Tax system fair?

awec

hooradiation wrote: »

Yes.
Once you figure out what exactly constitutes taxable income (the bulk of what makes any tax system "complex") a 'flat tax' it effects those who earn less disproportionately, those in the middle aren't much better off and it majorly benefits those at the 'top'
Anyone who says otherwise can't do simple maths.

In fact, anyone who proposes such a 'simple' system as a panacea is being amazingly dishonest or demonstrating a stunning lack of basic knowledge.


Also, full disclosure, I earn enough to have a portion of my income taxed at the higher income bracket, before people decide otherwise and make themselves look stupid.
And you wouldn't want to do that.

Shock, people who earn less money will have less money after being taxed.

Flat rate, everyone pays the same %. Same tax allowance for everyone. People who earn more still pay a larger sum. People who earn less still pay a lower sum. Everyone is at least contributing an equal portion of their wages.

Anyone against this system clearly lacks the intelligence to understand the fairness of it, or has a vested interest in the current system.

summerskin

Shenshen wrote: »

Virtually no tax?
What kind of a pittance are you paying your 195 employees?

Starting salary is €18000 for the lowest paid jobs, which is €17,121.20 after tax.

Next to nothing in tax, ridiculous.

Compare that to a manager earning €59000 who comes out with €39,453.36 and you can see what a joke it is.

Zab

tolosenc wrote: »

Right, but the extra hours you are obliged to work as a result of the promotion may actually reduce your net daily rate. Which is bollox.

Take this up with your employer.

A flat tax across all income earned is the most equitable solution that could exist. Why should the higher earners (actually, the higher tax band begins below the average industrial wage - another sick joke) be expected to pay proportionately more tax? If we strive for an egalitarian society (which is noble), why do we implement non egalitarian policies to achieve it?

Taking 35% of the income of somebody on minimum wage has a much higher impact than taking 35% of somebody on 100k, even though the latter is higher in absolute terms. By calling a flat tax egalitarian you are ignoring the bigger picture, and defining egalitarianism in terms of wage to net wage ratio, which isn't what the term means at all. A flat tax would crush low wage earners, and I really do mean crush.

Ray Palmer

bluecode wrote: »

Fair? No, Just sent in my annual tax return. I pay tax, the universal social charge and PRSI. Even though my last year's income was less than the lower limit for the minimum wage. This year's income is even less yet I have to pay tax based on the previous year. I'll get some of it back but I need it now not next year.

But I'm not entitled to the benefit or the dole.

All because I'm self employed.

I'd be better off in the black economy.

Just to be clear you are paying last years tax this year. You estimate this years taxes and don't have to pay the tax based on last years income.

Anyway

The flat tax levels suggested here would mean everybody paying more tax which I am not in favour of. On 80k you pay about 41% of your entire income

awec

Zab wrote: »

Take this up with your employer.




Taking 35% of the income of somebody on minimum wage has a much higher impact than taking 35% of somebody on 100k, even though the latter is higher in absolute terms. By calling a flat tax egalitarian you are ignoring the bigger picture, and defining egalitarianism in terms of wage to net wage ratio, which isn't what the term means at all. A flat tax would crush low wage earners, and I really do mean crush.

Of course it does. They earn less money. There is a reason they earn less money.

Should the high earner be punished for the fact that someone else earns less money?

summerskin

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Just to be clear you are paying last years tax this year. You estimate this years taxes and don't have to pay the tax based on last years income.

Anyway

The flat tax levels suggested here would mean everybody paying more tax which I am not in favour of. On 80k you pay about 41% of your entire income

And on a flat rate of say 35% you'd still be better off. Great.

relax carry on

Interesting thread. Haven't time to read it all yet but a similar one came up a while ago. The below are some figures illustrating the levels of taxation currently operating. These are annual totals.

Just as an exercise, I did some calculations on three sets of income based on 2012 rates etc. It's PAYE workers only, (sorry self employed)

Results are below on a yearly income of €100000, €50000 and €25000 based on single paye worker with no additional reliefs etc. Now the PAYE is the only one I'd say is "tax" but at the end of the day they are all a deduction in your take home pay so PRSI and USC are included.

€100000
PAYE 30812
USC 6319
PRSI class A 3736
Total €40867 or roughly 41% of total.

€50000
PAYE 10312
USC 2818
PRSI Class A 1736
Total €14866 or roughly 30% of total

€25000
PAYE 1700
USC 1068
PRSI Class A 735
Total €3503 or roughly 14%

kowloon

Akrasia wrote: »

Nobody should be expected to work 70 hours a week

That is 14 hours a day for a 5 day week or 10 hours a day 7 days a week

That is not a reasonable work life balance.

If anyone is working 10 hours a day, every day, even if they're earning a hundred thousand euros a year, they're still wasting their life.

And they're hoarding all the work. If I can get my workers to work longer hours I might not save anything on the hourly rate and I might have to pay overtime. But I'll save on the cost of extra training, doubling up for meetings and all the other costs of having an additional person.

Zab

awec wrote: »

Of course it does. They earn less money. There is a reason they earn less money.

Because they're a sloth? Because they didn't receive a decent education? Because they talk with the wrong accent? Because their skills aren't valued in today's world? Because they were born on the wrong side of the tracks? Because they're thick? Because they don't deserve it?

Should the high earner be punished for the fact that someone else earns less money?

They aren't being punished. If they were being punished they'd lose the wage difference plus extra. The higher earner will have a better quality of life (in the economic sense) than the low wage earner.

hooradiation

awec wrote: »

Shock, people who earn less money will have less money after being taxed.

Flat rate, everyone pays the same %. Same tax allowance for everyone. People who earn more still pay a larger sum. People who earn less still pay a lower sum. Everyone is at least contributing an equal portion of their wages.

Anyone against this system clearly lacks the intelligence to understand the fairness of it, or has a vested interest in the current system.

Except, and here's the kicker, a flat tax actually makes life tougher for those on less money, where are our current progressive system, by comparison, doesn't.
And neither does the progressive system make life tough for those of us subjected to the higher rates.

Your "fairness" argument is straight from the playground, mistaking simplicity for fairness and pretending the world is a place where there are simple solutions for everything.

awec

hooradiation wrote: »

Except, and here's the kicker, a flat tax actually makes life tougher for those on less money, where are our current progressive system, by comparison, doesn't.
And neither does the progressive system make life tough for those of us subjected to the higher rates.

Your "fairness" argument is straight from the playground, mistaking simplicity for fairness and pretending the world is a place where there are simple solutions for everything.

I pay the high rate. Why should I pay a higher rate of tax than someone else just because they earn less than me? Why should I prop up their lifestyle by subsidising their tax. What's "fair" about that?

People who earn less money are always going to have less money. People need to get over this ridiculous notion that people who earn less money are entitled to the same lifestyle as people who earn more than them. Of course tax changes are going to hit those who pay the least right now, that's because their lifestyle is heavily subsidised by everyone else right now.

I deserve to be paying the same tax rate as anyone else.

SafeSurfer

The tax system is unfair.

One of the few policy positions that almost every Irish political party agrees on is that our low corporation tax can not be changed.

What this means is that multi national corporations that enjoy tens of billions of annual profits are not asked to shoulder any burden in dealing with our economic crisis while low paid workers are taxed more to compensate multinational corporations for their business mistakes.

Our government even refused to introduce a financial transaction tax designed to curb the worst excesses of the financial sector's greed because they said it may cost jobs.

All this in a week when it was revealed that Apple paid less than 2% tax on overseas profits of €28,600,000,000.

Our political parties have been convinced by their corporate sponsors that it is more equitable, more moral to limit the number of weekly incontinent pads allocated to sick and elderly patients than to reduce the massive profits enjoyed by theses corporations and their already wealthy investors.

You can argue that they provide jobs etc, etc. But I believe that it is immoral that so much sacrifice is asked of imposed on the poor in our society while even parties of the left deem asking more of the rich to be beyond the pale.

SCOOP 64

Well we got the budget coming up soon. so it will be all sorted out then.

tolosenc

Zab wrote: »

Because they're a sloth? Because they didn't receive a decent education? Because they talk with the wrong accent? Because their skills aren't valued in today's world? Because they were born on the wrong side of the tracks? Because they're thick? Because they don't deserve it?

So stupid, uneducated people with no relevant skills should be as entitled to a high wage as an intelligent, highly educated person with relevant skills? Are you for real?

get_even

summerskin wrote: »

And on a flat rate of say 35% you'd still be better off. Great.

35% is far too high ,20% is enough once everyone including corporations are paying the same

summerskin

get_even wrote: »

35% is far too high ,20% is enough once everyone including corporations are paying the same

I was just using that as an arbitrary figure.

Blisterman

The idea that success is entirely based on hard work is a bit of a fallacy. Does a banker on €400k work 20 times harder than a carer on €20k?

Would Bill Gates become the world's richest man if he were born to a starving peasant family in Ethiopia?

The current system works because the burden of tax is placed on those who can best afford it, while still providing an incentive to work hard and better yourself.

Another thing that people are forgetting is that increasing taxes for lower earners would result in them demanding more money for the same work to make up the difference, so ultimately it would be employers taking the brunt of the taxation.

hooradiation

awec wrote: »

I pay the high rate. Why should I pay a higher rate of tax than someone else just because they earn less than me? Why should I prop up their lifestyle by subsidising their tax. What's "fair" about that?

This fairness whine is still a complete farce.

Consider income tax as the user fee for society, the better off you are, the more benefit you get from the society we have built, and therefore you pay more back in - and at a rate that doesn't adversely affect you.
Meanwhile the people not as lucky as you or I pay less than we do, but also use less than we do.

And if that isn't enough for you, then I offer this:
Life isn't fair, kid. Deal with it.

awec wrote: »

People who earn less money are always going to have less money. People need to get over this ridiculous notion that people who earn less money are entitled to the same lifestyle as people who earn more than them.

Well how about you start on that, seeing as you're the one advocating that notion.
Or would you like to continue arguing against caricatures that live in your head?

awec wrote: »

Of course tax changes are going to hit those who pay the least right now, that's because their lifestyle is heavily subsidised by everyone else right now.

Of course, you do realise that in many of these cases the "hit" as you call it, would have a drastic affect on their quality of life - where as the current system has a negligible one on people who earn enough to be taxed at the higher rate.

For someone getting so upset about this idea of "fairness" you have no problem throwing people under a bus so you don't have to suffer the indignity of... whatever it is that you think your being subjected to here.

awec wrote: »

I deserve to be paying the same tax rate as anyone else.

If you envy their tax rate so much, feel free to take a suitable pay cut.
I'm more than happy to help towards "subsidising your lifestyle".

get_even

if those on low incomes should not pay the same rate of tax as those on high incomes , should those on low incomes pay less for groceries in the supermarket or when they buy a car ?

Tazz T

get_even wrote: »

if those on low incomes should not pay the same rate of tax as those on high incomes , should those on low incomes pay less for groceries in the supermarket or when they buy a car ?

Those on low incomes already pay less for groceries because they can't afford to buy more expensive foodstuffs or brands.

get_even

V_Moth wrote: »

In a nutshell, high levels of economic inequality would lead to a new form of feudalism, where a handful of extremely wealthy families control virtually everything, leaving a large caste of serfs.

It is also interesting that those countries with very low levels of inequality are doing quite well at the moment (Germany, Scandinavia), whereas those with higher levels are doing quite poorly (Greece, Ireland, Italy and to some degree the US).

Far more detailed information here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_inequality#Effects_of_inequality

ireland doesnt have a high level of inequality , social wellfare rates are extremley high

the usa has a high level of inequality and the uk has a considerabley higher level of inequality than ireland

sfwcork

most people who say attack the high earners are people who will never have the opportunity or even the desire to be

Saying that I dont think the poor should be penalied left, right and center either.Nor the high earners but I do believe they do get off lightly at times

I work in a job for a multinational. When I over achieve on my target I get penalised.That mkes no ense. Sometimes i get mosre hitting 100% than if I hot 110%.Zero motivation to work harder.Simply because im single,no morangage etc etc

not too sure if its ever likely to change in my lifetime but I do feel for the guys/gals coming out of colleg and wondering what to do

Zab

tolosenc wrote: »

So stupid, uneducated people with no relevant skills should be as entitled to a high wage as an intelligent, highly educated person with relevant skills? Are you for real?

Well, I am "for real" but I never said anything that could be even remotely construed as what you've written. I've taken the time to understand your point of view and in return you're ranting about a hypothetical you created yourself.

get_even

if someone earns 35 k per year and they pay 7 k under a flat tax rate , how is that a bad deal , the same kind of earners in sweeden pay a lot more

bare in mind someone on 100 k would end up paying 20 k in tax under my proposed system , three times as much as thier fellow citizen earning 35 k , i really fail to see how such a policy is lacking in progressiveness

apple or intel should also pay 20%

Ray Palmer

hooradiation wrote: »

Consider income tax as the user fee for society, the better off you are, the more benefit you get from the society we have built, and therefore you pay more back in - and at a rate that doesn't adversely affect you.
Meanwhile the people not as lucky as you or I pay less than we do, but also use less than we do.

".

You see that just isn't true and nobody will fall for it.
Obviously those on lower wages paying less tax benefits more than those who pay higher taxes. They put less into the system than they receive. Those on higher taxes get less in return for a higher % and amount.
I do believe in helping people but I do believe you should never pay 50%+ tax at any point. You can pay 56% on earnings over 100k.

As for saying somebody earning 10 times more than another isn't working 10 times harder. So what ability to do certain jobs isn't universal. If your job is easily trainable and requires little skill you can't expect top salary. Fully aware cleaning lady could be work harder than me. She couldn't do my job no matter how hard she worked.

Death and Taxes

get_even wrote: »

ireland doesnt have a high level of inequality , social wellfare rates are extremley high

the usa has a high level of inequality and the uk has a considerabley higher level of inequality than ireland

Actually figures show that Ireland does have a high rate of income inequality.
You appear to be confusing basic SW rates with income distribution inequality which is a different thing.
Further Ireland does not have a an overly generous SW system, you need to bear in mind that we do not have universal primary healthcare (NHS Style), that housing benifits are now very limited and difficult to access for the first time etc.

get_even

WileyCoyote wrote: »

Actually figures show that Ireland does have a high rate of income inequality.
You appear to be confusing basic SW rates with income distribution inequality which is a different thing.
Further Ireland does not have a an overly generous SW system, you need to bear in mind that we do not have universal primary healthcare (NHS Style), that housing benifits are now very limited and difficult to access for the first time etc.

we have universal healthcare for the vast majority of unemployed people , we even have universal healthcare free for relativley wealthy pensioners , by any measure , ireland has a generous benefits system , even countries like sweeden and germany which social democrats hail as the model , have a reduced level of benefits depending on how long someone has been unemployed

awec

SafeSurfer wrote: »

The tax system is unfair.

One of the few policy positions that almost every Irish political party agrees on is that our low corporation tax can not be changed.

What this means is that multi national corporations that enjoy tens of billions of annual profits are not asked to shoulder any burden in dealing with our economic crisis while low paid workers are taxed more to compensate multinational corporations for their business mistakes.

Our government even refused to introduce a financial transaction tax designed to curb the worst excesses of the financial sector's greed because they said it may cost jobs.

All this in a week when it was revealed that Apple paid less than 2% tax on overseas profits of €28,600,000,000.

Our political parties have been convinced by their corporate sponsors that it is more equitable, more moral to limit the number of weekly incontinent pads allocated to sick and elderly patients than to reduce the massive profits enjoyed by theses corporations and their already wealthy investors.

You can argue that they provide jobs etc, etc. But I believe that it is immoral that so much sacrifice is asked of imposed on the poor in our society while even parties of the left deem asking more of the rich to be beyond the pale.

If you raise corporation tax, what incentive is there for any large company to come to Ireland and bring with them highly paid and highly skilled jobs?

Once again, this is the typical bitter left-wing short sighted rhetoric.

Without it's low corporation tax Ireland would be up the creek without a paddle, totally unable to compete on an international level.

awec

Ray Palmer wrote: »

You see that just isn't true and nobody will fall for it.
Obviously those on lower wages paying less tax benefits more than those who pay higher taxes. They put less into the system than they receive. Those on higher taxes get less in return for a higher % and amount.
I do believe in helping people but I do believe you should never pay 50%+ tax at any point. You can pay 56% on earnings over 100k.

As for saying somebody earning 10 times more than another isn't working 10 times harder. So what ability to do certain jobs isn't universal. If your job is easily trainable and requires little skill you can't expect top salary. Fully aware cleaning lady could be work harder than me. She couldn't do my job no matter how hard she worked.

Some people's minds don't go beyond the "if you're not coming home from work sweating and dirty then you're not working hard" idea.

The reason people get qualifications and educate themselves to a high level is so that they don't have to engage in hard graft to earn a good living.

If people are happy to drop out of school at the earliest possibility and take the quickest route to getting a [fairly average] job then they cannot complain when they are picking up a relatively low wage.

get_even

awec wrote: »

If you raise corporation tax, what incentive is there for any large company to come to Ireland and bring with them highly paid and highly skilled jobs?

Once again, this is the typical bitter left-wing short sighted rhetoric.

Without it's low corporation tax Ireland would be up the creek without a paddle, totally unable to compete on an international level.

i would fetishise the sacred corporation tax rate too much , it should not be beyond looking at , ireland has an english speaking workforce and the country is an above average place to do business , in order to implement a flat tax rate , it would be impossible not to raise corporation tax

awec

get_even wrote: »

i would fetishise the sacred corporation tax rate too much , it should not be beyond looking at , ireland has an english speaking workforce and the country is an above average place to do business , in order to implement a flat tax rate , it would be impossible not to raise corporation tax

With a higher corporation tax there is absolutely no reason for a company to choose to set up here as opposed to other European countries (such as the UK) where infrastructure is better and there is a much larger pool of skilled talent.

There is a reason other European leaders are all over our corporation tax rate. They know that if it goes up money will start going into their countries as opposed to Ireland. You think they'd be asking us to up our rate if they didn't think that'd it improve things financially for them?

kjl

The real problem is corporate tax rate. No politician is willing to increase this for fear that all the major corporations will leave Ireland but they forget that Ireland has a highly educated work force due to free eduction from the boom years. It's not like corporations don't exist in other countries. A huge amount of outsourcing is done to India and the Philippines that have corporate tax rates of 30% plus. Ireland needs to reinvest in education to keep corporations in Ireland, I assure you the likes of Google, Oracle, Ebay, Paypal they are not about to just up and leave because we demand more taxes on par with the rest of the world. When would they go?

I work for a large corporation, who have multiple offices all over the world as do most of the big ones. I can assure you there are not going to up and leave Ireland if we increase corporate tax rates and if they do, well f*&k them. Corporations hoard money anyway so it's not like giving them this massive discount benefits society. People say they create jobs, but this is not strictly true the economy create jobs and to have a strong economy you need to have people spending money which you are taking away more and more in taxes.

People don't really get that the people that suffer the most is the 40k-100k salary bracket earners, the low income earners have no grounds to stand on, they don't pay much tax at all and anyone making serious money just leaves the country. I have seen so many super wealthy tax exiles leave the country to avoid paying tax on their earnings while the middle class is left with the bill. I hate seeing my tax bill in my pay check, on average its about 40% I pay in tax and I never see a dime of it back. Plus I pay 23% on everything I buy, and if I die and leave my house to my kids they wont even be able to keep it because they will have to pay Inheritance tax on it, so even though I bough my house with money I already paid tax on, they have to pay tax on it again. The whole system is a joke.

The to add to all that, every time I open a newspaper all I read is about this tribunal and that scandal, but I never see any of them going to prison, Plus I am the one footing the bill for the private banks who messed up by giving out loans they couldn't recoup.

I think the problem is we have this notion that somebody somewhere is in-charge and is running this country when the truth is nobody has a clue. Politician get into power because they know how to campaign not because they know how to run the country. We need a reform, the government should be run by intelligent people, not the dumb dumb retards we have in there.

I know two Politicians and I tell you something interesting about the two of them, I was in class with both of them and they were both the stupidest people in the class, I have a feeling they are all like this.

awec

kjl wrote: »

The real problem is corporate tax rate. No politician is willing to increase this for fear that all the major corporations will leave Ireland but they forget that Ireland has a highly educated work force due to free eduction from the boom years. It's not like corporations don't exist in other countries. A huge amount of outsourcing is done to India and the Philippines that have corporate tax rates of 30% plus. Ireland needs to reinvest in education to keep corporations in Ireland, I assure you the likes of Google, Oracle, Ebay, Paypal they are not about to just up and leave because we demand more taxes on par with the rest of the world. When would they go?

I work for a large corporation, who have multiple offices all over the world as do most of the big ones. I can assure you there are not going to up and leave Ireland if we increase corporate tax rates and if they do, well f*&k them. Corporations hoard money anyway so it's not like giving them this massive discount benefits society. People say they create jobs, but this is not strictly true the economy create jobs and to have a strong economy you need to have people spending money which you are taking away more and more in taxes.

People don't really get that the people that suffer the most is the 40k-100k salary bracket earners, the low income earners have no grounds to stand on, they don't pay much tax at all and anyone making serious money just leaves the country. I have seen so many super wealthy tax exiles leave the country to avoid paying tax on their earnings while the middle class is left with the bill. I hate seeing my tax bill in my pay check, on average its about 40% I pay in tax and I never see a dime of it back. Plus I pay 23% on everything I buy, and if I die and leave my house to my kids they wont even be able to keep it because they will have to pay Inheritance tax on it, so even though I bough my house with money I already paid tax on, they have to pay tax on it again. The whole system is a joke.

The to add to all that, every time I open a newspaper all I read is about this tribunal and that scandal, but I never see any of them going to prison, Plus I am the one footing the bill for the private banks who messed up by giving out loans they couldn't recoup.

I think the problem is we have this notion that somebody somewhere is in-charge and is running this country when the truth is nobody has a clue. Politician get into power because they know how to campaign not because they know how to run the country. We need a reform, the government should be run by intelligent people, not the dumb dumb retards we have in there.

I know two Politicians and I tell you something interesting about the two of them, I was in class with both of them and they were both the stupidest people in the class, I have a feeling they are all like this.

The reason the jobs go to India is that salaries and cost of living is much lower. Neither is true in Ireland, quite the opposite in fact. Ireland has to compete in whatever way it can, in our case we attract large companies by offering them low corporation tax rates.

Ireland's workforce is no more educated than other European countries. In fact, if you go into the offices of any of these large multi-nationals you will see that a decent portion of the workforce is not actually irish at all.

get_even

ireland should focus more on its indigenous sector of business , multinationals can up sticks for any number of reasons , we are a bit of a one trick pony when it comes to creating large levels of employment , thier is plenty of scope for growth in the agri sector , ireland can be the new zealand of europe with a little imagination , thats not to say that everyone should or can become a farmer but thier are many jobs in the agri sector which dont involve getting your hands dirty or even living in rural ireland , the goverment should also focus on reducing local authority rates on small business , their has been no reduction in local authority rates and its crippling business

SafeSurfer

awec wrote: »

If you raise corporation tax, what incentive is there for any large company to come to Ireland and bring with them highly paid and highly skilled jobs?

Once again, this is the typical bitter left-wing short sighted rhetoric.

Without it's low corporation tax Ireland would be up the creek without a paddle, totally unable to compete on an international level.

Oh yes, the typical "if you raise corporate tax rates multi nationals will flee the country" argument.

It simply isn't true.

If corporate tax rates were the only factor in site selection for MNCs then they would all be based in Hungary, Cyprus or the other countries with lower corporate tax rates than Ireland.

Ireland used to have a 10% corporate tax rate for manufacturers. When this was increased by 25% in 2004, the amount of Inward foreign direct investment, including manufacturers actually increased.

Our main competitors for much of the FDI that we seek to attract have much higher tax rates than ours. For example corporation tax in Israel is twice the Irish level.

Repeating the well worn mantra that we simply must not increase corporation tax, over and over again does not make it true.

The threshold for VAT on small businesses and sole traders in Ireland at €37,000 is among the lowest of our peers. UK circa 100K.

Multi nationals can effectively pay what ever taxation rate they choose by using subsidiaries, royalty payments etc. Look at Google in France or Apple or Starbucks. The headline corporate tax rate isn't the major factor in firms deciding to locate here despite what you think.

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

If you are interested in the key considerations and motivations for firms considering investing in Ireland IDA Ireland have conducted research on the matter.

Access to markets was the most important factor.The low corporation tax rate was no.4

http://www.idaireland.com/news-media/publications/library-publications/external-publications/Investing_in_Ireland_-_A_survey_of_Foreign_Direct_Investors.pdf

Wompa1

SafeSurfer wrote: »

If you are interested in the key considerations and motivations for firms considering investing in Ireland IDA Ireland have conducted research on the matter.

Access to markets was the most important factor.The low corporation tax rate was no.4

http://www.idaireland.com/news-media/publications/library-publications/external-publications/Investing_in_Ireland_-_A_survey_of_Foreign_Direct_Investors.pdf

The IDA and Enterprise Ireland are the lads that release statements when new jobs are created championing the fact it was the highly skilled and educated work force that Ireland offers the attracted the company. My arse...

SafeSurfer

Wompa1 wrote: »

The IDA and Enterprise Ireland are the lads that release statements when new jobs are created championing the fact it was the highly skilled and educated work force that Ireland offers the attracted the company. My arse...

The companies that actually invest in Ireland would disagree with you. Key skills available is the 2nd most important reason for their decision to invest here.

Wompa1

SafeSurfer wrote: »

The companies that actually invest in Ireland would disagree with you. Key skills available is the 2nd most important reason for their decision to invest here.

Thus why IT Companies in Ireland struggle to find skilled workers in Ireland?

At one stage, I think it was 2007, there was 14,000+ vacant IT jobs in Ireland. Also ask Dan Rooney about the lure or lack there of, of the current Irish workforce.

Our colleges are ****e and behind the times. And not from a lack of funding, from a lack of management. Kenny coming out and saying we need to invest in education is a BS statement, Some of the Universities have received very large investment and they are still dicked.

We need to change the way the Universities are run first. Having lecturers that don't keep up with the trends themselves will lend to an outdated work force.

hooradiation

Ray Palmer wrote: »

You see that just isn't true and nobody will fall for it.

Actually, it is.
However, it's not something people who are pretending to be victimised are willing to admit, because their whine about how so unfair the whole thing is is immediately rendered null and void.

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Obviously those on lower wages paying less tax benefits more than those who pay higher taxes. They put less into the system than they receive. Those on higher taxes get less in return for a higher % and amount.

Not really.
For a start, the people who are claiming to run businesses - they benefit enormously from the state supplied infrastructure and educated workforce. They're kind of essential to having a business of any sort really. Pretending that these things, paid for by tax, don't benefit some people more than others is just silly.

And If you're just lucky enough to be earning a high wage, you still benefit more than someone who doesn't seeing as you're more likely to be living in a area with more amenities, better response times from the police (no go areas for emergency services don't usually go hand in hand with affluency, now do they)



In fact by going to a flat tax system we'd actually end up with a decrease in consumption which I'm sure would not be good news for business.
Which makes me wonder exactly how much thought our "job creators" have put into this flat tax nonsense.

Ray Palmer wrote: »

I do believe in helping people but I do believe you should never pay 50%+ tax at any point. You can pay 56% on earnings over 100k.

Did we introduce a tax band on the sly while nobody was looking?
Or are you posting from 1990?

Ray Palmer wrote: »

As for saying somebody earning 10 times more than another isn't working 10 times harder. So what ability to do certain jobs isn't universal. If your job is easily trainable and requires little skill you can't expect top salary. Fully aware cleaning lady could be work harder than me. She couldn't do my job no matter how hard she worked.

I don't know why people are equating "progressive tax system" with "SO YOU WANT CLEANERS TO BE MILLIONAIRES, YOU PINKO!"
It's an argument nobody is making.

srsly78

hooradiation wrote: »

Did we introduce a tax band on the sly while nobody was looking?
Or are you posting from 1990?

The figure is 52% not 56%, usc and prsi are also included. This is the total amount taken from marginal earnings. It is not however just income tax.

Ray Palmer

srsly78 wrote: »

The figure is 52% not 56%, usc and prsi are also included. This is the total amount taken from marginal earnings. It is not however just income tax.

No 10% USC on self employed over 100k plus 4% prsi with 42% = 56%

Ray Palmer

hooradiation wrote: »

Actually, it is.
However, it's not something people who are pretending to be victimised are willing to admit, because their whine about how so unfair the whole thing is is immediately rendered null and void.

Void of logic with a thin veneer of reason.

Taxes paid by users and businesses pay for most infrastructure. They also have to provide these either way. Use of taxes is not the same as consumption without return.
Very selective in how you put your argument together but not many would fall for such a silly view.

Zab

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Very selective in how you put your argument together but not many would fall for such a silly view.

You realize that most of the world has a progressive tax system, right?

Ray Palmer

Zab wrote: »

You realize that most of the world has a progressive tax system, right?

I never suggested bringing in a flat tax. Just because it is common type of system doesn't mean our tax rates are fair.

mel.b

summerskin wrote: »

We're single when it suits the government, but a couple when it doesn't. Tax relief should be based on whether you live together, and also whether you have children or not. We're not married, so I don't get any tax relief for my children, but also can't get single parent tax relief as I'm "not single" even though my tax code says I am.

Backward country in so many ways and it drives me mad.

Ok, rant alert
I agree about it being a backward county in many ways, but I don't get the rationale for different tax credits/relief for married/unmarried, children etc. Everyone should be on the same initial tax credits - you shouldn't get an extra benefit just for being married or even just living together. Also people with children receive children's allowance, so in affect they are getting a double benefit as they have more tax credits and receive children's allowance.

There was an article recently about how it is actually more expensive to be a single person than a married one in a couple (leaving kids out of the equation for a moment) so single people are being penalised as it's more expensive for them day to day and they are paying more tax than a married person.

And before anyone asks...yes I'm single:P

Zab

Ray Palmer wrote: »

I never suggested bringing in a flat tax. Just because it is common type of system doesn't mean our tax rates are fair.

Okay, I may have taken you up wrong. This thread seems to be about the merits of a progressive system vs a flat or regressive system rather than a a discussion of our particular progressive curve. Looking at your OP again, you do specify generally rather than specifically.

You see that just isn't true and nobody will fall for it.
Obviously those on lower wages paying less tax benefits more than those who pay higher taxes. They put less into the system than they receive. Those on higher taxes get less in return for a higher % and amount.
I do believe in helping people but I do believe you should never pay 50%+ tax at any point. You can pay 56% on earnings over 100k.

This was more what I was replying to. When hooradiation was saying that they get more from society, he wasn't talking about the social welfare system or healthcare or transport or anything else based on public funds. He means society as a whole. People who have high earnings get to have high earnings and all the things that entails, nobody in this thread is looking to change that (that I've noticed anyway). Having money is great, even if you pay a lot of tax too.

As for capping it at 50%, I don't see what's so special about 50% other than it being a neat figure. You can make a case for reducing tax, I just don't see why an absolute helps. As for you preferring to take a day off rather than earn less than 50%, that's fine somebody else can work that day.

Ray Palmer

Zab wrote: »

Okay, I may have taken you up wrong. This thread seems to be about the merits of a progressive system vs a flat or regressive system rather than a a discussion of our particular progressive curve. Looking at your OP again, you do specify generally rather than specifically.



This was more what I was replying to. When hooradiation was saying that they get more from society, he wasn't talking about the social welfare system or healthcare or transport or anything else based on public funds. He means society as a whole. People who have high earnings get to have high earnings and all the things that entails, nobody in this thread is looking to change that (that I've noticed anyway). Having money is great, even if you pay a lot of tax too.

As for capping it at 50%, I don't see what's so special about 50% other than it being a neat figure. You can make a case for reducing tax, I just don't see why an absolute helps. As for you preferring to take a day off rather than earn less than 50%, that's fine somebody else can work that day.

He specifically said they get more for the taxes they pay. It simply isn't true or plausible
50% cap is really simple I don't think any government should take a higher amount then half of what you make at any point.

UCDVet

I pay all of the taxes while getting none of the benefits. Sucks to be me

MadYaker

I dont pay tax on my earnings and the gov are paying my college fees LOL!

Scanlas The 2nd

Zab wrote: »

You realize that most of the world has a progressive tax system, right?

I would describe our tax system as regressive because it takes higher proportions unfairly from some people. The progressive taxsyst would be flat rate IMO.