Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Taxes.
-
02-10-2013 3:05pm#1cyberwolf77 wrote: »
Erm, I wish they hadn't used Bill Gates as the example of an ethical atheist. It takes a strange kind of ethics to see a charitable foundation as a way of paying both yourself and your wife a tax free six figure salary every year, and also as a way to funnel company profits offshore.1
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
Here's a table which shows exactly what bluewolf has just said:Brian Shanahan wrote: »
Totting up quickly, 61% of the population earn under 35k and pay 5.5% of the nation's income tax
9.5% of the population earn over 75k and pay 60%.
0.5% earn more than 275k and pay 16.5% with an average income tax bill of 162k.
Hope this helps.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Join Date:Posts: 26436
KyussBishop wrote: »Money isn't just an accumulation of paper wealth, that can be transformed into real wealth, it is an accumulation of power over others in society, due to the legal/political advantages it provides (among more).
Indeed it is, the Vatican learned this one century's ago.The least you can do is tax the crap out of that, while the wider problem remains unresolved - there must be some point, at which the power someone grants himself through money, becomes far more potentially harmful to society than beneficial? The only problem with defining that figure, is that it has to be unavoidably arbitrary.
I agree,
But then we don't tax religious organisations, but then can get away with compensating victims.
Now thats very harmful to society
0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
magicbastarder wrote: »i dunno, i didn't say they did.
do you mean 'more' in the sense that they owe more than they've already paid?
Well my earlier reply was to CR who said they did, and that's what I was questioning
0 -
Again, completely false, at least if you're referring to income tax. The 2009 table is here on page 6 if you want to do any calculations yourself. But here's what we get if we crunch the numbers:Charlie Rock wrote: »Em.. when taxes (all taxes) paid as a percentage is considered middle and lower income earners pay most.
From the last column, you can see that the more money you earn, not only do you pay more tax, but you pay it at a much higher percentage of your income too.
However, to reiterate for a second time, your original statement implied that high-earners don't "pay multiples of an average salary in tax" as bluewolf claimed. That statement is as false. As is your claim about the lower-paid paying a higher percentage of their salary as income tax.
Again, I hope this helps.0 -
Do you have any Irish statistics to back up either of your points?Brian Shanahan wrote: »There are two problems with the table which are immediately apparent:
1) You forget indirect taxes which are universally regressive, i.e. the poor pay a far larger share of their income in indirect taxes than the rich.
2) It does not take into account corporation, capital gains or other non PAYE type taxes, which is where most of the rich get their taxable income from (if its not offshored), all of which are at much lower rates than at PAYE rates. Seriously if you are earning enough to afford a half way decent solicitor and accountant, then there are myriad ways for you to reduce your tax bill to virtually nil (simply because worldwide pretty much every government over the last thirty years has moved tax evasion to tax avoidance, and declared tax avoidance to be a-ok).
Google and Ronan Lyons suggest:
http://www.ronanlyons.com/2012/04/10/paying-tax-in-ireland-where-the-richest-and-poorest-pay/The .. graph below shows the all-in tax rate (across income tax, USC, PRSI and VAT) for each of the ten income deciles. It takes into account earned income and transfers/benefits – which as I’ve stated before I believe should be treated as any other income source, to level the playing field between work and welfare.
This includes transfers such as child benefit which help the poor proportionally more than the rich.
Taxes:
0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Deleted User wrote: »
Interesting that it stops at the lower 40%.
See, the further up that slope you get the more likely it is you'll have assets other than income that are not considered; second homes, stocks and shares, trust funds, imaginative accountants, antiques, non-domiciles avoiding tax etc. Using income tax as a gauge of who pays for what and who benefits most from their taxes is dumb.Deleted User wrote: »You want the state to print money to fund everything is what I've gathered from elsewhere.
The outcome of that is hyperinflation.
It would be preferable to printing it and handing it over to the fucks who trashed the economies the were raking it in from but that would mean the 'masters of mankind' would not have control of the money.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Perhaps the reasoning for such a position?If we get the same education and a private business chooses to pay me more, how do I "owe more"?
If someone runs a business employing a load of people, giving them jobs at fair wages and benefits and helping local services and all sorts of positive knock on effects, what exactly do they "owe"?
It depends, I'm not a fan of income brackets as they don't detail basic cost of living in the area of residence. One person could be earning €50k are year but paying pretty much all that in accommodation costs. Another could be earning €35k per year and living in an area with a very low cost of living that they can easily afford to invest €5k a year in property elsewhere. Or another person may be on €100k a year but require €15k alone a month in medical expenses. Ok, those are extreme examples but I hope they illustrate the flawed principle of income thresholds. Ideally, what a person would "owe" would be based on their financial quality of living, not income. In your specific question whether or not you owe more would depend on where that private business is based and how much of a better quality of life and finances it provides you.
I wouldn't really consider employing people as giving something back to society. Employees are very often a necessity for any business. Without them the business can't grow. If the business can't afford to have employees, it won't. If it needs to cut back on them, it well. All the while every effort will likely be made to keep their personal income consistent or increasing. Yes, it's great that the person started the business but that person isn't really giving back to society. They're just using society to make money for themselves and as an indirect mechanism of that goal they're employing people but nothing's really coming from their own pocket. Society, and its structure, has helped them prosper and all they've done is utilised its financial viability. I do believe they should give back more to help make society better. As there is the possibility that the standard of living for some of their employees may not be that great. As I said previously wages aren't everything. However, there is a caveat there too. Some business owners are worse off than other people working for other companies. So this paragraph mostly applies to business owners who happen to have high standard of life and quality of income.
So as to what do they owe? That's a difficult question but I guess the viewpoint I would have is that if you have benefited from society you should give something back. The more you have, the more you should proportionally give back. Charity is nice but it requires voluntary donations, so I do think taxes are most the pragmatic way to go. A person has prospered through effort, luck and circumstance to the higher echelons of society. It should never be forgotten that if society didn't exist the way it did they might never have got to where they were in the first place. Equally important is the fact that they're dependent on society to keep them there. Others in society who may have tried just as hard as them, or harder, may be stuck forever in a financial trap until the state or a charity lifts them out of it. Generally speaking a charities will mostly focus on people at breaking point. Others may not be stuck in dire straits but they may still be caught in a financial trap whereby barring a complete change of fortune they're stuck on the same financial quality of life until they die. A simple incentive from a state/charity may be enough to get them to learn a new skill or start a successful business. (:P) This is why I believe those with better financial quality of life should give something back, to help others move into higher brackets too. The more that move into the higher brackets the more that can help others to move into higher standards of living and the more society progresses for the betterment of everyone.
To be honest, I think this is as much an economic argument as it is an ethical and philosophical one.0 -
-
They're just using society to make money for themselves and as an indirect mechanism of that goal they're employing people but nothing's really coming from their own pocket.
Having owned and run small businesses for most of my working life, with many friends who are also in similar positions, I'd say your point above is typically not the case. Typically a small business will take on debt to get started up, and the banks will demand directors guarantee that debt. At the same time they take on employees. Where things go well, they try to pay off the debt and accumulate surplus. They then use this to take on more debt, more employees, and grow. For a lucky few, they sell the business, make big bucks and either retire, or start all over again. In the boom years 35%-40% of small businesses in Ireland failed in the first four years of trading. With the recession, the attrition rate is much higher and many established businesses are also failing. Typically, when businesses fail, they fail while carrying debt, which is passed on to the directors with personal guarantees. The two principal sources of this debt, in order, tend to be salaries paid and rent. So in fact, the money for employees salaries often does come out of their own pocket. Notably, in addition to the bank, the principal debtor is often the revenue, or state if you prefer, who are about as pleasant to deal with as an angry pit bull.
You also have businesses such as my own that manufacture in Ireland and sell entirely to the export market. A small economy such as Ireland needs to take money in from outside to survive, and employers who export contribute significantly more to the economy and hence society than taxes. Another way of looking at this is that the money for salaries I've paid over the last decades have not come from our society, but they benefit our society.So as to what do they owe? That's a difficult question but I guess the viewpoint I would have is that if you have benefited from society you should give something back.
Before totting up the bill, you might want to ask what they are due back. Worth noting for the self employed business person who can't keep things afloat there is no dole, there's no medical card, in fact they're often in a far more precarious position than someone who has never worked a day in their life, or contributed in any meaningful way to society financially.So this paragraph mostly applies to business owners who happen to have high standard of life and quality of income.
Very few business owners are successful without having to work extraordinarily hard over many years. At that, the vast majority are only moderately successful. Most self employed small business people consider themselves bled dry by the state for very little return.
(Phew, rant over, all better now ) 0 -
-
Startups are a different scenario though - certainly, that can be a lot of very hard work, with a lot of risk (including significant personal risk in the case of directors guarantees), deserving of significant reward for success.Having owned and run small businesses for most of my working life, with many friends who are also in similar positions, I'd say your point above is typically not the case. Typically a small business will take on debt to get started up, and the banks will demand directors guarantee that debt. At the same time they take on employees. Where things go well, they try to pay off the debt and accumulate surplus. They then use this to take on more debt, more employees, and grow. For a lucky few, they sell the business, make big bucks and either retire, or start all over again. In the boom years 35%-40% of small businesses in Ireland failed in the first four years of trading. With the recession, the attrition rate is much higher and many established businesses are also failing. Typically, when businesses fail, they fail while carrying debt, which is passed on to the directors with personal guarantees. The two principal sources of this debt, in order, tend to be salaries paid and rent. So in fact, the money for employees salaries often does come out of their own pocket. Notably, in addition to the bank, the principal debtor is often the revenue, or state if you prefer, who are about as pleasant to deal with as an angry pit bull.
The problem lies more in established businesses, particularly larger enterprises and corporations, where the financial security of the company is reasonably established, and for the directors, it can become more about extracting money for themselves from the company, far beyond what they put into it themselves personally.
A valuable business like that, certainly deserves a large reward for getting it started up and running sustainably (and that reward should proportionally go to the workers who make it a success) - and moreso if there are a lot of unique difficulties/challenges that make keeping it running very difficult, and the people running the company are skilled/proficient at dealing with that.You also have businesses such as my own that manufacture in Ireland and sell entirely to the export market. A small economy such as Ireland needs to take money in from outside to survive, and employers who export contribute significantly more to the economy and hence society than taxes. Another way of looking at this is that the money for salaries I've paid over the last decades have not come from our society, but they benefit our society.
In a lot of companies though, people in leadership kind of take the piss they might be crap managers/directors who have just worked their way up the ladder, or are just lucky enough to have been there at the start and aren't contributing to the company in line with their salary/bonuses anymore.
There may also be perverse financial incentives in many corporations/companies, such as for short-term profits, where actions that are destructive to society (pollution, lawbreaking/fraud, in finance - inflating asset bubbles) are encouraged, because they can be used to boost company profits, particularly short-term profits (often at the expense of long-term financial sustainability: see the banks), which result in shareholders boosting directors salary/bonuses for 'doing a good job'.
The banking/financial industry took out our entire economy by doing this, massively boosting short-term profits which allowed directors/higher-ups to rake-in salaries/bonuses in the present (employees greatly benefited in salaries/bonuses too, though without being in the position of control), and walked away from the destruction/collapse that they knew they were creating, with no consequences personally, as very wealthy people (even making all the rest of us pay for it all...).
Those perverse incentives are still in place, and it will happen again.
That said, I don't think these arguments are usable to justify higher taxation (which is why I don't personally try to justify it along these lines - there are other good reasons to); if you used the examples of undeserved profits to boost taxation, you'd just be engaging in collective punishment for those who genuinely deserved those profits.
Roads, power infrastructure, water/sewage systems, public transport, legal system, ports/harbours/airports/railways you use for transporting/exporting goods etc?Most self employed small business people consider themselves bled dry by the state for very little return.
(Phew, rant over, all better now )
Like the workers who do the actual hands-on running of companies, I think that what the state provides, are both vastly underrated and their significance underplayed.
I actually disagree with taxing income and companies though (you could consider it, in a way, a disincentive for work/business, which is not good), just don't think it's practical to avoid in the current economic/monetary system.0 -
-
-
(Phew, rant over, all better now )
Rant away.:) For the majority running a business is really fecking tough. Their situation is rarely different from a large proportion of employees for other companies. I added the important caveat for a reason. A very large proportion of businesses and employees are in the same boat. Those aren't the people I'm talking about when I say "owe something to society".
As a side note, medical card should be based on quality on health not income.0 -
-
-
Advertisement
Advertisement