Third rate of tax

Godge

wolfpawnat wrote: »

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!

What you really mean by this is that you would accept all of the above if it meant that your current living standard wasn't affected. It is the same problem that discussion boards have all the time. Cut something but not me or so that I can still afford to keep my house warm (as well as my big car and holiday or whatever else).

wolfpawnat

Godge wrote: »

What you really mean by this is that you would accept all of the above if it meant that your current living standard wasn't affected. It is the same problem that discussion boards have all the time. Cut something but not me or so that I can still afford to keep my house warm (as well as my big car and holiday or whatever else).

Actually, I am currently unemployed and have a child (and before anyone attacks me for being a SW scrounger, I had a job when I got pregnant), but if it meant I didn't have to wait 18 months for him to see a Speech Therapist and if all children were guaranteed an excellent education as opposed to overfilled classrooms where teachers cannot cater to needs of every child because there are not enough hours for them to do so. If all people who needed medical care were better looked after rather than having to pay a fortune for overpaid consultants then I would gladly have less to live on, but as it stands that is not the case. The last few budgets were to pay back foreign debt and the personal gamblings of the wealthy as opposed to helping the average joe and joanne like you and me!

Godge

wolfpawnat wrote: »

Actually, I am currently unemployed and have a child (and before anyone attacks me for being a SW scrounger, I had a job when I got pregnant), but if it meant I didn't have to wait 18 months for him to see a Speech Therapist and if all children were guaranteed an excellent education as opposed to overfilled classrooms where teachers cannot cater to needs of every child because there are not enough hours for them to do so. If all people who needed medical care were better looked after rather than having to pay a fortune for overpaid consultants then I would gladly have less to live on, but as it stands that is not the case. The last few budgets were to pay back foreign debt and the personal gamblings of the wealthy as opposed to helping the average joe and joanne like you and me!

Yes but in order to do all of that, we need to cut social welfare expenditure (22bn and rising is the biggest burden on the state) and increase tax on the average worker. The money for public services (including paying their wages as they have to get some reward) has to come from somewhere.

No matter what anyone says, we still need to close the gap between taxation and expenditure by €5.1 bn. Even if all of the bank debt was taken away and we didn't have to pay the interest, it would only save around €1 bn of that five. After that we need to find more money to put decent public services in place.

Bruthal

Godge wrote: »

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.

Yes, have nothing but shoes and a cheap pair of jeans, and you can be a low tax payer.

Perhaps the high earners should drop to an average income, since there seem to be no negatives to it in boards land.

Godge

Bruthal wrote: »

Yes, have nothing but shoes and a cheap pair of jeans, and you can be a low tax payer.

Perhaps the high earners should drop to an average income, since there seem to be no negatives to it in boards land.

If there is no incentive to work, noone will work.

Currently the top 10% of earners pay around 80% of the income tax, we need them more than they need us.

Bruthal

Godge wrote: »

Currently the top 10% of earners pay around 80% of the income tax, we need them more than they need us.

Yes. When you have more money than you know what to do with, you can hold the poor to ransom.

But anyway, if a person on the 30k volunteers to buy the luxurious tank of petrol, he is taxed at a higher rate than the 100k person. I suppose the 30k man could walk to work though, in his bare feet, since shoes are hardly essential are they?

srsly78

Bruthal wrote: »

Yes. When you have more money than you know what to do with, you can hold the poor to ransom.

So instead you want to hold the rich to ransom. Why would anyone bother working hard if you are just going to take it all off them?

The situation right now is bad enough, if I work an extra day the govt takes 54% off the wage. This is a serious disincentive to not do any extra work.

Also you completely fail to distinguish between high earners and rich people, they are not necessarily the same.

Idbatterim

is over 32,800 and over well off? because to be taking that extortionate and in my opinion immoral rate (52% or what ever it is), over that relative paltry sum for a single person, is a disgrace in my opinion...

KyussBishop

Godge wrote: »

Yes but in order to do all of that, we need to cut social welfare expenditure (22bn and rising is the biggest burden on the state) and increase tax on the average worker. The money for public services (including paying their wages as they have to get some reward) has to come from somewhere.

No matter what anyone says, we still need to close the gap between taxation and expenditure by €5.1 bn. Even if all of the bank debt was taken away and we didn't have to pay the interest, it would only save around €1 bn of that five. After that we need to find more money to put decent public services in place.

Except we don't have to close the deficit gap, if we choose any policy other than austerity; every discussion here presupposes austerity, when it's possible to 1: Lobby the EU for proper recovery policies, or failing that, 2: Reintroduce a local currency, and reduce our role within the EU (likely still keeping the Euro as an exchange currency, maybe even still a circulating one), so we can take back control ourselves.

Austerity is not an unavoidable fact, and people need to stop treating it like it is; perfectly good alternative policies are available at both an EU and national level, and a failure to strive for enacting those policies is a failure at all levels of government, that people should not ignore.

Bruthal

srsly78 wrote: »

So instead you want to hold the rich to ransom. Why would anyone bother working hard if you are just going to take it all off them?

They are the top 10% paying 80% of the income tax, purely due to being over taxed?

And the lower earners will unlikely be in a position to hold the top 10% paying 80% of the income tax, to ransom somehow.

The situation right now is bad enough, if I work an extra day the govt takes 54% off the wage. This is a serious disincentive to not do any extra work.

I know all about it. I did it for years without having to work an extra minute, never mind an extra day to be paying 50+ %. I could still see difficulties for people on low wages without having to constantly look at it as percentages.

Also you completely fail to distinguish between high earners and rich people, they are not necessarily the same.

No, but if they are in the top 10%, they will hardly be poor.

ezra_pound

KyussBishop wrote: »

Except we don't have to close the deficit gap, if we choose any policy other than austerity; every discussion here presupposes austerity, when it's possible to 1: Lobby the EU for proper recovery policies, or failing that, 2: Reintroduce a local currency, and reduce our role within the EU (likely still keeping the Euro as an exchange currency, maybe even still a circulating one), so we can take back control ourselves.

Austerity is not an unavoidable fact, and people need to stop treating it like it is; perfectly good alternative policies are available at both an EU and national level, and a failure to strive for enacting those policies is a failure at all levels of government, that people should not ignore.

We are spending 13bn more than we are earning each year. This is unsustainable. We are already bailed out by the imf so we're kind of at the end of the line.

Godge

Bruthal wrote: »

Yes. When you have more money than you know what to do with, you can hold the poor to ransom.

But anyway, if a person on the 30k volunteers to buy the luxurious tank of petrol, he is taxed at a higher rate than the 100k person. I suppose the 30k man could walk to work though, in his bare feet, since shoes are hardly essential are they?

Again, if the person on 30k can afford a car, he is, by definition not poor, so what's the problem with him paying the tax?

Bruthal

Godge wrote: »

Again, if the person on 30k can afford a car, he is, by definition not poor, so what's the problem with him paying the tax?

I never said he was poor really. I said a person on 30k buying a tank of petrol, pays a higher percentage of his income on tax for it than someone on 100k. If you can only refute that by saying he can walk to his job, or doesnt need a car, fair enough.

Cookie_Monster

Bruthal wrote: »

Y
But anyway, if a person on the 30k volunteers to buy the luxurious tank of petrol, he is taxed at a higher rate than the 100k person. I suppose the 30k man could walk to work though, in his bare feet, since shoes are hardly essential are they?

No he's not, the tax rate is the same. If you want to start taking the tax as percentage of income then it'll be more but that's a pointless measurement.

srsly78

Bruthal wrote: »

And the lower earners will unlikely be in a position to hold the top 10% paying 80% of the income tax, to ransom somehow.

I sure hope so, if those Marxists get into power I am outta here!

Bruthal

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

No he's not, the tax rate is the same. If you want to start taking the tax as percentage of income then it'll be more but that's a pointless measurement.

Any tax is from a persons income. The percentage they pay is pointless now?

So only consider paye is it? Other taxes dont matter as a percentage?

PeadarCo

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

No he's not, the tax rate is the same. If you want to start taking the tax as percentage of income then it'll be more but that's a pointless measurement.

It should also be pointed out that how often a person uses the car also affects the measurement of this %. High usage of a car would mean lead a person spending more on a car versus a lower usage. Meaning that when looking at the effective rate of transaction taxes you would need to look at the volume/total amount of transactions at a certain rate in addition to the individuals totals income.

Using the car example again a person earning 60k may spend a % percentage of their income on petrol versus a person on 30k depending on how often they have to fill up their car.For example a person in a rural area with a high dependence on a car versus an urban dweller for whom it may be easier to walk for many journeys.

On a broader note once a person can feed themselves(Godge has already noted essential items attract 0/reduced rates of VAT) and provide accommodation for themselves and dependants the % of transaction tax out of total income is meaningless as depends it as much on personal circumstance as total income.

Barracuda1

Godge wrote: »

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.

You want to raise the 41% tax rate above 32,800 eur. that would be a step in the right direction for some social classes but it may not yield a high return considering the average wage in Ireland is approx 40k.

na1

Bruthal wrote: »

Yes. When you have more money than you know what to do with, you can hold the poor to ransom.

Poor?
There are 10-12 y.o. kids in India, who has to work 10 hrs a day to earn some $1. They ARE poor. And have no chance to get an education, although they would love to!
And here we have spoiled people who have no will to get some degree or other proper education, to start making their career from the graduate to executive. Who wants to spend day doing the work that every chimp in a zoo can do, and as a reward for this have a good car, big house, sat TV and all the 'standard' optiinos - they are not poor.

Bruthal

na1 wrote: »

Poor?
There are 10-12 y.o. kids in India, who has to work 10 hrs a day to earn some $1. They ARE poor.

Are you donating your riches to them?

srsly78

Yep, you know that tax we pay? You know that foreign aid budget?

Bruthal

srsly78 wrote: »

Yep, you know that tax we pay? You know that foreign aid budget?

You must be begrudgingly donating from your riches then, as you complained about paying the high tax earlier.

srsly78

The state has a monopoly on violence, I have no choice but to comply.

Cookie_Monster

Bruthal wrote: »

Any tax is from a persons income. The percentage they pay is pointless now?

So only consider paye is it? Other taxes dont matter as a percentage?

but that rich person probably drives a bigger more expensive car which attracted more tax and probably uses it more too using more fuel and paying more than mr. joe average.

it's pointless to take such a small transaction as an example is my point. And fuel is a particularly stupid example as it's entirely up to the individual how much they spend on it and there are very easy ways to avoid such a tax.

Bruthal

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

but that rich person probably drives a bigger more expensive car which attracted more tax and probably uses it more too using more fuel and paying more than mr. joe average.

He could always downgrade from the range rover to a passat. He would still get from A to B. He just wont impress his mates as much.

it's pointless to take such a small transaction as an example is my point.

Each fill as a transaction, is bigger, the less you earn. And its unlikely to be only 1 fill a year for the average family.

And fuel is a particularly stupid example as it's entirely up to the individual how much they spend on it and there are very easy ways to avoid such a tax.

Maybe the lower earner also volunteers to pay €43 tax from a 50 litre fill of petrol. But it would not seem quite as easy for a family to manage without a car as you claim. And certainly not as easy to avoid, as it would be for a rich person to downgrade from the range rover to the passat.

Anyway my point is not actually about petrol itself, it is about the fact income tax is not the only tax paid, and flat taxes hit lower earners harder.

At the end of the day, as another example, a minimum wage worker just surviving, has little more to give, but going by percentages taking account of only the income tax they pay, should have loads to give.

carpejugulum

Bruthal wrote: »

Are you donating your riches to them?

Are you? If you want to make richer people share their wealth with you here, then you should also share your wealth with poorer people.

Bruthal

carpejugulum wrote: »

Are you?

Are you?

If you want to make richer people share their wealth with you here, then you should also share your wealth with poorer people.

If you mean share their wealth by paying more taxes, id say most average people are paying more taxes now than before.

But again, my posts were stating my opinion that direct income tax is only part of the overall taxation imposed on people. I dont remember saying much about who should pay what.

carpejugulum

Bruthal wrote: »

Are you?

What I do voluntarily is my own business.
But unlike you, I am not arguing for taking people's money coercively.

Bruthal wrote: »

If you mean share their wealth by paying more taxes, id say most average people are paying more taxes now than before.

But there are also many more people who are net receivers thanks to welfare.
High earners are mostly net payers.

Bruthal

carpejugulum wrote: »

What I do voluntarily is my own business.

Grand. Glad to hear it.

But unlike you, I am not arguing for taking people's money coercively.

Where did I argue for this? Genuinely cant remember that, I was probably drunk, as I can hardly remember any posts from the last few days.

But there are also many more people who are net receivers thanks to welfare.

Indeed there are. Maybe you can coerce a change there. That`s your own business though.

High earners are mostly net payers.

Are average earners, net receivers? Maybe they are.

carpejugulum

Bruthal wrote: »

Grand. Glad to hear it.


Where did I argue for this? Genuinely cant remember that, I was probably drunk, as I can hardly remember any posts from the last few days.

Do you support a flat tax system?

Bruthal wrote: »

Are average earners, net receivers? Maybe they are.

depends on circumstances

Bruthal

carpejugulum wrote: »

Bruthal wrote: »

Where did I argue for this? Genuinely cant remember that,

Do you support a flat tax system?

To show where I said something, wont need more questions answered. As I said, I cant remember much about the last few days.

depends on circumstances

Yea, you would adviocate coercively taking money off the worst off id say. Mention welfare, and its like a red rag to a bull no doubt.

But again, different people in different circumstances, but I think you would view by classes rather than individual circumstances.

carpejugulum

Bruthal wrote: »

To show where I said something, wont need more questions answered. As I said, I cant remember much about the last few days.


Yea, you would adviocate coercively taking money off the worst off id say. Mention welfare, and its like a red rag to a bull no doubt.

But again, different people in different circumstances, but I think you would view by classes rather than individual circumstances.

You seem to be projecting a lot. This thread is about income taxes, not welfare. But you cannot take money off someone who has not earned it in the first place.

Head The Wall

You can tax them on it at source like happens PAYE workers

Farmer Pudsey

I have yet to see a concise argument in favour of a third tax rate or any reason to make any radical changes to the tax system on this thread.

Some posters have advacoted some changes but any I saw will not bring in any extra money and some will reduce the tax take. In reality we have more than likly reached the limits of tax rates in the economy this includes indirect (property and car tax), wealth (capital and Dirt) direct(income tax) and consumption Vat, VRT and excise on drink and fuel.

The only place that I could see the government raise some is an exice tax on supermaket/off licience drink. Because of its low price at present it may be possible to place a 20% excise on some of it.

Bruthal

carpejugulum wrote: »

You seem to be projecting a lot. .

Indeed I am, that`s how im viewing the pc display in fact, and this very thread. Straight onto the wall.

Geuze

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

The only place that I could see the government raise some is an exice tax on supermaket/off licience drink. Because of its low price at present it may be possible to place a 20% excise on some of it.

Alcohol is subject to excise for many decades in IRL.

You seem to be suggesting that supermarket alcohol is exempt from excise, which of course it isn't.

Excise taxes apply at the production stage, and don't vary according to the sales channel.

Geuze

This discussion is about income taxes, and the number of income tax rates.

The USA has six rates.

Many countries have several rates.

We have two main income tax rates, 20 and 41.

I suggest we should have more rates.

Farmer Pudsey

Geuze wrote: »

Alcohol is subject to excise for many decades in IRL.

You seem to be suggesting that supermarket alcohol is exempt from excise, which of course it isn't.

Excise taxes apply at the production stage, and don't vary according to the sales channel.

No I did not suggest that it had not got excise already what I mearly pointed out was that it is an area that it may be possible to raise tax. This is due to it ver cheap prices in superamarkets. When you can purchasse longnecks for less than a euro and cans for a euro or a little with it in the case of branded products then it may be possible to put 30-40c om the bottles and 50-60 on the cans

Geuze

Then you suggest different excise rates dependent on the eventual sales channel?

Geuze

The problem is that when you look at 1m litres of beer brewing in a tank in a brewery, you don't know where it will end up.

Excise on wine in supermarket different to in restaurants? Tricky. When a bottle of wine lands in Ireland, we don't know where it will end up.

Geuze

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

I
In reality we have more than likly reached the limits of tax rates in the economy this includes indirect (property and car tax), wealth (capital and Dirt) direct(income tax) and consumption Vat, VRT and excise on drink and fuel.
it.[/Quote

For clarity, property taxes are not indirect taxes.

Also, DIRT is an income tax.

Our fuel excise taxes are by no means the highest in Europe.

Geuze

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

I have yet to see a concise argument in favour of a third tax rate or any reason to make any radical changes to the tax system on this thread.

Some posters have advacoted some
changes but any I saw will not bring in any extra money and some will reduce the tax take. t.

I'll try, but will probably fail.

In general, what we need are slightly higher ATR, with no increase in MTR.

So increase the incentive to work, while actually collecting more income tax.

Tricky.

Key focus should be those over 65, w have typically low costs, but who are under taxed, due to age tax credit and age exemption. Abolish both.

Geuze

In general, what we need are slightly higher ATR, with no increase in MTR.

So increase the incentive to work, while actually collecting more income ta

First rule- max MTR should be 50%. That means lower than now, where it's 52 for me and maybe more for others.

How to achieve this- abolish USC, but have four income tax rates.

Keep PRSI, due to the need for soc ins, but increase rates to 8%, with a min rate of 2% or 4% for all. Ceiling of 100k.

Barracuda1

Geuze wrote: »

This discussion is about income taxes, and the number of income tax rates.

The USA has six rates.

Many countries have several rates.

We have two main income tax rates, 20 and 41.

I suggest we should have more rates.

The are seven rates in the USA and the middle citizens would pay more in property tax than income tax. I have heard of up to $4000 dollars for properties similar in size of three bed semi in Boston. They can work as much as they like and if they are unhappy with the services they pay for they can refuse to pay the taxes. In Ireland you pay and the services can be good or bad. The idea of shifting people who are on irregular income or self employed onto property taxes would be something the government could try. The main point here is the governments need to move to direct and away from away from indirect tax (VAT/Excise/VRT) so they can plan budgets better.

Mr Chuckles

I think little would be gained by increasing tax rates, or adding a 3rd band. Indirect taxes in Ireland are high, and the lack of an NHS type health system, adds substantially to family costs. Our health system is designed to gouge as much out of people as possible.
What is needed, is that everyone pays their fair share, and that includes companies, who through creative accounting practices, don't even pay on an already low tax rate.

http://www.independent.ie/business/world/google-avoided-2bn-taxes-worldwide-in-2011-28946072.html

Farmer Pudsey

Mr Chuckles wrote: »

I think little would be gained by increasing tax rates, or adding a 3rd band. Indirect taxes in Ireland are high, and the lack of an NHS type health system, adds substantially to family costs. Our health system is designed to gouge as much out of people as possible.
What is needed, is that everyone pays their fair share, and that includes companies, who through creative accounting practices, don't even pay on an already low tax rate.

http://www.independent.ie/business/world/google-avoided-2bn-taxes-worldwide-in-2011-28946072.html

You start to wonder at times is there any benifit in a 12.5% buisness tax rate. Between some businesses such as Google now avoiding it and small native Irish companies able to shield money within the company framework. After that you have large irish companies such as banks and insurance companies etc which when they make have a reduced liability then you surly have to question the benifit to the economy.

I believe that the department of finance should haul these large multi-nationals and tell them that it is ok to avoid tax in the US, Germany or the UK by paying the corporate rate in Ireland. But we are fooked if we will allow them to avoid it in Ireland by paying it in Bermuda.:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Count Dooku

Mr Chuckles wrote: »

I think little would be gained by increasing tax rates, or adding a 3rd band. Indirect taxes in Ireland are high, and the lack of an NHS type health system, adds substantially to family costs. Our health system is designed to gouge as much out of people as possible.
What is needed, is that everyone pays their fair share, and that includes companies, who through creative accounting practices, don't even pay on an already low tax rate.

http://www.independent.ie/business/world/google-avoided-2bn-taxes-worldwide-in-2011-28946072.html

MNC's invited there to created jobs first, CT is just a bonus

Joe 90

Godge wrote: »

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

I think that even the most anti car person in Ireland would agree that in a lot of Ireland owning and driving a car is a necessity whether or not it is a right.

Joe 90

Geuze wrote: »

Alcohol is subject to excise for many decades in IRL.

You seem to be suggesting that supermarket alcohol is exempt from excise, which of course it isn't.

Excise taxes apply at the production stage, and don't vary according to the sales channel.

The thing about this arguement about supermarket booze being cheaper than pub booze is that it is totally erroneous.

A good fry up costs a lot less when cooked at home from supermarket eggs and bacon than it does when cooked for you and served to you in a cafe.

Should the food you buy in the supermarket be taxed because it is cheaper to eat at home instead of the cafe?

na1

Joe 90 wrote: »

Should the food you buy in the supermarket be taxed because it is cheaper to eat at home instead of the cafe?