Joan Burton to increase tax on the Rich

seamus

Caliden wrote: »

Increasing taxes during a recession was pure idiotic.

Well not really, taxes were already exceptionally low.

Consumer confidence collapsed due to falling wages and increasing costs. Reducing taxation or keeping it stable wouldn't encourage spending, it would just encourage more fervent savings.

You're right now - the recession is over and the economy is on the up, so a small drop in income taxes would free up more disposable income and increase the flow of money into the economy. VAT is a tough one. I think we should look at phasing out VAT overall, or maybe keeping it at a nominal 10% as it doesn't provide a very stable income stream and is surprisingly inflexible in altering consumer pricing. That is, if you drop VAT by 5%, you don't find that prices actually drop by the same amount. Retailers hold onto a piece of it for themselves. Likewise when you increase VAT, generally what you see is an increase of VAT on the product + the price being rounded up.
Decreasing VAT drastically would also save a big chunk on the Social welfare bill because you could cut social welfare spending quite a bit.

There are some strange ways that we flow money into the economy which are costing us money. VAT is one of them - we give someone welfare payments and then collect VAT on the stuff they buy with those payments. And in some cases even collect tax on these payments. The cost per head of this extra admin is probably in the fractions of percent, but when you apply it over a €20bn welfare it becomes not insignificant sums of money.
In the same way that we can analyse that a charity "spends" X% of every euro donated, it must be possible to calculate how much it costs us to give €1 in social welfare. And then look at attacking that. i.e. if it costs 20c to give someone €1 in social welfare, then try and eliminate those costs and reduce social welfare by 20c. Saving == 40c, and the welfare recipient experiences no real decrease in income.

mariaalice

I think its all about perspective to be honest, there was a vox pop on the the radio recently and anyway the question was on paying tax and one woman said take more tax from the teacher and the doctors and they should not get child benefit, now the woman really meant it because in her situation they were the "rich", in absolute terms teacher and the like, even ones on 65k are not rich ( well off is a relative term too )

muppetkiller

mariaalice wrote: »

Why o why does it always turn in to those on welfare rant rant.. and welfare bashing... and followed by get rid of child benefit its so predictable and derails what could be interesting debate on who are the rich.

It's not a rant about Welfare..It's a rant about how the system keeps people on Welfare. All benefits in this country should be brought into the tax system. We also shouldn't have twenty different taxes ..PRSI / USC / Income Tax etc.. One tax with different rates depending on what you earn.

dark crystal

jank wrote: »

When I read posts like this then I think, no wonder Ireland is bankrupt.

If you think it was the poor that bankrupted this country, your opinions really don't mean a whole lot.

mickydoomsux

mariaalice wrote: »

Why o why does it always turn in to those on welfare rant rant.. and welfare bashing... and followed by get rid of child benefit its so predictable and derails what could be interesting debate on who are the rich.

Because welfare costs the state 23bn a year and child benefit is a universal entitlement to anyone with children regardless of any other factors.

Both of these points are pure insanity in the context of an economy where anyone earning over 32k per annum (which i think is actually lower than the average wage) is taxed at a rate of 52%.

Welfare needs to be gutted and rebuilt from the ground up because it isn't sustainable in its current state. That probably won't happen because it is political suicide and we've already seen a u turn on discretionary medical cards this week as a direct result of poor election results.

mariaalice

mickydoomsux wrote: »

Because welfare costs the state 23bn a year and child benefit is a universal entitlement to anyone with children regardless of any other factors.

Both of these points are pure insanity in the context of an economy where anyone earning over 32k per annum (which i think is actually lower than the average wage) is taxed at a rate of 52%.

Welfare needs to be gutted and rebuilt from the ground up because it isn't sustainable in its current state. That probably won't happen because it is political suicide and we've already seen a u turn on discretionary medical cards this week as a direct result of poor election results.

You could well be right, however what had that got to do with who are the rich? welfare spending includes pensions and all kind of other support, that always slips peoples mind in favour of thinking welfare is only about the long term unemployed.

tayto lover

I have no problem with people on the dole at all.
I have a problem with people who never worked and don't intend to work.

The latter should be cut or made to do some necessary work like cutting over-grown hedges, clearing drains, cleaning graffiti etc.
Career dole-claiming should not be an option.

seamus

muppetkiller wrote: »

Child benefit should only be given for the first two children and after that only as a tax benefit if you are actually working. If you want 10 kids then pay for them yourself :mad:

And if you're too stupid to understand this simple concept and spend your days popping out children and watching Jeremy Kyle, we just allow you to get further into debt and your children become impoverished and uneducated, eventually leading to a life of crime and more overbreeding?

The purpose of child benefit is to try and ensure the child doesn't suffer, not to reward people for child-rearing.

Unfortunately our system of benefits payments is broken because you basically hand someone money and say, "That's for food now, not for booze and fags" and hope they do the right thing with it.

We should be putting in place systems which ensure that those who require welfare assistance receive it, but the absolute minimum amount of cash goes into their own hands. Rent is paid directly to the landlord, utilities are paid directly, and so forth. SW is a safety net, but if you're not providing the four posts to hold up the safety net, then some people won't understand how to use it properly.

This country does everything it can to penalize the middle Income earner while giving no incentive for an unemployed family/person to find jobs. And make no mistake about it , it's the system that's the problem so lets not blame the unemployed. It's got to the stage now where it's stupid to take on a minimum wage job for all the benefits you lose.

It's not necessarily a simple fix though. There's new research in the states which suggests that reducing benefits doesn't encourage the long-term unemployed to get jobs. All it actually does is force people into poverty and/or criminal activity in order to survive.

There's an entrenched 3-5% of people who won't work, regardless of conditions. What to do with them is a social matter more than a financial one.

To a certain extent it makes me happy to be part of a country where for all intents and purposes we do our best to make sure no-one is left behind. Unlike the US, as an example, where someone can find themselves literally penniless and homeless out of sheer circumstance, you cannot find yourself in a position in Ireland where you cannot access social welfare and emergency accommodation. If you are literally penniless and homeless in Ireland, 99.99% of the time it is because of personal choice and not circumstance.

I'm on holiday here with my Girlfriend in Hungary and all people on Welfare are out Cutting the Grass along the roads, Cleaning graffiti , Cutting down trees in the woods for Firewood etc ..If they don't turn up to do it for a certain number of days each week they don't get paid. We should have the same here.

The usual argument then is who are you putting out of work by getting this stuff done for free?

mickydoomsux

tayto lover wrote: »

I have no problem with people on the dole at all.
I have a problem with people who never worked and don't intend to work.

The latter should be cut or made to do some necessary work like cutting over-grown hedges, clearing drains, cleaning graffiti etc.
Career dole-claiming should not be an option.

That's another misconception as well. A lot of people who seem to be lifetime dole-ites are actually on "disability allowance" or "carers allowance" which means they will never have to work in their lives and will receive numerous other benefits on top of the standard payment.

I believe David Mc Williams had a good article about it on his website and it shows that Ireland has an abnormally high percentage of the workforce on disability payments compared to other OECD nations because it covers so many conditions in this country.

Also, I believe the 23bn p.a. figure for welfare expenditure doesn't include pensions but I may be wrong.

garv123

Idbatterim wrote: »

Yeah it is absolutely jaw dropping. For every thousand you earn over that amount, they want E520 of it? For what I am not sure.

E1000, they get E520, you get E480. F**cking great country we live in.

Um is it not 20% up until the cut off point and then 41% after the cut off point?

So excluding all other taxes someone on 50K a year pays 20% up to 38,800 and 41% on the remaining 11,200.

and the op said him and his wife earn 80k, The cut off for 2 working partners is 65600 so only 15k would be taxed in the higher bracket...

Then the other taxes and pension and prsi and what not i suppose are taken off.


Not that I'll ever have to worry about the upper bracket.

folan

lets not forget that Welfare is more than just the dole. it is an important subsidy to many.

I have private health insurance and a private pension plan, both subsidized by my work. my take home pay per month is enough to live comfortably off after bills. My tax bill is roughly 38% of my weekly pay. I currently have no children.

I make more than the average industrial wage.

Does that make me rich?

EDIT: Stupid maths

mariaalice

muppetkiller wrote: »

It's not a rant about Welfare..It's a rant about how the system keeps people on Welfare. All benefits in this country should be brought into the tax system. We also shouldn't have twenty different taxes ..PRSI / USC / Income Tax etc.. One tax with different rates depending on what you earn.

As someone pointed our most welfare benefits are taxable, all income should be taxable and passive income from assets should be taxed the most i.e tax on assets such as property should be taxed the most and active assets such as a businesses which employs people should be taxed the least.

The tax system should be used to make it unattractive ( a small bit) for people buying property as an asset, maybe deducting tax at source form rent allowance and so on. The tax system should make it attractive to invest in businesses that employ people.

Ray Palmer

The poll is pointless. The brackets are too large towards the top. 100k-300k is way too large. Of course most people are going to consider that amount as rich. It doesn't even mention if that is assets or just earnings.

Anyway increasing taxes is pretty much the only idea the politicians seem to be able to consider.

It is important to note that the biggest payments from the state are for OAPs. People went mental about this being cut in anyway. I know plenty of OAPs with large assets and income that are much higher than the average industrial wage.

It is slightly tricky in that why should somebody who took care of their future be punished for doing it while people who didn't get more? It isn't easy to come up with a fair solution.

jank

dark crystal wrote: »

If you think it was the poor that bankrupted this country, your opinions really don't mean a whole lot.

I never said it was the poor's fault but just to clarify for those who are heard of hearing or reading, it the constant populist attitude that we can have all these services yet someone else can pay for them.

42% of the population have a medical card. About half the population receive some sort of state benefit. We have one of the highest rates of dependants in the OECD. The culture of entitlement is what bankrupted Ireland both from the top, middle and bottom.

awec

Rich = able to lose your source of income but maintain the same standard of living for a long period of time.

100k a year is definitely not rich. Not even close.

Caliden

folan wrote: »

source?

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/one-in-eight-of-our-superrich-are-tax-exiles-reveals-revenue-28824422.html

Geomy

mezuzaj wrote: »

Joan Burton to increase tax on the Rich if she becomes leader. But exactly who are the rich? Or exactly at what point of income to you become rich?

Wife and I earn 80K a year. So after USC, TAX, PRSI, Motor Tax, House Tax, TV TAX, etc.. I would say we would be lucky to take home about 45K. Minus Mortgage, food, kids expenses, ESB, Tel, heating the house, there really is not much left. Just about manage to pay private health insurance.

I got 2% pay rise this year, it added 25 euros to my net take home pay, because any money over 60K is taxed 42%+11%+4%. 58% deducted.

So who exactly is rich?

You might as well put that 25 euro away for the water charges, no matter what pay rises people on middle to low incomes get, there's always a new tax to take it away. ...

Kerrydude1981

Somewhere down the line Joan Burton will screech the words in the Dail,

"the lady's not for turning"

beardy_brady

Ray Palmer wrote: »

The poll is pointless. The brackets are too large towards the top. 100k-300k is way too large. Of course most people are going to consider that amount as rich. It doesn't even mention if that is assets or just earnings.

Anyway increasing taxes is pretty much the only idea the politicians seem to be able to consider.

It is important to note that the biggest payments from the state are for OAPs. People went mental about this being cut in anyway. I know plenty of OAPs with large assets and income that are much higher than the average industrial wage.

It is slightly tricky in that why should somebody who took care of their future be punished for doing it while people who didn't get more? It isn't easy to come up with a fair solution.

their are half a dozen QUANGO,s who get paid to potray the elderly as universally povertry stricken , they have easy access to the media so people are conditioned into thinking that pensioners have it terrible

in the vast majority of cases , they have it peachy

Barely There

beardy_brady wrote: »

their are half a dozen QUANGO,s who get paid to potray the elderly as universally povertry stricken , they have easy access to the media so people are conditioned into thinking that pensioners have it terrible

in the vast majority of cases , they have it peachy

100%

Pensioners are undoubtedly the most well off members of society, I was at a pretty expensive spa hotel a few weeks ago and the place was full of retirees, but say the word 'pensioner' to someone and they will imagine a frail old lady with a shawl around their shoulders huddled in front of a fire trying to keep warm.

The pensioners did better out of the Celtic Tiger than anyone - rising house prices allowed many to cash in as a massive transfer of cash took place between the young generation of buyers and the older generation of sellers.
Add to that the fact that they were bought off by successive FF governments and voted for FF in vast numbers and you could argue that they're as responsible for the economic collapse more than any other sector.

The irony is that they've been protected from nearly every aspect of the recession as no Govt wants to risk pissing off this vocal and voter active sector of our society.

Ray Palmer

Caliden wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/one-in-eight-of-our-superrich-are-tax-exiles-reveals-revenue-28824422.html

If you read that article you will see these people pay tax on Irish earnings. What they aren't doing is paying tax on world wide earnings in this country.

Depending on the taxes in those other countries they may very well have paid tax on those earnings in the countries they have been earned in.

Should they pay tax twice? They aren't resident here so both perfectly legal and also seems fair.

If you look at the tax system in Ireland if you say make money in Spain but live here you pay the tax in Spain and if it is less than what you would be taxed in Ireland till you pay the same amount as if you earned it here. The Irish government did nothing to help you earn this money so what is their claim to any of the money?

Idbatterim

Um is it not 20% up until the cut off point and then 41% after the cut off point?

So excluding all other taxes someone on 50K a year pays 20% up to 38,800 and 41% on the remaining 11,200.

and the op said him and his wife earn 80k, The cut off for 2 working partners is 65600 so only 15k would be taxed in the higher bracket...

Then the other taxes and pension and prsi and what not i suppose are taken off.


Not that I'll ever have to worry about the upper bracket.

when you ad in USC, PRSI and income tax it does come to 52%, I couldnt care less, what way they spin it, whether they want to make it 50% USC, 1% PRSI, 1% income tax or 52% called the Ahern and Neary or banker tax, I couldnt care less. Its a zero sum game.

http://www.deloitte.ie/tc/

conorhal

Mr.David wrote: »

The 'rich' already pay practically the entire tax intake, why penalise them any more? Typical Labour nonsense.

I laugh my ass off every time some labour politician starts going on about Swedish style socialism and taxes necessary to fund the state.
They should take a good hard look at the Swedish tax system. The poor might be in for a surprise because EVERBODY has to pay tax in Sweden, the tax base is pretty broad there and that ensures that everybody in society pays a contribution towards what they recieve, it's quite narrow here where very few pay quite a lot.
All this guff about removing the vast bulk of workers from the tax net and ensuring that the low paid are exempt from the USC would be anethema to the Swedes who would splutter 'What! You mean that half your population pays no tax?!?!'

Plus the Swedes actually get a service for the tax they pay. A friend of mine that's Swedish would be fairly wealthy, and because of the nature of his business and the fact that he spends very little time there, he could probably easily be tax domiciled somewhere that he wouldn't have to pay much tax at all. He prefers to pay his taxes in Sweden however because of the excelent public schooling his kids get and the home care his elderly mother recieves etc. Here the notion seems to be that the more you pay the less you get due to the slow encroachment of means testing that is eroding universality and ultimately social cohesion, as many people begin to wonder if they wouldn't be better off emigrating to lower tax economies with better services where they get something for their tax other then the opportunity to pay for sombody else.

Barely There

The Shinner and Labour Dream - an incredibly generous welfare state that someone else has to pay for.

thomas anderson.

Barely There wrote: »

Pensioners are undoubtedly the most well off members of society

Not my Nan

beardy_brady

Barely There wrote: »

100%

Pensioners are undoubtedly the most well off members of society, I was at a pretty expensive spa hotel a few weeks ago and the place was full of retirees, but say the word 'pensioner' to someone and they will imagine a frail old lady with a shawl around their shoulders huddled in front of a fire trying to keep warm.

The pensioners did better out of the Celtic Tiger than anyone - rising house prices allowed many to cash in as a massive transfer of cash took place between the young generation of buyers and the older generation of sellers.
Add to that the fact that they were bought off by successive FF governments and voted for FF in vast numbers and you could argue that they're as responsible for the economic collapse more than any other sector.

The irony is that they've been protected from nearly every aspect of the recession as no Govt wants to risk pissing off this vocal and voter active sector of our society.

the goverment have absolute cover to spoil pensioners as the bulk of the population support the policy due to soft headed sentimentality

beardy_brady

conorhal wrote: »

I laugh my ass off every time some labour politician starts going on about Swedish style socialism and taxes necessary to fund the state.
They should take a good hard look at the Swedish tax system. The poor might be in for a surprise because EVERBODY has to pay tax in Sweden, the tax base is pretty broad there and that ensures that everybody in society pays a contribution towards what they recieve, it's quite narrow here where very few pay quite a lot.
All this guff about removing the vast bulk of workers from the tax net and ensuring that the low paid are exempt from the USC would be anethema to the Swedes who would splutter 'What! You mean that half your population pays no tax?!?!'

the left here would like a sweedish style system only without the 30% tax rates on those earning below 25 k per anum

in other words , they dont really want a sweedish system at all

beardy_brady

thomas anderson. wrote: »

Not my Nan

well she still gets a minimum of 218 per week + medical card , fuel allowance , free tv licence ,free public travel , subsidised electricity , phone

and thats if she never paid a red cent in tax ,the contributory pension is 230 per week

in england its 112 pound per week

Bannasidhe

I suppose 'Burton vows to close tax loopholes' wouldn't have made a sexy headline for the Indo or fodder for AH faux outrage.

mickydoomsux

beardy_brady wrote: »

well she still gets a minimum of 218 per week + medical card , fuel allowance , free tv licence ,free public travel , subsidised electricity , phone

and thats if she never paid a red cent in tax ,the contributory pension is 230 per week

in england its 112 pound per week

Hilarious isn't it?

Pay tax your entire life and get 12 quid extra a week. Sure you'd be on the pigs back.

thomas anderson.

beardy_brady wrote: »

well she still gets a minimum of 218 per week + medical card , fuel allowance , free tv licence ,free public travel , subsidised electricity , phone

and thats if she never paid a red cent in tax ,the contributory pension is 230 per week

in england its 112 pound per week

After a lifetime of paying into the system, shure she doesnt deserve it all.

Lets just give it all back to the unsecured bondholder or pay the lord mayors more than presidents of other countries

baldbear

Anyone mention Bono yet?

folan

any more on what it is to be rich yet?

is it
- to earn above the average industrial wage
- to have disposable income after essential bills are paid
- to have thousands in a bank account
- to have valuable assets

mickydoomsux

baldbear wrote: »

Anyone mention Bono yet?

Apparently he's mad for the childrens allowance.

Spends every penny on Dutch Gold.

folan

baldbear wrote: »

Anyone mention Bono yet?

Bono.

there, done.

Turtwig

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I suppose 'Burton vows to close tax loopholes' wouldn't have made a sexy headline for the Indo or fodder for AH faux outrage.

Strawmen make for more fun.
And money for media!

steddyeddy

Mr.David wrote: »

The 'rich' already pay practically the entire tax intake, why penalise them any more? Typical Labour nonsense.

There are people becoming homeless in our economy in part because of of cuts. They are taking far more pain than the rich.

Ray Palmer

thomas anderson. wrote: »

After a lifetime of paying into the system, shure she doesnt deserve it all.

Lets just give it all back to the unsecured bondholder or pay the lord mayors more than presidents of other countries

Most pensions don't realise they were paying for their parents pensions and now expect us to pay their pensions regardless of what money is there.

Unfortunately when the pensions were going to be cut there was a lot of support from the general public who didn't want that to happen.

steddyeddy

The "pro austerity" crowd fascinate me. They go on and on about cuts needed ect but when it comes to a certain socio-economic group taking more cuts they're against it. Guess what people are suffering because of this recession. I know the better off paid more so far but in no stretch of the imagination have they suffered more.

Cuts so far have increased poverty. More cuts to the less well off will be less likely to increase poverty.

banquo

I reckon if she's leader I'll be up on the roof of my garage, stockpiling canned goods and firing a rifle into the air.

the_syco

jank wrote: »

Lastly for people under 30, if you are not working or learning you don't get a cent.

So if someone worked for 8 years, they don't get a cent if they're unemployed, but if someone is 32, and never worked in their life, get free money? Funk that!

tayto lover wrote: »

I have no problem with people on the dole at all.
I have a problem with people who never worked and don't intend to work.

Is there a breakdown of how many of the people who

• have a disability
• got a disability at the age of 18 (call me cynical if you want)
• have worked
• have never worked

Barely There

Unfortunately it would appear after their drubbing in the local elections, that Labour are going to return to their 'core' values - i.e. complete and utter economic illiteracy.
A 'tax the workers and lets have a bloated social welfare state' mentality.

I'd love to see someone like Alex White win the leadership. He impresses me evertime I hear him on the airwaves - instead Labour will rever to type under the brutal Burton.

Idbatterim

wasnt one of their junior members on the other day saying how the focus had to be on the working poor? Think another poster said he heard this on the radio.

lightspeed

This is just Labour trying to compete in the market to but votes with Sinn fein, socialist and other magic bean salesmen and women.

Sinn fein and socialist party want a wealth tax and now all of sudden after the thrashing in the election, labour have come out with this innovative spark plug of an idea.

What all the left wing parties fail to mention is that other countries may have higher taxes on higher earners, but they do not have the same welfare and services that we have

A close example for Ireland would be the great socialist France. They introduced a large wealth tax and are world famous for their generous social services.

It has not helped France and there have been huge opposition to such policies there. My understanding is that Ireland is considerably more indebted than France. Also i think they have property taxes and water charges in France. So im still awaiting a solid argument, that we can avoid such charges here and maintain the welfare state that is Ireland, even with a wealth tax?.

If I was earning a large salary and taxes were increased while others can get houses on welfare and live off of benefits, I would be pretty pissed off regardless of my own living situation.

Why should i stay here when i can up sticks and move abroad and take my money with me?

As i mentioned here before, Ireland is 19% more expensive than Dubai. We are one of the most expensive countries in the world and yet we dont have nearly as development infrastructure and public transport networks as other countries. High earners are usually high earners as they are skilled workers.

You increases taxes on skilled workers and most will have a choice. Stay here and pay more for less or move and earn more or the same in a country with better and more equitable services.

If im no mistaken, have there not been issues with poorly trained doctors coming to work here and skilled doctors leaving to elsewhere? If that was to happen in other professions, there will be less skilled employees in the country.

If this lack of supply results, in companies having to pay more to compensate for tax increases, how will that help Ireland compete against other countries attracting skilled workers?

MY CUP OF TEA

lee_baby_simms wrote: »

I read this thread as 'Joey Barton to increase tax on the Rich'.

I need a coffee.

No..he's proposing a tax on ugly people

bumper234

lee_baby_simms wrote: »

I read this thread as 'Joey Barton to increase tax on the Rich'.

I need a coffee.

MY CUP OF TEA wrote: »

No..he's proposing a tax on ugly people

Ask for a coffee and get a cup of tea, Not a great day for you

darkpagandeath

I Would Imagine it means the people with 20% of the wealth and or those companies using Ireland to skim a massive amount of there tax liabilities off.

Daith

darkpagandeath wrote: »

those companies using Ireland to skim a massive amount of there tax liabilities off.

There's no point having a low corporate tax if you're just going to tax them some other way. They also hire alot of people in Ireland too.

Caliden

Barely There wrote: »

Unfortunately it would appear after their drubbing in the local elections, that Labour are going to return to their 'core' values - i.e. complete and utter economic illiteracy.
A 'tax the workers and lets have a bloated social welfare state' mentality.

I'd love to see someone like Alex White win the leadership. He impresses me evertime I hear him on the airwaves - instead Labour will rever to type under the brutal Burton.

Her reasoning for why she should be the next leader is along the lines of "I've been a politician for a long time...".

It's as if she has a right to be leader for sticking with it for so long.

darkpagandeath

Daith wrote: »

There's no point having a low corporate tax if you're just going to tax them some other way. They also hire alot of people in Ireland too.

This is a pointless statement they don't pay even close to our low level of corporation tax.