Third rate of tax

guinnessdrinker

I think most of the parties in the Dail have spoken about a third rate of tax at some stage or another but nothing has ever come of it.

The government seem to regularly float the idea introducing cuts in areas such as home help and child care allowances for example. Would having a third rate of tax negate the need for some of these cuts?

I have heard the argument that it is not worthwhile introducing a third rate on high earners because it would not bring in much revenue but surely it would bring in enough to make it worthwhile i.e. it would be easy to introduce and it would only effect high earners thus being seen as a progressive tax as opposed to the regressive prsi meausre introduced in the recent budget.

I think it is an idea worth exploring by the government. Does anyone know of any reason that a third rate should not be introduced?

And then the high earners leave, overall tax intake plummets.
They're not endless cash cows to be called on whenever everyone else messes up.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9740253/Two-thirds-of-millionaires-disappeared-from-official-statistics-to-avoid-50p-tax-rate.html

“Labour’s ideological tax hike led to a tax cull of millionaires.
Far from raising funds, it actually cost the UK £7 billion in lost tax revenue.

guinnessdrinker

I suppose it depends on which article we link to.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/ignore-the-50p-tax-rate-grandstanding-its-real-effects-are-impossible-to-tell-8441304.html

The tax was brought in for so short a time that it is impossible to gauge whether or not it will bring in money to the treasury. Because of "frontloading" and "backloading"– top rate taxpayers shifting income to fall either before or after the life of the 50p tax rate – we just can’t trust the numbers we do have.

I'm not saying we should treat high earners as endless cash cows but the same should be said for low and middle income earners. Anyway I don't think there is any solid evidence that there would be a mass exodus from the country if a third tax band is introduced. Sure, some millionaires may leave but millionaires have the luxury of living wherever they like anyway.

Would someone earning around €150,000 stop working because of the introduction of a third tax band? I don't think I have seen any evidence to say they would so I would tend not to believe that they would just leave.

But say a worker earning €150,000 for example decided they were now paying too much tax after a third tax band was introduced and they were going to go abroad, fair enough it is their right to do so. However, what is to say his job will not be filled by somebody else the next day happy to do the job.

AlexisM

Ireland already has THE most progressive income tax system in the EU. http://www.publicpolicy.ie/budget-2013-progressivity-of-irish-income-tax-system/ Why do you think it would be fair to skew it even more than it already is?

Geuze

I suggest four rates of 20 - 30 - 40 and 50.

50% on over 100k.

Merge the USC with income tax.

PRSI increased towards European rates, say 6-8%, with a PRSI income ceiling of 100k.

So the top marginal rate would fall under my plan to 50% max.

But the idea is to collect more tax plus PRSI overall, but with lower marginal rates.

ardmacha

I suggest four rates of 20 - 30 - 40 and 50.

Would the German system not be better? As I understand it this has a gradually increasing tax rate, but perhaps someone can explain it.

Geuze

Yes, I did read that there aren't just two or three marginal rates in Germany, but marginal rates increase from 14% to 42% then make a final jump to 45%.

Cookie_Monster

A flat tax rate with no credits at all would be the fairest and simplest. 15-17% would be enough to bring in the same revenue as current and the removal of lots of beaurocratic nonesense re exemptions.and.credit and so forth would also generate some savings.
Russia for example has such a system.

johnnyskeleton

guinnessdrinker wrote: »

I think most of the parties in the Dail have spoken about a third rate of tax at some stage or another but nothing has ever come of it.

The government seem to regularly float the idea introducing cuts in areas such as home help and child care allowances for example. Would having a third rate of tax negate the need for some of these cuts?

I have heard the argument that it is not worthwhile introducing a third rate on high earners because it would not bring in much revenue but surely it would bring in enough to make it worthwhile i.e. it would be easy to introduce and it would only effect high earners thus being seen as a progressive tax as opposed to the regressive prsi meausre introduced in the recent budget.

I think it is an idea worth exploring by the government. Does anyone know of any reason that a third rate should not be introduced?

A question I like to ask everyone who proposes a third rate of tax is this:

Supposing an economist with a crystal ball and a pie chart could tell us exactly (to the penny) what effect it would have to set a third rate of tax on income over, say 200k and the results were:

1) same rate = 0% change in tax take
2) increase by 10% = 5% reduction in tax take
3) increase by 20% = 25% reduction in tax take
4) decrease by 10% = 5% reduction in tax take
5) decrease by 20% = 10% increase in tax take

If you know with certainty that these are the outcomes, which would you choose?

These are obviously just examples but they illustrate some real possibilities - increase high earner tax and they leave while others don't work as hard to earn more money. Decrease it after a certain point and more people at that level will stay or come here, and more earning under it will strive to hit that level.

It's also fairer because when it comes to education, health, welfare etc there is only so much any one individual can consume, so there must also be a cap on what they should pay.

Now, maybe the figures are wrong and that's certainly up for debate. But the point is, are you increasing higher rate tax because it will bring in more money, or are you doing it to follow an ideology or agenda?

Of course, the ideologes who support a third rate of tax are interested only in playing to a certain sector of the electorate who want to see undue tax burdens heaped upon anyone who earns more than they do (the definition of rich is, for most people, someone who earns more than me because I'm normal).

smcgiff

When anyone raises the possibility of a third rate of tax what they really mean is...

Wouldn't it be great if the government brought in a tax rate that wont apply to me.

johnnyskeleton

smcgiff wrote: »

When anyone raises the possibility of a third rate of tax what they really mean is...

Wouldn't it be great if the government brought in a tax rate that wont apply to me.

Or, more generally, why can't the economic mess be fixed by taking free money from an available source that will have no adverse effect on me or the economy whatsoever.

KyussBishop

It's nice how those that argue for increased austerity, only argue for increasing the pain on low-earners, seeing as they are the main ones who are going to be suffering actual harm in their quality of life and health; advocating pain for those worst off, but don't touch the well off (often portrayed as semi-heroic 'tough but necessary' pragmatism).


In any case (and I predict people will be falling over themselves to construct the most condescending response to this), when you unlink government spending from taxation and do it through money creation, and limit spending only by hitting the inflation target, this pretty heavily changes the purposes of taxation, which I go into more here:
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=83128792&postcount=111

This is pretty much how fiat currencies work, with the current limitations in the use of the money supply being political, not economic; this changes the purpose of taxation, towards being a tool to remove money from the economy, to temper inflation when it starts approaching the inflation target, and as a means of managing incentives/disincentives, for socially/economically undesirable behavior.

In such a political setup, you could set a higher-end tax band as high as you like (to, for example, disincentivize excessive executive salaries; perhaps even linking them to a maximum of 20x the wage of the lowest earning worker in a business), and you wouldn't have any government funding problems whatsoever.


One example of what makes use of money creation, limited by inflation targets, one of the more powerful progressive tools in reforming politics: It fully disarms all conservative variations of the 'where does the money come from?' argument, which is used in every factually-dubious way possible, to argue against most economically-progressive policies, in favour of severely regressive ones.

johnnyskeleton

KyussBishop wrote: »

It's nice how those that argue for increased austerity, only argue for increasing the pain on low-earners, seeing as they are the main ones who are going to be suffering actual harm in their quality of life and health; advocating pain for those worst off, but don't touch the well off (often portrayed as semi-heroic 'tough but necessary' pragmatism).

Not at all, but put simply if the best way to increase the tax take is to decrease tax for the rich rather than increase it, shouldn't we do that? It doesn't adversely affect the low earners in real terms at all. If the effect of reducing income tax in this bracket is an overall increase in tax take, this can be used to keep the social supports to the poor open. But I can see how the suggestion of a lower rate (note that lower rate does not mean less tax paid) can make some people jealous, as they have unquestioning loyalty to the proposition that every higher tax band should also have a higher rate attached otherwise it is somehow punishing the poor for the benefit of the rich.

As to the rest of your post, we are all well aware that if the ecb would just give us free money we could get everyone back to work with no adverse consequences. But for nefarious reasons they refuse to take this simple step. So, until they carry out this obvious, one way solution, we are going to have to look at balancing our books without loads of free money. Care to comment on that (even if just on a "what if" basis, pending the inevitable implementation of your policy)?

Is that condescending enough for you?

MMAGirl

I, like most people, am all for more tax rates - as long as they dont result in me paying more tax. I think everyone else should pay more tax though.
Just thought i'd put the truth out there. 99% of people think the same but wont say

guinnessdrinker

smcgiff wrote: »

When anyone raises the possibility of a third rate of tax what they really mean is...

Wouldn't it be great if the government brought in a tax rate that wont apply to me.

Possibly true in a lot of cases but isn't that a bit of a generalisation? A bit like making the assumption that anyone with a decent job would say...

Wouldn't it be great if the government cut (insert relevant social welfare scheme here) as this doesn't apply to me.

carpejugulum

guinnessdrinker wrote: »

I think it is an idea worth exploring by the government. Does anyone know of any reason that a third rate should not be introduced?

It's immoral to start with. But if we want to increase tax, tax welfare and turn child benefit, etc. into tax credits.

The government needs to cut expenditure and allow private enterprise to prosper.

johnnyskeleton

guinnessdrinker wrote: »

Possibly true in a lot of cases but isn't that a bit of a generalisation? A bit like making the assumption that anyone with a decent job would say...

Wouldn't it be great if the government cut (insert relevant social welfare scheme here) as this doesn't apply to me.

You have a point, but it is interesting that you suggest that welfare has nothing to do with someone who has a good job. Social insurance should be relevant to those who pay in because they are the ones insuring themselves against risk of unemployment, disability etc. The fact that dole payments are seen by and large as having nothing to do with prsi or workers shows how people view the system and how disproportionate the claims beig made are to the amount actually obtained through prsi.

It is also interesting that in Ireland the more you pay in, the less you get out of it. So self employed people pay in a lot (more than similarly paid employees at the lower end and again at the upper end) but get less benefits. Meanwhile, supplimentary allowances and schemes such as medical card or free travel mean that long term unemployed often get more than someone who has paid in but has just recently become unemployed or needs support.

The other major difference is that high income earners are usually net contributors while people on welfare are net recipients. While this does not change ones voting rights or make ones opinions any better or worse than the other, the former group can, if the tax increases become too much or too disproportionate, leave or give up work to the detriment of the economy, whereas if the latter group decide to emigrate or take up employment it does not adversely affect the economy and can actually benefit the government current account.

KyussBishop

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Not at all, but put simply if the best way to increase the tax take is to decrease tax for the rich rather than increase it, shouldn't we do that? It doesn't adversely affect the low earners in real terms at all. If the effect of reducing income tax in this bracket is an overall increase in tax take, this can be used to keep the social supports to the poor open. But I can see how the suggestion of a lower rate (note that lower rate does not mean less tax paid) can make some people jealous, as they have unquestioning loyalty to the proposition that every higher tax band should also have a higher rate attached otherwise it is somehow punishing the poor for the benefit of the rich.

As to the rest of your post, we are all well aware that if the ecb would just give us free money we could get everyone back to work with no adverse consequences. But for nefarious reasons they refuse to take this simple step. So, until they carry out this obvious, one way solution, we are going to have to look at balancing our books without loads of free money. Care to comment on that (even if just on a "what if" basis, pending the inevitable implementation of your policy)?

Is that condescending enough for you?

By cutting high-end taxes we are somehow going to increase the tax income? (so, by cutting taxes on the rich, this is said to end up benefiting the less well off)
That doesn't make sense, unless it's advocating an unwinnable 'race to the bottom' with other countries, for lax taxation on the rich (which, for obvious reasons, would be extremely regressive).


I disagree personally, with working within the current broken ECB policies and accepting them, and especially with framing all economic discourse within those policies, since that allows the real availability of alternative policies to be obscured, and in accepting that limitation of discourse, that inherently means accepting the continued destruction of EU economies through austerity (and the domination of conservative economic narrative, based on shortage of money).

There are alternatives to those policies, at both an EU level and locally, which would resolve the crisis and allow much more progressive taxation (among much more progressive politics in general); the EU does not have to be stuck with these policies, and we don't have to be stuck within deadlocked EU policies either, so accepting the limitation of narrative, only harms awareness of alternatives.

johnnyskeleton

KyussBishop wrote: »

By cutting high-end taxes we are somehow going to increase the tax income? (so, by cutting taxes on the rich, this is said to end up benefiting the less well off)
That doesn't make sense, unless it's advocating an unwinnable 'race to the bottom' with other countries, for lax taxation on the rich (which, for obvious reasons, would be extremely regressive).

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve

I disagree personally, with working within the current broken ECB policies and accepting them, and especially with framing all economic discourse within those policies, since that allows the real availability of alternative policies to be obscured, and in accepting that limitation of discourse, that inherently means accepting the continued destruction of EU economies through austerity (and the domination of conservative economic narrative, based on shortage of money).

Fine. But that doesn't mean that people who don't share your view can't discuss this issue. You've said yourself that in your model tax at the upper end can be almost anything and it doesn't make a difference.

KyussBishop

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve



Fine. But that doesn't mean that people who don't share your view can't discuss this issue. You've said yourself that in your model tax at the upper end can be almost anything and it doesn't make a difference.

Even on that very page, the validity of the Laffer Curve is put in serious doubt, and even then you'd need to show that reducing tax moves us closer to the optimal tax rate on the Laffer Curve (which isn't really possible, as the 'optimal' rate can't be determined with any empirical accuracy, attempts at calculating it are purely speculative).

Some models (as mentioned on the wiki page) even have the Laffer curve sloping upwards all the way to 100%, making it pretty poor for supporting tax reduction arguments.


With regards to my views: I don't have a problem with people not sharing my views, but that doesn't mean I can't discuss this issue either, in the proper context of wider EU/national policies.

Barracuda1

I think the low to middle income earners are paying enough Income TAX.
Property tax should be levied on those who have irregular income streams
but still make a good income compared with paye/prsi earners. Eventually income tax should be reduced and it levied more onto property and water rates to encourage employment.

sock puppet

Does anyone who studied economics know if any economist has ever given serious thought to whether or not the Laffer curve has local maxima? I think it'd be an interesting study.

Godge

Barracuda1 wrote: »

I think the low to middle income earners are paying enough Income TAX.
.

Do you have any statistics to back this up based on comparisons with other countries?

hfallada

Barracuda1 wrote: »

I think the low to middle income earners are paying enough Income TAX.
Property tax should be levied on those who have irregular income streams
but still make a good income compared with paye/prsi earners. Eventually income tax should be reduced and it levied more onto property and water rates to encourage employment.

Was it the 2009/2010 budget that the government said half of all earners pay NO income tax. Where as in the USA and most european countries even the low income people pay a fair amount of tax unlike none in Ireland.

High income tax rates discourage hard work and only encourage high income individual to tax avoid or move abroad to a country that values their hard work.

Even capital gain tax at the moment is a joke. It's not rewarding investment at all.

Geuze

Godge wrote: »

Do you have any statistics to back this up based on comparisons with other countries?

This may help.

http://economic-incentives.blogspot.ie/2013/01/is-ireland-low-tax-again.html

Or this:

http://economic-incentives.blogspot.ie/2012/12/taxing-with-best-of-them.html

na1

I have an opposite suggestion:
Couples on minimal wage with kids make a negative contribution to the economy: taking into the account FIS, Child Benefit etc. the amount of tax they pay is less than the amount of benefits they get from the state.
Bringing them into the tax net will save some money for the economy. And by no chance they immigrate: Ireland is almost the only country in the EU which has this 'negative tax' phenomenon.

Barracuda1

Godge wrote: »

Do you have any statistics to back this up based on comparisons with other countries?

An indivual that earns 30k gross per year pays 9k per year in income tax. 30k per year would be a low income for a family with one child and would be a modest income to a single person. On the same income a persome pays 1200 eur per year in PRSI (4%) and gets very little in regards for their money. As one previous thread said their were a high as 50% of inviduals who pay no income tax so I suggest they pay property tax and water rates to make up their contribution. I for one would like to see more manufacturing job come into Ireland and not vanish ten years later becaude of high costs. One last point is that if you continue to tax income you will find it impossible to reduce unemployment. I agree everyone even the student should pay something 4% PRSI on their in low income but make it worthwhile to work one or if you can get it two jobs have a good standard of living and give you bit the same as the high income earners

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_rates_of_Europe. Ireland is one of the more progressive income tax systems.

Godge

Barracuda1 wrote: »

An indivual that earns 30k gross per year pays 9k per year in income tax. 30k per year would be a low income for a family with one child and would be a modest income to a single person. On the same income a persome pays 1200 eur per year in PRSI (4%) and gets very little in regards for their money. As one previous thread said their were a high as 50% of inviduals who pay no income tax so I suggest they pay property tax and water rates to make up their contribution. I for one would like to see more manufacturing job come into Ireland and not vanish ten years later becaude of high costs. One last point is that if you continue to tax income you will find it impossible to reduce unemployment. I agree everyone even the student should pay something 4% PRSI on their in low income but make it worthwhile to work one or if you can get it two jobs have a good standard of living and give you bit the same as the high income earners

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_rates_of_Europe. Ireland is one of the more progressive income tax systems.

Your original point was that "I think the low to middle income earners are paying enough Income TAX."

The two articles provided by Geuze disprove this point (see post again below). In fact, it is clearly stated that "For average earners Ireland is a low-taxed, low-social-insured economy. A chart ranked by total deductions is here. Ireland is at the bottom."

There is no doubt that there is plenty of room to increase income tax on the average earner to bring us into line with the rest of Europe. This should be accompanied by increased services such as free GP care, better childcare etc. For the moment, if you have average earnings and are healthy with no children, Ireland is the place to be.

If you are a high earner, you are better off leaving Ireland for most places (except France!)

Geuze wrote: »

This may help.

http://economic-incentives.blogspot.ie/2013/01/is-ireland-low-tax-again.html

Or this:

http://economic-incentives.blogspot.ie/2012/12/taxing-with-best-of-them.html

Barracuda1

Godge wrote: »

Your original point was that "I think the low to middle income earners are paying enough Income TAX."

The two articles provided by Geuze disprove this point (see post again below). In fact, it is clearly stated that "For average earners Ireland is a low-taxed, low-social-insured economy. A chart ranked by total deductions is here. Ireland is at the bottom."

There is no doubt that there is plenty of room to increase income tax on the average earner to bring us into line with the rest of Europe. This should be accompanied by increased services such as free GP care, better childcare etc. For the moment, if you have average earnings and are healthy with no children, Ireland is the place to be.

If you are a high earner, you are better off leaving Ireland for most places (except France!)

What about the cost of living in Ireland compared to other European countries. I don't believe in free GP care for all as like all other free services it is open to abuse. I am in favor of free GP care for under 18 and those who are terminally ill as neither party will have any source of income.

http://www.numbeo.com/common/

Godge

Barracuda1 wrote: »

What about the cost of living in Ireland compared to other European countries. I don't believe in free GP care for all as like all other free services it is open to abuse. I am in favor of free GP care for under 18 and those who are terminally ill as neither party will have any source of income.

http://www.numbeo.com/common/

The cost of living is a separate issue. We have the lowest income tax rate on average incomes in Europe.

Geuze

Barracuda1 wrote: »

An indivual that earns 30k gross per year pays 9k per year in income tax. 30k per year would be a low income for a family with one child and would be a modest income to a single person. On the same income a persome pays 1200 eur per year in PRSI (4%) and gets very little in regards for their money. .

Single person on 30k @ 20% = 6,000 less tax credits of 1650 + 1650 means 2700 in income tax. Not 9000.

Effective rate = 9% income tax, marginal rate = 20%.

Barracuda1

What do you propose we raise the income tax rates to. We also have a high level of indirect taxes i.e VAT Customs and Excise VRT Capitals Gains Tax car tax etc. We need to move away from these forms and have a property tax that allows central government to accurately estimate the income from the country from year to year to avoid high borrowing costs

Barracuda1

Geuze wrote: »

Single person on 30k @ 20% = 6,000 less tax credits of 1650 + 1650 means 2700 in income tax. Not 9000.

Effective rate = 9% income tax, marginal rate = 20%.

You need to add PRSI and USC to that as well which work out at 5,318 eur in tax. approx 18%

srsly78

Barracuda1 wrote: »

You need to add PRSI and USC to that as well which work out at 5,318 eur in tax. approx 18%

The original post was talking about income tax, so you are now moving the goalposts. The original poster also mentioned prsi seperately.

Godge

Barracuda1 wrote: »

What do you propose we raise the income tax rates to. We also have a high level of indirect taxes i.e VAT Customs and Excise VRT Capitals Gains Tax car tax etc. We need to move away from these forms and have a property tax that allows central government to accurately estimate the income from the country from year to year to avoid high borrowing costs

What we need to do is reduce the tax credits, reduce other tax reliefs while at the same time expanding the 20% tax band to encourage work.

Combined with this there must be immediate taxation of welfare benefits including notional taxation of benefits such as medical cards etc.

Barracuda1 wrote: »

You need to add PRSI and USC to that as well which work out at 5,318 eur in tax. approx 18%

I think we started out with you stating that the amount was 9,000 euro in income tax. Your revised calculation is 5,318 euro in all deductions.

Barracuda1

srsly78 wrote: »

The original post was talking about income tax, so you are now moving the goalposts. The original poster also mentioned prsi seperately.

That is a fair point and all employees pay PAYE/PRSI/USC on their income not just PAYE. The thread seems to convey we are paying low income tax. We are average to high on income tax. I pointed out that those of us who don't pay income tax should pay for property and water as they may not have fixed monthly incomes and derive income from other sources i.e property,shares,dividends etc

srsly78

Income tax is payable on other sources of income as well. Some stuff like DIRT and DWT is special, but income tax is pretty universal.

PAYE has nothing to do with income tax as such, it's just a matter of when it gets paid.

Barracuda1

Godge wrote: »

What we need to do is reduce the tax credits, reduce other tax reliefs while at the same time expanding the 20% tax band to encourage work.

Combined with this there must be immediate taxation of welfare benefits including notional taxation of benefits such as medical cards etc.




I think we started out with you stating that the amount was 9,000 euro in income tax. Your revised calculation is 5,318 euro in all deductions.

I acknowledge I was incorrect on that figure and thank you for correcting me. I agree with the medical cards as it is open to abuse and so to with welfare. What are your proposals with regard to the standard rate of tax raise it to 22,24%. I propose that property tax take it place as there are 1.4 million homes in the country versus 1.9 million people working paing income tax. Its far easier to see where people live that track their income sources

srsly78

Godge wrote: »

Combined with this there must be immediate taxation of welfare benefits including notional taxation of benefits such as medical cards etc.

I do agree with what you are saying, but you must realise that social welfare benefits are already taxable in many cases. It just happens that most people in receipt of them will be under the threshold and not be liable for any.

Godge

Barracuda1 wrote: »

That is a fair point and all employees pay PAYE/PRSI/USC on their income not just PAYE. The thread seems to convey we are paying low income tax. We are average to high on income tax. I pointed out that those of us who don't pay income tax should pay for property and water as they may not have fixed monthly incomes and derive income from other sources i.e property,shares,dividends etc

The piece in bold is factually incorrect as has been shown by the two links provided earlier in this thread.

Geuze wrote: »

This may help.

http://economic-incentives.blogspot.ie/2013/01/is-ireland-low-tax-again.html

Or this:

http://economic-incentives.blogspot.ie/2012/12/taxing-with-best-of-them.html

To repeat from one of the articles:

"For average earners Ireland is a low-taxed, low-social-insured economy. A chart ranked by total deductions is here. Ireland is at the bottom."

That includes social insurance contributions such as PRSI.

Please stop making false statements unless you can back them up with facts.

Godge

srsly78 wrote: »

I do agree with what you are saying, but you must realise that social welfare benefits are already taxable in many cases. It just happens that most people in receipt of them will be under the threshold and not be liable for any.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/social_welfare/irish_social_welfare_system/claiming_a_social_welfare_payment/taxation_of_social_welfare_payments.html


The list of taxable payments is attached. Notable payments that are not taxed include Family Income Supplement, Farm Assist, Supplementary Welfare Allowance, Maternity Benefit. Many of these recipients are in receipt of other payments.

A second point is that with the extension of PRSI to unearned income from the start of next year, why are social welfare payments not considered unearned income?

Barracuda1

Godge wrote: »

The piece in bold is factually incorrect as has been shown by the two links provided earlier in this thread.




To repeat from one of the articles:

"For average earners Ireland is a low-taxed, low-social-insured economy. A chart ranked by total deductions is here. Ireland is at the bottom."

That includes social insurance contributions such as PRSI.

Please stop making false statements unless you can back them up with facts.

Put your proposals on the table and let us debate. I have given mine

Godge

Barracuda1 wrote: »

Put your proposals on the table and let us debate. I have given mine

Post 35, see above, I was responding to one of your posts, you must have missed it.

srsly78

Godge wrote: »

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/social_welfare/irish_social_welfare_system/claiming_a_social_welfare_payment/taxation_of_social_welfare_payments.html


The list of taxable payments is attached. Notable payments that are not taxed include Family Income Supplement, Farm Assist, Supplementary Welfare Allowance, Maternity Benefit. Many of these recipients are in receipt of other payments.

A lot of these are means tested payments, so making them taxable would be redundant.

Barracuda1

Godge wrote: »

Post 35, see above, I was responding to one of your posts, you must have missed it.

I have seen it and have your considered the social economics of this. I am in favor of abolishing redundant tax credits but raising the standard rate of tax could mean the difference for alot of people of able to pay basic living costs and driving them father into poverty. The current government is not in favor of raising income tax at the costs of employment. Tax credits are there to help families with cost of health and with raising a family in Ireland.

Bruthal

Geuze wrote: »

Single person on 30k @ 20% = 6,000 less tax credits of 1650 + 1650 means 2700 in income tax. Not 9000.

Effective rate = 9% income tax, marginal rate = 20%.

Fine if you only look at income tax, but a person on 30k filling their car with petrol, will pay a higher percentage of their income on the tax for that fill, than someone on 100k. The same with vat or duty on any other spending.

Income tax is just one little narrow view of taxation, looked at by many, as if it was the only one.

Godge

Bruthal wrote: »

Fine if you only look at income tax, but a person on 30k filling their car with petrol, will pay a higher percentage of their income on the tax for that fill, than someone on 100k. The same with vat or duty on any other spending.

Income tax is just one little narrow view of taxation, looked at by many, as if it was the only one.

That is only relevant if there is a generic universal right to own and drive a car.

Godge

Barracuda1 wrote: »

I have seen it and have your considered the social economics of this. I am in favor of abolishing redundant tax credits but raising the standard rate of tax could mean the difference for alot of people of able to pay basic living costs and driving them father into poverty. The current government is not in favor of raising income tax at the costs of employment. Tax credits are there to help families with cost of health and with raising a family in Ireland.

You misread my post. I was not proposing to increase the standard rate of tax. I was proposing to expand (widen) the 20% tax band to reduce the number of people paying at the higher rate.

Bruthal

Godge wrote: »

That is only relevant if there is a generic universal right to own and drive a car.

Petrol is not the only thing people pay tax on, and was a single example.

People constantly compare higher and lower earners only on income tax.

Godge

Bruthal wrote: »

Petrol is not the only thing people pay tax on, and was a single example.

You are missing the point. Essential goods including things like childrens' clothes and food are VAT-exempt zero-rated or low-rated.

Luxury goods are high-rated VAT.

In Ireland, if you income is average, you pay the least amount of tax in Europe. If you are subsequently buying essential goods with that average income, you are paying very little VAT.

It is only if you are buying big televisions, cars, SKY subscriptions, expensive clothes, alcohol, cigarettes, petrol or other luxuries that you pay higher rates of VAT and excise.

wolfpawnat

I would be all for a higher tax rate, lower children's allowance and JSA and what not if the country was benefiting and if there was a good health and education system and if keeping the house lit and warm didn't cost an arm, two legs and a kidney. I am sure most people would agree. But it isn't going to is it? And that is the more central issue here. Not what we would be paying but whom.

That is what is central to all this, why should any Irish citizen be forced to pay for the gambling of the wealthy. We have paid enough as it is!