowest paid).

Cody Pomeray

zielarz wrote: »

I am not talking about 2007, I am talking about the last 3 budgets. Every budget was increasing the payroll taxes. Does it matter if something is called PRSI/levy/solidarity contribution etc. if it's calculated against your income? It's still tax on income.

Yes but that was my point.

You gave the Revenue statistics for distribution of income tax receipts across the income deciles.

My point is that income tax receipts are not reflective of other tax heads - PRSI and USC. These are also taxes on work, and although progressive, they have also been very hard on the lowest income deciles.

Not only that, but the lowest income deciles have also been hit by increases in VAT, excises, the household charge, property tax, sewage tank levy and will be similarly worst affected by the Water Charges. Every one of these taxes and charges are regressive under the Irish version.

antoobrien

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

My point is that income tax receipts are not reflective of other tax heads - PRSI and USC.

USC is included in the "income tax" heading in the government accounts and PRSI is now called out as a line item in the analytical exchequer statements (something they only started doing recently). The total taxes on income were approx €22bn for 2012.

View

zielarz wrote: »

I am not talking about 2007, I am talking about the last 3 budgets. Every budget was increasing the payroll taxes. Does it matter if something is called PRSI/levy/solidarity contribution etc. if it's calculated against your income?

Apparently it does to the electorate as promises not to increase incomes taxes tend to attract votes whereas increased charges and/or levies does not tend to lose votes.

Cody Pomeray

antoobrien wrote: »

USC is included in the "income tax" heading in the government accounts and PRSI is now called out as a line item in the analytical exchequer statements (something they only started doing recently). The total taxes on income were approx €22bn for 2012.

Yes but what's that got to do with the Revenue Statistics publication on income tax alone?

Read the last few posts - that is what is being responded to.

antoobrien

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Yes but what's that got to do with the Revenue Statistics publication on income tax alone?

Who do you think that the government get their stats from? Revenue & DSP.

The stats are there, if you want to look for them properly, instead of whining because social insurance (which is not classed as a tax because it grants entitlements certain services, that one does not get from being taxed) is not reported on by a department that doesn't collect it.

Cody Pomeray

antoobrien wrote: »

Who do you think that the government get their stats from? Revenue & DSP.

What?

Seriously man, read the thread.

This is the report that is being commented upon.
http://www.revenue.ie/en/about/publications/statistical/2011/income-distribution-statistics.pdf

antoobrien

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

What?

Seriously man, read the thread.

This is the report that is being commented upon.
http://www.revenue.ie/en/about/publications/statistical/2011/income-distribution-statistics.pdf

Yeah USC is included in that (but not itemised) and revenue do not collect PRSI, so why are you complaining about revenue not having statistics for something that they are not responsible for?

Cody Pomeray

antoobrien wrote: »

Yeah USC is included in that

USC is not included in the linked Revenue Tables on income tax.

antoobrien

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

USC is not included in the linked Revenue Tables on income tax.

Those figures are for income in 2010, USC started in 2011.

Oppsie for cody, complaining about not reporting things that didn't exist yet.

Cody Pomeray

antoobrien wrote: »

Those figures are for income in 2010, USC started in 2011.

Oppsie for cody, complaining about not reporting things that didn't exist yet.

Listen, you've obviously made a mistake here. you said "Yeah USC is included in that (but not itemised)" when I provided the link.

I'm not complaining about the USC not being included in those tables - i never suggested they were to begin with. I told the poster that he should not use those tables as being reflective of all tax heads. Seriously anto - read the thread.

antoobrien

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

I told the poster that he should not use those tables as being reflective of all tax heads. Seriously anto - read the thread.

I'll quote you again

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

My point is that income tax receipts are not reflective of other tax heads - PRSI and USC.

Income tax receipts as reported by the government include USC. Go read an exchequer statement, revenue don't have the full picture for various reasons.

If you want to defend your statement you should amend it to "the revenue figures" don't include USC (which the ones referred to can not possibly refer to) and PRSI, which revenue are not responsible for and should not be reporting on.

Cody Pomeray

antoobrien wrote: »

Income tax receipts as reported by the government include USC. Go read an exchequer statement.

Of course. But since there was an exchange based on zielarz's revenue link taking place when you waded in here, that was obviously what the ongoing reference was to.

Why did you say "Yeah USC is included in that (but not itemised) " after I had showed you the link?

antoobrien

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Of course. But since there was an exchange based on zielarz's revenue link taking place when you waded in here, that was obviously what the ongoing reference was to.

Your reference is still inaccurate, income tax receipts from 2011 include USC, you made no mention of the report and I specifically said that the government (not revenue) report USC as part of tax. There was some complaints at the time about the inability to compare like with like between 2010 & 2011 statements as one group had a 7% USC charge and the other had a 2% income levy.

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Why did you say "Yeah USC is included in that (but not itemised) " after I had showed you the link?

Because I thought (mistakenly) that they had published the tax figures for 2011 (the file name is misleading) instead of 2010 (which I read quite a while ago), forgetting that historically they aren't available until the October 1 year after the tax returns were finalised (i.e. in another 6 months or so) and knowing that USC has been reported as part of income tax since its inception.

Cody Pomeray

antoobrien wrote: »

Your reference is still inaccurate, income tax receipts from 2011 include USC, you made no mention of the report

Actually, I did.

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Y
You gave the Revenue statistics for distribution of income tax receipts across the income deciles.

My point is that income tax receipts are not reflective of other tax heads - PRSI and USC.

In that context, income tax receipts clearly refers to the revenue link I had just mentioned. Only a total idiot would think i had moved onto a point about exchequer statements, they not having a monopoly over the term income tax receipts which just refer to income tax in the above context.

I have a day off until 3pm. I can happily continue to go over your mistake at length but I think this is getting tedious.

Maura74

Madd Finn wrote: »

Biggest Tax Donkeys, in terms of the percentage of their income goes in tax, would be somebody matching the following description.

Single
Does not benefit from married person's tax credit or children's allowance.

Lives in private rented accommodation
Not wealthy enough to own own gaff and benefit from mortgage relief; not poor enough, or unfortunate enough (drug dependent, single parent, asylum seeker) or old enough (long waiting list) for council housing.

Smokes cigarettes, enjoys the occasional pint and drives a car. Most of the cost of these items in Ireland, assuming they are legitimately bought, is tax.

No private pension plan.
Big tax relief on these (as there should be). Typically not owned by the very young or the lower paid.

Leona Helmsley was right. Only little people get hurt by taxes. The wealthier you are, the more you can offset, perfectly legitimately, against other expenses.

Well, it is getting more and more like the UK everyday, their strategic is to get the ones at the bottom to turn on each other.

UK did not build much social housing for the last 30 years and now council houses have so much restriction put on them with millions on the waiting list, god knows what its going to be like when the door opens to the new EU counties next January.

Basically anyone that is not a millionaire just the most of the government should not be on this planet. :mad::mad:

SeanW

newmug wrote: »

Feckin feck sake! A neighbour of mine bought a donkey last week because diesel is too dear. When I read the thread title, I thought it was about actually taxing donkeys!

Don't give the ****ers ideas.