why protest over water and not USC?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

jonski

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I think that if Enda Kenny announced that he was scrapping Irish Water and it's charges and increasing the tax rate from 40 to 43 you might lose a percentage of the water protesters but you would gain a lot of tax payers in a whole new protest . Anybody who thinks there are no tax payers at these IW protest has no idea what's going on and should go down and have a look for themselves .

Geuze

fliball123 wrote: »

You have put that up before I have asked you are they retired, did they work and pay tax and if they did for how many years

Both over 66, both receive pensions.

One still works - wage income and self-employed income.

Mother worked for maybe 15 years, gave up work to rear kids.

Yes, they paid tax, but note that during last ten years of work, they enjoyed large tax reliefs on pension conts, which drove their taxes down to under 7% of 70k wages.

Geuze

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

The protests would stop.


I have never seen a protest against the 52% MTR on income over 32,800.

Iecrawfc

Sir Oxman wrote: »

Simply, for the simple.
Opposition to this charge is primarily opposition to privatisation of a an essential human need - for the really blue simple ones, water is NOT and WILL NOT be a commodity in my country.

It does not surprise me one iota that arrogant conservatives on this board cannot comprehend this.

Ireland is no longer for sale, chaps.

But the water charge is for the infrastructure to deliver the water(and remove sewage safely and environmentally), yes the water metering was supposed to charge per unit but with a flat charge surely it's about paying to maintain and renew the water infrastructure which has been neglected even through the biggest economic expansion in the state's history,
I mean if you can get your own water nobody will charge you for the water then...

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

fliball123

Geuze wrote: »

Both over 66, both receive pensions.

One still works - wage income and self-employed income.

Mother worked for maybe 15 years, gave up work to rear kids.

Yes, they paid tax, but note that during last ten years of work, they enjoyed large tax reliefs on pension conts, which drove their taxes down to under 7% of 70k wages.

So between them they have worked how many years 55+ paying tax you do know the income tax rates during the 80s and 90s were ridiculous..I would hazard a guess between direct and indirect taxes they have paid more than enough over the years to cover water to see them out and they will continue to pay tax on their pension until they die.

Geuze

Yes, it's true that my parents faced the high MTRs that many workers faced during the 70s / 80s.

It's also true that times were tougher for them back then.

However, we simply can not afford to be so generous to them now.

I am NOT asking for any benefit to be taken off them.

I am simply suggesting that couples on 50k should pay more than the 9% direct taxes they paid recently.

Leave the med card and travel pass intact, but charge them 20% tax on 50k, instead of 10%.

fliball123

Geuze wrote: »

Yes, it's true that my parents faced the high MTRs that many workers faced during the 70s / 80s.

It's also true that times were tougher for them back then.

However, we simply can not afford to be so generous to them now.

I am NOT asking for any benefit to be taken off them.

I am simply suggesting that couples on 50k should pay more than the 9% direct taxes they paid recently.

Leave the med card and travel pass intact, but charge them 20% tax on 50k, instead of 10%.

Yet at the time of the 70s/80s and 90s when they could probably not of afforded to be so generous they had to pay out ridiculous rates of taxation. From my point of view they have paid more than enough let them off and enjoy their water. So if in your words we cant be that generous, then ask yourself how can we be so generous when it comes to pay rate in the ps, pensions in the ps, welfare (over 21billion) and when it comes to paying for bailed out banks??

The money your parents have paid in over the years and that they continue to pay should of covered them for the remainder of their lives and probably for a decade or two after they are gone.

They are still paying tax and more when you take indirect taxation into the equation.

Geuze

fliball123 wrote: »

So if in your words we cant be that generous, then ask yourself how can we be so generous when it comes to pay rate in the ps, pensions in the ps, welfare (over 21billion) and when it comes to paying for bailed out banks??

The money your parents have paid in over the years and that they continue to pay should of covered them for the remainder of their lives and probably for a decade or two after they are gone.

They are still paying tax and more when you take indirect taxation into the equation.

They are receiving the "generous" PS pay and pensions and SW pensions, as you describe them.

You seem to be suggesting for further cuts to PS pensions - I am agreeing with you.

Anecdotal example: one parent gets 200 euro wages for 4 hours work travelling to a large hall to collect a box and bring it somewhere else - that is way too much in my opinion.

Then they pay 10% direct taxes on that 200 wages.



The taxes that they paid in no way cover them for the pension / healthcare / social care provided during the very long retirements that they will expect

ciaranlong

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

@Permabear: I think you've hit the nail on the head here. I'd be very interested to observe the reaction of middle and higher earners if the higher rate of income tax was increased as an alternative to water charges. I wonder would they accept that situation? They are certainly less likely to protest? I think an interesting issue is whether it is fairer to pay for water services using metred charges or out of general taxation. Assuming that all other issues (such as potential privatisation) are resolved. Do you think that the debate has really zoned in on that issue yet?

zielarz

ciaranlong wrote: »

@Permabear: I think you've hit the nail on the head here. I'd be very interested to observe the reaction of middle and higher earners if the higher rate of income tax was increased as an alternative to water charges. I wonder would they accept that situation? They are certainly less likely to protest? I think an interesting issue is whether it is fairer to pay for water services using metred charges or out of general taxation. Assuming that all other issues (such as potential privatisation) are resolved. Do you think that the debate has really zoned in on that issue yet?

They can increase the marginal tax to infinity, nobody will protest. Why? Because those who pay marginal tax rate are a minority. They are also working , which means that would need to use their holidays in order to protest. Not gonna happen.

Idbatterim

I heard Kenny will reduce the rate of income tax to 50% for the next budget, its still ridiculous, there should be 3 or 4 bands, any revenue that is available for the government should all go into reducing marginal rate, job creation, debt repayment and capital investment... The vat rate should also be reduced, along with the extra euro on a bottle of wine IMO, some places in town are now charging E7 per glass for the house white!!!

The Taoiseach has told attendees at the American Chamber of Commerce annual Thanksgiving dinner that the 52% rate of tax will be reduced to 50% in next October's budget.

The rate on earnings below €70,000 is already due to reduce to 51% from January.

Enda Kenny said the rate will be reduced further if Fine Gael is re-elected.

He was referring to the marginal rate of tax, which includes PRSI and the Universal Social Charge.

Mr Kenny said: "We understand that Ireland's high rates of personal taxation are something that has to be addressed if we are to remain internationally competitive for highly-skilled, mobile investment projects."

He added that he said "before the budget that the 52% tax rate is anti-employment, anti-enterprise and anti-investment".

fliball123

Geuze wrote: »

They are receiving the "generous" PS pay and pensions and SW pensions, as you describe them.

You seem to be suggesting for further cuts to PS pensions - I am agreeing with you.

Anecdotal example: one parent gets 200 euro wages for 4 hours work travelling to a large hall to collect a box and bring it somewhere else - that is way too much in my opinion.

Then they pay 10% direct taxes on that 200 wages.



The taxes that they paid in no way cover them for the pension / healthcare / social care provided during the very long retirements that they will expect

By all means cut their pension if it is a PS pension. Water should be considered a basic human right

ciaranlong

Idbatterim wrote: »

I heard Kenny will reduce the rate of income tax to 50% for the next budget, its still ridiculous, there should be 3 or 4 bands, any revenue that is available for the government should all go into reducing marginal rate, job creation, debt repayment and capital investment... The vat rate should also be reduced, along with the extra euro on a bottle of wine IMO, some places in town are now charging E7 per glass for the house white!!!

I heard that today too: that the marginal rate of income tax at the top should be down to 50% by the next budget. I think that's a real psychological threshold, as it smarts to hand over more than half of your income in tax, especially if one is part of the so-called "squeezed middle". I read today that Noonan defines that group as anyone earning between 30K and 70K, more or less.

Gringo180

GarIT wrote: »

The water protesters don't pay the USC as you'd need to be employed for that.

Biggest load of b0ll0cks I have ever read on here, and trust me I have read a lot.

aliveandkicking

fliball123 wrote: »

By all means cut their pension if it is a PS pension. Water should be considered a basic human right

Unlimited amounts of free water? What about food? Is that not abasic human right too?

In my opinion every household should be granted a generous allowance of free water, i.e. enough for all daily needs - showers, washing machine, dishwasher etc. but anything over this figure should be charged for. At the moment there is no disincentive to leaving a tap running to stop pipes freezing, power hosing your driveway with drinking water, feeding a garden sprinkler system from the mains or even filling your swimming pool with tap water or no incentive whatsoever to get a dripping tap or other leaks fixed. This is simply wrong.

jonski

aliveandkicking wrote: »

In my opinion every household should be granted a generous allowance of free water, i.e. enough for all daily needs - showers, washing machine, dishwasher etc. but anything over this figure should be charged for. At the moment there is no disincentive to leaving a tap running to stop pipes freezing, power hosing your driveway with drinking water, feeding a garden sprinkler system from the mains or even filling your swimming pool with tap water or no incentive whatsoever to get a dripping tap or other leaks fixed. This is simply wrong.

I would fully agree to this as well and I would hope so would most reasonable people but we don't need Irish Water for this .

shanered

For me the difference between USC and water charges is the privatization issue.
I believe IW is being set up in the view to sell it on.

the_syco

Fuxake wrote: »

Yet not a word over Universal Social Charge which costs a single person on €10/hour (working 40 hours a week) approx €774/ annum.

I see the IW protesting happening during the day when people affected by the USC are working...

jonski

the_syco wrote: »

I see the IW protesting happening during the day when people affected by the USC are working...

Plenty of USC paying people at the protests on Saturdays .

Gringo180

jonski wrote: »

Plenty of USC paying people at the protests on Saturdays .

The vast majority of them I met at the marches are in fact workers. Pretty ridiculous to say thats its only all unemployed people who are marching. I shall be taking the day off on the 10th and I know plenty others who are doing the same.

barneystinson

I've been having visions of a guy with a megaphone shouting "WHAT DO WE WANT?!" and the refrain from the crowd resulting in a massive infight and hospitalisations, as thousands of "anti-water meter" protestors realise their reasons for coming out on the streets are at total odds with each other... righties and lefties hopping placards off each other...

aliveandkicking

jonski wrote: »

I would fully agree to this as well and I would hope so would most reasonable people but we don't need Irish Water for this .

Maybe true but we would need metering and we would need a centralised billing system/agency. It's also a good idea to prioritise investment in the network on a national basis rather than a county basis. That's not a million miles away from what Irish Water is. The Local Authorities are still doing the day to day stuff (under contract from Irish Water) with Irish Water responsible for the metering program, billing and investment in infrastructure.

jonski

aliveandkicking wrote: »

Maybe true but we would need metering and we would need a centralised billing system/agency. It's also a good idea to prioritise investment in the network on a national basis rather than a county basis. That's not a million miles away from what Irish Water is. The Local Authorities are still doing the day to day stuff (under contract from Irish Water) with Irish Water responsible for the metering program, billing and investment in infrastructure.

Take your original system and tag onto the end of it the need to enshrine it in the constitution that Irish Water cannot be privatised

aliveandkicking

jonski wrote: »

Take your original system and tag onto the end of it the need to enshrine it in the constitution that Irish Water cannot be privatised

Agreed. The concept of a national utility and metering of water is a good idea. The issue has been the implementation and poor communication of the benefits of the new system. The left have hijacked the issue too with the result that a lot of people now think Irish Water = Evil.

realitykeeper

Fuxake wrote: »

Are Irish people completely mathematically challenged muppets? The biggest protests in years over a water charge which will cost a single person household €60/ annum. Yet not a word over Universal Social Charge which costs a single person on €10/hour (working 40 hours a week) approx €774/ annum.
A single person on €30,000- not exactly flush if they have to pay for their own accommodation, VHI etc- is paying €1418 per annum. If in a couple, both working, their total household bill for USC is €2836! And yet some of these people are hysterical about a water charge of €160????
What is going on here? Why isn't the energy focused on the real killers?

This is a valid point. Also, the water charges are an incentive to conserve but there is no such excuse for the usc. The universality of the usc also makes it unfair. The government was advised by top paid civil servants and it is they who are the root cause of the problems in this country.

The elite civil servants are a bit like the nobles in the court of Louis XVI. A corrupt and parasitic cohort who jealously seek parity of pay with industrialists who actually do a lot of good for this country. Until, the civil service is sacked en mass, charged with treason, imprisoned and pauperized by penalties, nothing will change.

One thing is certain though, Fine Gael will not be the party to stop the rot.

hmmm

Geuze wrote: »

I have never seen a protest against the 52% MTR on income over 32,800.

There might be no visible protests because that cohort don't throw rocks at the guards. The "protest" comes in the form of a reduced Income tax take, and in the comments that will be made behind closed doors to government ministers or IDA representatives that people are unwilling to take on extra work, or are unwilling to invest in Ireland.

Governments of any hue know that they have to keep the income tax spigot flowing. FG might like to throw out free medical cards for everyone as a budget priority, but they (and Labour, and even SF) know that the priority right now is to make sure the income tax take holds up by not dis-incentivising those paying it, and make sure that FDI continues to flow.

Axel Lamp

Because the left wing rabble don't pay USC

Labarbapostiza

Axel Lamp wrote: »

Because the left wing rabble don't pay USC

You're trolling.

Unless of course you're confused. The only group who are exempt from the USC are farmers.....That's right....The Fine Gael ranchers...... Even farm assist is exempt.

They're hardly left wing rabble. Sanctimonious right-wing blowhards to a man. It's not actual socialism that we have to subsidise their way of life. They're our betters and moral guardians. We need them more than they need us.

Phoebas

Labarbapostiza wrote: »

The only group who are exempt from the USC are farmers.....That's right....The Fine Gael ranchers......

Any chance of a source for that claim?

Labarbapostiza

Phoebas wrote: »

Any chance of a source for that claim?

Exempt from USC

Payments made by the Dept of Agriculture:
Farm Retirement Pensions
Farm Retirement Workers Pensions
Payments made by the Dept of Community Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs
Rural Social Scheme
Farm/Fish Assist

http://www.moneyguideireland.com/incomes-exempt-from-universal-social-charge.html

Phoebas

Labarbapostiza wrote: »

Exempt from USC

Payments made by the Dept of Agriculture:
Farm Retirement Pensions
Farm Retirement Workers Pensions
Payments made by the Dept of Community Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs
Rural Social Scheme
Farm/Fish Assist

http://www.moneyguideireland.com/incomes-exempt-from-universal-social-charge.html

Wait up a second - here's what you claimed.

False Claim wrote:

The only group who are exempt from the USC are farmers.....That's right....The Fine Gael ranchers......

You are dishonestly attempting to back this up by posting a subset of some income sources that are exempt, which includes some payments to farmers, but doesn't include farmers as a group.

If you look at this FAQ from the Revenue, you'll find a list of over 70 different kinds of incomes and payments that are exempt, including some that are paid to farmers, but also many that are paid to other groups.

Farmers are not exempt from USC.

Labarbapostiza

Phoebas wrote: »

Wait up a second - here's what you claimed.

You are dishonestly attempting to back this up by posting a subset of some income sources that are exempt, which includes some payments to farmers, but doesn't include farmers as a group.

If you look at this FAQ from the Revenue, you'll find a list of over 70 different kinds of incomes and payments that are exempt, including some that are paid to farmers, but also many that are paid to other groups.

Farmers are not exempt from USC.

Aw haw...Phoebas.....yes there are other groups who are exempt, but they have effectively paid their USC through cut backs........Was there any cut backs on farm payments, Phoebas?

No......In the world of Fine Gael ranchers it's "recession, what recession?"

I wouldn't begrudge them a penny. They're value for money.

Phoebas

Labarbapostiza wrote: »

The only group who are exempt from the USC are farmers.....That's right....The Fine Gael ranchers...... Even farm assist is exempt.

Labarbapostiza wrote: »

Aw haw...Phoebas.....yes there are other groups who are exempt

That u-turn was quicker than even FG could manage. :pac:

Labarbapostiza

Phoebas wrote: »

That u-turn was quicker than even FG could manage. :pac:

You're quote mining.

The fact is, in wellington boot land, they've been exempted from austerity.

Okay, there has been some austerity in not as much hole digging jobs from the council, and maybe there might have been cut backs on ditch cutting (yes, we pay farmers to cut their own ditches). Ghost estate building in agricultural areas, has collapsed for the minute too. So, there is a fall in incomes in not being able to flog bog fields to developers, for millins. But as I say, the crisis wasn't the farmers' fault, why should they have to pay for it.

But Phoebas, you're taking me up the wrong way. I believe we're not giving the ranchers enough. I'd nearly cut out one of my kidney's with a rusty pen knife, and sell it on the dark net, and give the cash to Trocaire's Christmas Fine Gael rancher appeal. Do they know it's Christmas. As Bono says; so tonight thank God it's them, instead of you.

Axel Lamp

Labarbapostiza wrote: »

The fact is, in wellington boot land, they've been exempted from austerity.

And you called me a troll. You're as blind as the proverbial blind bat in a home for blind bats.

Labarbapostiza

Axel Lamp wrote: »

And you called me a troll. You're as blind as the proverbial blind bat in a home for blind bats.

What's shameful about wellington boots?

And I will reiterate a point I have made over and over again. Farmers had nothing to do with the crisis, why should they have to suffer austerity.

In fact I hope, that after the next election, there should be one party and that party should be constituted of people from farming backgrounds. And the larger the farm the better.

The bigger the farm, the better the character. We don't want the country run by tramps, do we?

fliball123

aliveandkicking wrote: »

Unlimited amounts of free water? What about food? Is that not abasic human right too?

In my opinion every household should be granted a generous allowance of free water, i.e. enough for all daily needs - showers, washing machine, dishwasher etc. but anything over this figure should be charged for. At the moment there is no disincentive to leaving a tap running to stop pipes freezing, power hosing your driveway with drinking water, feeding a garden sprinkler system from the mains or even filling your swimming pool with tap water or no incentive whatsoever to get a dripping tap or other leaks fixed. This is simply wrong.

Food should be a human right as well, I mean in this country everyone who is legally here and who has gone about things the right way will at the very least be eligable for the dole, thats more than enough to feed you..

I agree about the water waste there should be something in there to punish people who do waste water but the way the government went about it was ridiculous, why they didnt just up the property tax over the next 10 years and say nothing about water..All they have done is annoyed the public.

dutopia

I've paid €1,721 in USC and €1,916 in PRSI so far this year. Ugh.

BoJack Horseman

Last night I paid €450,in taxes to the gov.

€390 in motor tax.
€160 in RTE tax.
Both of which are arbitrary taxes on goods I already paid a lot of tax to purchase in the first place, & in return for which I receive nothing.

Our hysteria over paying €160 for potable water & sewage services goes to show our priorities are screwed up.

zielarz

Dole recipients are the largest group exempt from USC.

Geuze

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Last night I paid €450,in taxes to the gov.

€390 in motor tax.
€160 in RTE tax.
Both of which are arbitrary taxes on goods I already paid a lot of tax to purchase in the first place, & in return for which I receive nothing.

Ah now, you do receive something.

RTE provides several radio and TV stations.

Motor tax goes to fund local roads, of which we have tens of thousands of km.

BoJack Horseman

Geuze wrote: »

RTE provides several radio and TV stations.

Don't have access to RTE tv (uk freesat via an old skybox.... occasional US content download) ..... And I haven't heard an RTE radio show in a few years.

Motor tax goes to fund local roads, of which we have tens of thousands of km.

No, motor tax yields the gov around €1bn per year.
They spent approx €460m on roads last year..... of which 0% are on roads used by me.

So as I said..... Lots of tax, nothing in return.

Which I accept.
Its just odd that paying a charge for sewage disposal is outrageous compared to motor & RTE taxes which genuinely yield nothing.

BoJack Horseman

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Don't have access to RTE tv (uk freesat via an old skybox)..... And I haven't heard an RTE radio show in a few years.



No, motor tax yields the gov around €1bn per year.
They spent approx €460m on roads last year..... of which 0% are on roads used directly by me.

So as I said..... Lots a tax, nothing in return.

The inclusion of my edit above is extremely important. The maintenance of the roads almost certainly has positive impacts on your life. Consider the stock on the shelves of your supermarket as an extremely basic example.

BoJack Horseman

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The maintenance of the roads almost certainly has positive impacts on your life. Consider the stock on the shelves of your supermarket as an extremely basic example.

What maintenance of roads?

BoJack Horseman

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Last night I paid €450,in taxes to the gov.
€390 in motor tax.
...
Both of which are arbitrary taxes on goods I already paid a lot of tax to purchase in the first place, & in return for which I receive nothing.

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

..
No, motor tax yields the gov around €1bn per year.
They spent approx €460m on roads last year..... of which 0% are on roads used by me.

So as I said..... Lots of tax, nothing in return.
Which I accept.
Its just odd that paying a charge for sewage disposal is outrageous compared to motor & RTE taxes which genuinely yield nothing.

(emphasis mine)

New roads / Road works and improved infrastructure are sometimes forgotten of when totting up simple "what I pay vs what I get".

BoJack Horseman

[Deleted User] wrote: »

(emphasis mine)

New roads / Road works and improved infrastructure

Where?

You said it improves my life.

I'm wondering where?
Cos I haven't driven on new tarmac in nearly a decade.

BoJack Horseman

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Where?
You said it improves my life.
I'm wondering where?
Cos I haven't driven on new tarmac in nearly a decade.

Simplest example
Port Tunnel means deliveries from Europe are cheaper for a Tesco in Enniscrone as the reduced delivery cost / time keeps prices lower.

A person living in Enniscrone may never drive on that road once in their entire life, yet the indirect impact of it's building and maintenance exists.

These positive impacts are easily ignored as they're 'almost invisible' to the consumer.

BoJack Horseman

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Simplest example
Port Tunnel means deliveries from Europe are cheaper for a Tesco in Enniscrone as the reduced delivery cost / time keeps prices lower.

Is it?

What was the delivery costs prior to the Port Tunnel vs today?