Would you vote for a party that promised Tax increases?

blackcard

With the elections coming up in the next 6-9 months, I expect the various parties to promise tax reductions, welfare increases, increased health spending, getting rid of water charges, property taxes etc. etc. I am not an economist so I don't know if we can afford the above. But, if one party promised something which benefited me but I felt was not good for the country, I would not vote for them. Tbh, I think all parties are going to promise something that is not good for the country so will probably have to vote for the least worst party

Godge

To answer the OP, yes, but only taxes I think are right.

We need to lower taxes on income and replace with broader taxes such as the property tax, water charges, etc.

nice_guy80

I would approve a more rebust tax system for large corporations in Ireland who avoid paying their fair share.

I would also vote for a reform of the tax system. I don't think there is enough tax on certain areas of the Irish economy, and too much tax and charges on other areas.

Hollister11

If corporation tax on firms profiting 1 million plus was a few % higher, we wouldn't have to tax lower income earners. Google only pay a few million tax here on earnings of billions.

ancapailldorcha

Hollister11 wrote: »

If corporation tax on firms profiting 1 million plus was a few % higher, we wouldn't have to tax lower income earners. Google only pay a few million tax here on earnings of billions.

Firms like Google are only in Ireland because of its famously low corporation tax rate. There's nothing to stop them moving away if it's increased.

Hollister11

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Firms like Google are only in Ireland because of its famously low corporation tax rate. There's nothing to stop them moving away if it's increased.

Don't get me wrong I understand that, but even if we increased it to 14%, we would still have a ridiculous low corporation tax rate. Germany charge 30%, France charge 33.3%.

I don't think a small increase, would cause these big corporations to leave. Sure even at 12.5%, they hardly pay that on there profits.

ancapailldorcha

Hollister11 wrote: »

Don't get me wrong I understand that, but even if we increased it to 14%, we would still have a ridiculous low corporation tax rate. Germany charge 30%, France charge 33.3%.

I don't think a small increase, would cause these big corporations to leave. Sure even at 12.5%, they hardly pay that on there profits.

Those countries have a superior infrastructure to Ireland along with better trained workforces. Honestly, its our only selling point. I'd be all for raising it in the UK but in Ireland it needs to stay low.

Manach

No - my preference is for a party that reduces both taxes and the welfarist system and so does not pillage the common weal to buy elections.

blackcard

Hollister11 wrote: »

Don't get me wrong I understand that, but even if we increased it to 14%, we would still have a ridiculous low corporation tax rate. Germany charge 30%, France charge 33.3%.

I don't think a small increase, would cause these big corporations to leave. Sure even at 12.5%, they hardly pay that on there profits.

Whatever the stated tax rate is in these countries and in UK and Ireland, Corporations seem to end up paying a lower rate anyway. I dont have an ideological hangup about it. If we got increased employment at the current rates, I would be happy enough whilst if we could increase the rate and still attract these corporations, I would be happy too. I imagine the IDA would be able to advise on the overall benefits of either strategy

Tabnabs

Cut taxes, cut spending and reduce the deficit. You'll get my vote.

FreudianSlippers

Hollister11 wrote: »

If corporation tax on firms profiting 1 million plus was a few % higher, we wouldn't have to tax lower income earners. Google only pay a few million tax here on earnings of billions.

I totally disagree. Raising corporation tax would have a negative impact on the Irish economy. What we need to do is keep a low corporation tax to get companies to base themselves here and actually close tax loopholes to ensure that we actually get the tax we are owed.

To answer OP's question, I would not vote for any party that advocated tax increases for increased spending on health or social welfare. I would vote for a party that advocated a negative income / flat tax (which would allow for a massive cut in social welfare spending) and a complete rethink of the healthcare system vis-a-vis subsidising private healthcare rather than it being run by the government.

Godge

Hollister11 wrote: »

If corporation tax on firms profiting 1 million plus was a few % higher, we wouldn't have to tax lower income earners. Google only pay a few million tax here on earnings of billions.

eh, we don't tax lower income earners already. In fact, for those on less than the average industrial wage, income taxes here are about the lowest in the OECD.

Our focus should be on taking more people out of the higher rate and reducing it dramatically and/or a third rate inbetween.

For Reals

Yes. Tell people what it's for and where it's going. Nobody expects anything for free, everybody wants transparency. People will pay extra for better quality living.

Eric Cartman

No. I would never vote for somebody increasing my own tax take.

Im a lot more interested in politicians reducing spending. You start tackling the 21 billion a year elephant that is the social welfare spend, and a vote from me you shall have.

oscarBravo

For Reals wrote: »

Nobody expects anything for free...

Ha!

Berserker

For Reals wrote: »

Yes. Tell people what it's for and where it's going. Nobody expects anything for free, everybody wants transparency. People will pay extra for better quality living.

I respectfully disagree with that statement and would argue that a certain percentage of Irish society expects everything for free.

OP, I would vote for a party who promised tax increases once they were implemented in the correct manner. I would definitely vote for a party who promises to broaden our tax base, as it is far too narrow for my liking. I would also like to see a reduction in spending on welfare.

Eric Cartman

For Reals wrote: »

Yes. Tell people what it's for and where it's going. Nobody expects anything for free, everybody wants transparency. People will pay extra for better quality living.

yes they do, this ideology is exactly what the left and shinners base their policies on , certain segments of our society will literally vote for whoever promises the most free things to them.

Uncle Ben

It would be nice to get some services for the taxes that are already paid.

Eric Cartman

Uncle Ben wrote: »

It would be nice to get some services for the taxes that are already paid.

at the moment it pays for housing , drink, drugs, fags, sky sports, holidays to aya napa, junk food. But only if your truly lazy enough to get away with it.

other countries can have nice things with their tax money, we have to give it to the 'less fortunate' in the format of cash , free houses and methadone to pay them off from a life of criminality.

DaveWalsh2020

Yes

BoJack Horseman

No.

Jawgap

In a past life i previously voted for the Lib-Dems on the basis of their "1% for education tax pledge" so I suppose for me anyway the response to the OP's question is a qualified yes.

I think if you could be sure that any rise would be used for the declared reason it would be an easier sell, or if there was more transparency and efficiency in government spending (and less waste).

Dannyboy83

My 'ideal' situation would be more like Sweden, i.e. I would like to pay more vat, more income tax and more taxes in general, in return for well planned and implemented architecture and public services.

This is Ireland tho.
This government have yet to publish the National Planning Framework and seem to have essentially forgotten about the regional/hub planning;
Cork Airport is as good as useless except as a UK taxi,
no hope of an orbital road or a motorway to Limerick feasible until mid 2020s,
& much of the taxes collected are diverted into i) Social Welfare, which I believe - the Irish/British implementation of it at least - is a hugely destructive force on society and the lower tiers of the Labour force, ii) squandered on government boondoggles such as the compulsory Irish, which I abhor.

TLDR;
If you offering what I want to buy,of course I will pay.
But why would I pay for sh*t I don't want?

Floppybits

I would actually vote for a party that would increase tax but only if they can show properly how the tax is going to be spent and what is the benefit and introduce proper governance.

Like for example they increase income tax by 1 or 2% and that was to go to the health service but that increase in tax would see GP's fees reduce by say 0.5%.

Also take the property tax, supposedly that is suppose to go towards and I quote "The revenue raised is used to fund the provision of services by local authorities and includes transfers between local authorities. Such services currently include public parks; libraries; open spaces and leisure amenities; planning and development; fire and emergency services; maintenance and cleaning of streets; and street lighting." I have no problem with that but on top of the LPT, I am paying maintenance Fees for the upkeep of my area. So why am I and many other people not seeing a decrease of a couple of hundred euro's in maintenance fees if the so called LPT is going towards some of the things that maintenance fees cover.

The way I look at tax is that I am paying the government to provide services so that if I ever need them I can avail of them, the problem is that when I do need a service that is paid for through taxes, I am still charged fees on top of that.

Cookie_Monster

I'd like to see income tax headline rates lowered / amended but credits abolished, remove the complexity and costs associated with it, remove USC as well. Anybody earning should be paying some amount of tax regardless, it would probably mean a tax rise for many but much fairer and simpler overall.

Corp tax needs to be looked at and while the rate doesn't need to go up, correctly defining actual income and hence profits that come through the country needs to be tightened up on so that if companies are funneling profits through Ireland they are paying the actual rate on them.

El_Duderino 09

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

I'd like to see income tax headline rates lowered / amended but credits abolished, remove the complexity and costs associated with it, remove USC as well. Anybody earning should be paying some amount of tax regardless, it would probably mean a tax rise for many but much fairer and simpler overall.

Corp tax needs to be looked at and while the rate doesn't need to go up, correctly defining actual income and hence profits that come through the country needs to be tightened up on so that if companies are funneling profits through Ireland they are paying the actual rate on them.

Simpler tax would make it easier to pay and reduce evasion. I'd be careful about meddling with the tax on profits being funneled into Ireland. It's pretty hard to justify Ireland getting tax on money made on the back of other countries infrastructure. If you really want to improve fairness you would probably need to think about that.

I think everyone should pay some tax. Even if you get benefits you should have to invest in society to some extent.

If tax has to go up it should come from those who can afford to pay it. Who else can afford it? If you can't live well on € 100,000 then you have a problem managing money and you probably won't live any better on a million.

So my answers is yes

ObeyTheSuit

I would probably vote yes, but I recognise I'm most likely a minority. That said it depends on what the money is for.

Will I see a return on my investment? Will I be able to hop on a website and go through the proposed plan, forecasts and where they are gathering their data. On top of that I want to see the raw data it's being drawn from and how it is calculated. I did a stint for a couple of years doing various statistics for businesses and I have learned they can be fiddled with quite easily to show the numbers you want. So as stated earlier transparency is key for my vote.

On a side note regarding the tax avoidance by large multinationals using Ireland as a tax haven.. well I think those days will come to an end regardless if the threshold is upped or not. Over here the Australian Tax Office (ATO) has put into law that if a corporation funnels its money through say Ireland and subsequently avoiding paying their fair share they can be fined a hefty sum and still owe the tax on top of it. In other words they are removing the loophole entirely. I would surmise that every other country is watching to see how this will pan out and if it works they will undoubtedly follow suit. This comes into force over here in 2016.

Iwasfrozen

blackcard wrote: »

With the elections coming up in the next 6-9 months, I expect the various parties to promise tax reductions, welfare increases, increased health spending, getting rid of water charges, property taxes etc. etc. I am not an economist so I don't know if we can afford the above. But, if one party promised something which benefited me but I felt was not good for the country, I would not vote for them. Tbh, I think all parties are going to promise something that is not good for the country so will probably have to vote for the least worst party

No but I'd like to see spending cuts to hep grow the economy.

_Kaiser_

I don't actually think we need to increase taxes.. the Government collects more than enough in direct taxes, as well as other charges, levies, fees etc as it is. The problem is that what's collected is so badly mismanaged - through incompetence and corruption - that it seems like not enough is collected.

BoJack Horseman

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

I don't actually think we need to increase taxes.. the Government collects more than enough in direct taxes, as well as other charges, levies, fees etc as it is. The problem is that what's collected is so badly mismanaged - through incompetence and corruption - that it seems like not enough is collected.

How much is misspent from corruption?

ssmith6287

Low to mid earner here, 25k salary. Id happily pay more tax if I could see what its paying for.

Water charges: The biggest arguement is we already pay for them. True, but its taken from road tax and general tax. I would gladly pay water charges if I know all of the taxes brought in through water went on water and road tax went on the roads.

We need the black and white of a vissionary and an accountant to look at how our taxes are spent. Let them argue until theyre both happy. This way we should be happy

In answer to the question asked. I will vote for those I feel are being realistic. Left wing is to idealogical and all about the iff's. So that rules them out. Being honest I'll prob vote for fine gael again.

PopePalpatine

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

No but I'd like to see spending cuts to hep grow the economy.

LOL, good one. I suppose the workhouse sector will boom in your utopia.

El_Duderino 09

ssmith6287 wrote: »

Water charges: The biggest arguement is we already pay for them. True, but its taken from road tax and general tax. I would gladly pay water charges if I know all of the taxes brought in through water went on water and road tax went on the roads.

We need the black and white of a vissionary and an accountant to look at how our taxes are spent. Let them argue until theyre both happy. This way we should be happy.

That's a fair sounding point but how would emergency services be funded? Could be through council tax like in the UK. What would pay for administration and the civil service? Everyone likes to say they do nothing but they're necessary

ssmith6287

HSE, Board of Education etc is what our taxes should be spent on.

Motortax is generated for the upkeep of our roads
Water Charges should be for the upkeep of our water services
Public lighting, street cleaning etc should be taken from our property tax/corperation tax
Education, Helath, Security, Welfare should be taken from general taxation

I could possibly be thinking too logically but the way its currently done doesnt make sense to me

El_Duderino 09

ssmith6287 wrote: »

HSE, Board of Education etc is what our taxes should be spent on.

Motortax is generated for the upkeep of our roads
Water Charges should be for the upkeep of our water services
Public lighting, street cleaning etc should be taken from our property tax/corperation tax
Education, Helath, Security, Welfare should be taken from general taxation

I could possibly be thinking too logically but the way its currently done doesnt make sense to me

Yeah that sounds good but the amount of money needed to fund services fluctuates. So your each tax could vary wildly every few years. Investment requires large sums so it would make tax unpredictable and much more complicated.

I imagine the current system pools the money together and then assigns budgets as needed.

ssmith6287

Well thats where the ministers in charge should make their money. New ways to do things cheaper and more efficient. I know its easier said then done but I'm sure anyone in the private sector can see where the cuts have been yet the performance has been maintained

jimmycrackcorm

Hollister11 wrote:

I don't think a small increase, would cause these big corporations to leave. Sure even at 12.5%, they hardly pay that on there profits.

The problem is that one you start increasing it then you are planting the seed that companies investing in Ireland are liable to be nervous about future tax increases.

The argument on the tax take is skewed very much by the really large companies like Apple who are taking advantage of schemes like the double irish that gives the impression that there's a potential tax collection goldmine when in reality is not going to happen.

For most companies that want to grow, low taxes help fund their investment, providing more jobs.

But even the likes of Apple, google, facebook etc here employ people with very significant wages, when you consider that the marginal rate of tax of 52% for someone on €100k combined with the employer PRSI then we're not doing so bad for such a small country.

jimmycrackcorm

ssmith6287 wrote:

Motortax is generated for the upkeep of our roads Water Charges should be for the upkeep of our water services

There's a misconception about taxes raised which is why so many people refer to motor tax as a tax to specifically pay for road maintenance. That doesn't make sense, after all why have a specific tax for roads but none for policing?

Instead, taxes are formed on the basis of how they can be collected and the ideal is to broaden them, to make then as optional as possible. Motor tax is a consumption choice based on whether you choose to drive, as is the duty on petrol or VAT.

lanos

Godge wrote: »

To answer the OP, yes, but only taxes I think are right.

We need to lower taxes on income and replace with broader taxes such as the property tax, water charges, etc.

let me guess....you are renting (I know renters are directly billed for water)

Godge wrote: »

Our focus should be on taking more people out of the higher rate and reducing it dramatically and/or a third rate inbetween.

let me guess again, you would fall into that 3rd inbetween tax bracket

lanos

ssmith6287 wrote: »

Low to mid earner here, 25k salary.

Low

Icepick

The only taxes I'd support increasing would put pensioners etc on the same level as everyone else.

JPNelsforearm

No, a fair, flat tax rate across the board, single payment, deducted from your wages, no stealth taxes. Lower tax on healthy food, raise it on unhealthy food, etc etc, simple and consistent, which is why no party suggests it. All the current tax system does is create loopholes for the wealthy and hammer the middle.

oscarBravo

Icepick wrote: »

The only taxes I'd support increasing would put pensioners etc on the same level as everyone else.

"Everyone else" isn't on the same level.

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

No, a fair, flat tax rate across the board, single payment, deducted from your wages, no stealth taxes. Lower tax on healthy food, raise it on unhealthy food, etc etc, simple and consistent, which is why no party suggests it. All the current tax system does is create loopholes for the wealthy and hammer the middle.

So, a 20% tax on minimum wage earners, and the same 20% tax on a billionaire? I can see that being universally popular.

Icepick

oscarBravo wrote: »

"Everyone else" isn't on the same level.

exactly my point

same thresholds, credits, etc

JPNelsforearm

oscarBravo wrote: »

"Everyone else" isn't on the same level.

So, a 20% tax on minimum wage earners, and the same 20% tax on a billionaire? I can see that being universally popular.

Billionaires and large companies probably pay less as it is.

PopePalpatine

And do you honestly think billionaires will happily pay the 20% flat tax? Nope, they're going to try every trick in the book to slash that to single figures.

jimmycrackcorm

PopePalpatine wrote:

And do you honestly think billionaires will happily pay the 20% flat tax? Nope, they're going to try every trick in the book to slash that to single figures.

I think they might just be. If you consider the efforts that they have to go to to avoid executive taxation. Setting up convoluted money diversion through offshore companies and multiple layers of management and control, it might be easier. By some accounts the Quinns efforts to hide assets in Russia have fallen to the control of their Russian partners.

Don't forget that billionaires still can have many ways to cut down their tax bills and they are still people. They're not too different than me having bought the Sunday world today for €2.45 to get an Aldi €10 discount voucher.

oscarBravo

Never mind the billionaires, you think the unions and other assorted social partners are going to cheerfully agree to a 20% tax on all income?

Cookie_Monster

oscarBravo wrote: »

So, a 20% tax on minimum wage earners, and the same 20% tax on a billionaire? I can see that being universally popular.

This is by far the best solution, set at something like 15-17%. Really simple to administer, everyone in the tax net, no favoritism of low income earners, no 'punishing' those who earn more for no justifiable reason.

The billionaires will still arrange their tax affairs as they do now, avoiding income tax of 42% or 17% it doesn't really matter. They may be more willing to pay it if only 17%...

quadrifoglio verde

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

This is by far the best solution, set at something like 15-17%. Really simple to administer, everyone in the tax net, no favoritism of low income earners, no 'punishing' those who earn more for no justifiable reason.

The billionaires will still arrange their tax affairs as they do now, avoiding income tax of 42% or 17% it doesn't really matter. They may be more willing to pay it if only 17%...

Trust me, no one wants to pay one more cent of tax than they legally have to. So if they could find a way of paying 16% tax instead of 17%, they would.

oscarBravo

It's not going to happen. Even if it was a good idea (simple solutions to complex problems tend not to be) it fails the only metric that ever seems to be applied to taxes in this country: it's not progressive.