Who dares to be a Millionaire?

drunkmonkey

Just looking at all the parties and their all starting to take aim at anyone making 100k plus.
What I find odd about this is that we're all meant to have shared the pain and now that things are looking up they want to hammer anyone that's coming out the right side of the recession, there also seems to be a will from the electorate aswell or have the parties or media just falsely rekindled the old Irish love of begrudgery?

So if your on 50k now and want to make way over 100k, because things are finally starting to fall into place for you after 8 years of austerity, who do you vote for?

Sam Russell

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Just looking at all the parties and their all starting to take aim at anyone making 100k plus.
What I find odd about this is that we're all meant to have shared the pain and now that things are looking up they want to hammer anyone that's coming out the right side of the recession, there also seems to be a will from the electorate aswell or have the parties or media just falsely rekindled the old Irish love of begrudgery?

So if your on 50k now and want to make way over 100k, because things are finally starting to fall into place for you after 8 years of austerity, who do you vote for?

It wont matter - not one promise will be implemented because there will be a coalition and a programme for government and all the difficult promises will be junked.

johnnyskeleton

The 100k+ segment is small and spread out. So sadly no party gets mamy gains by championing the cause of high earners. However, the magic money tree is attractive for all other voters.

Then when in government, the parties probably wont carry it out, because they could lose money and make it worse.

People give out to politicians for not keepibg promises, while at the same time they wouldnt vote for someone who tells it like it is.

daviecronin

I suppose a good party to vote for would be RENUA considering their flat tax idea which you can get more fairer really? benefits everyone

Idbatterim

Fine Gael is getting my 2 and Renua my 1. Our income tax system is a joke, we charge labour at extremely punitive rates as the marginal rate and other taxes are too low IMO...

Sam Russell

daviecronin wrote: »

I suppose a good party to vote for would be RENUA considering their flat tax idea which you can get more fairer really? benefits everyone

Except the poor.

Idbatterim

Except the poor

who are the "poor" in Ireland?

feargale

Thresholds are a given in taxation unless you hold with Renua that a 20 year old feckless George Best on a million a year ( who needs that? ) should pay at exactly the same rate as a lavatory cleaner on €10,000 per annum. I'm not saying that the €100,000 figure is sacrosanct, but talk of begrudgery in relation to tax usually comes from people like the American Tea Party nuts who are opposed to all tax in principle, except of course those taxes needed to prop up their pet or failing projects.

Sam Russell

Idbatterim wrote: »

who are the "poor" in Ireland?

The poor are defined in two ways.

Those in absolute poverty - that is they cannot afford proper or adequate food, clothing (like a warm coat) or housing/shelter.

Relative poverty is those who are in the bottom, say, 10%. In a particular country, like Ireland, these people would be relatively well off compared to other much poorer countries. That is why we, as a nation, give foreign aid.

Under the flat tax proposal from Renua, the people who would benefit most are those in the upper quartile of wealth/income while those who would lose out are in the bottom half in both income and wealth.

daviecronin

Sam Russell wrote: »

Except the poor.

I doubt that as there is a tax break for anyone earning under 20,000 and expecting the wealthier to constantly bale out the country is unfair too right?

A flat tax system, encourages spending in the economy creating jobs and securing investment. We need to stop this idea of big MNCs doing one over on us and start depending on ourselves for once.

Yet still under the 23% idea the wealthier would still be paying more money. Majority of people still pay 41% on a good portion of their income. Flat tax benefits all.

Why would anyone in their right minds want to be taxed at 41% for working an extra hour? its punitive. A disincentive to work. Those who do well in well and are in a good job deserve to enjoy the money they earn. Renua are about creating enterprise and nurturing it for the future. Entrepreneurs are at the heart strings of the economy.

Our current tax system is a joke, there is no certainty too it. The likes of SF are purposing yet another 59% rate of tax for the wealthy? Why don't we all just pick up our hammers and sickles and join the communist party. Lucinda has determination and has more guts than any other politician.

Idbatterim

Why would anyone in their right minds want to be taxed at 41% for working an extra hour? its punitive. A disincentive to work. Those who do well in well and are in a good job deserve to enjoy the money they earn. Renua are about creating enterprise and nurturing it for the future. Entrepreneurs are at the heart strings of the economy.

Our current tax system is a joke, there is no certainty too it. The likes of SF are purposing yet another 59% rate of tax for the wealthy? Why don't we all just pick up our hammers and sickles and join the communist party. Lucinda has determination and has more guts than any other politician.

yeah the marginal rate is a big issue in my line of work. Also its 51% income tax, I dont care what way the break it down, whether its 1% income tax and 50% tooth fairy tax. They are taking an immoral sum from low income earners, I find it incredible that this has actually been tolerated!

Relative poverty is those who are in the bottom, say, 10%. In a particular country, like Ireland, these people would be relatively well off compared to other much poorer countries. That is why we, as a nation, give foreign aid.

Under the flat tax proposal from Renua, the people who would benefit most are those in the upper quartile of wealth/income while those who would lose out are in the bottom half in both income and wealth.

I would argue that is fair enough, its the middle and high income earners being down now and a huge amount of low paid, paying in as good nothing in income taxes...

johnnyskeleton

There are several things wrong with the tax system:
1) complexity (different cateogries of prsi, 2 bands of income tax, personal and paye credits, tiers of usc, over the last few years we have had income levys, health levys etc).

2) the higher rate kicks in too early at 32k i.e. below average industrial wage

3) some people at the bottom pay no tax at all

4) the marignal rate for some people is 55% which I think is a disincentive

5) there is no logical connection between taxes and services.

I think that if everyone paid some tax and it was clear why they were doing it, it would clarify matters. Politicians like to be able to tap up the populace under general taxation for whatever they want, bank bailouts etc. I believe that if people could look at their payslip and national healh cost them €1k per year, they could make a rational choice as to whether it should go up and they get better service, go down and get worse service, stay the same, or even abolish the whole thing and just get private insurance.

As matter stand, people get to vote on how other peoples monry should be spent.

Even the way some people talk about tax breaks isnt right. If a party proposes to lower USC we are told that we are favouring the wealthy and giving them more. If we reduce tax we are not "giving" taxpayers anything, we are asking them to give us less.

Sam Russell

One thing wrong with our current system is the way the self employed are treated.

A self employed person earning above €100k (I think) pays a higher rate of USC than an employed person. That is just insane.

A self employed person is not entitled to any unemployment benefit. That is insane. Some 'self employed' people are plumbers or painters or airline pilots that are 'self employed' to benefit the actual employer.

Also, over the last twenty years or so, there has been a steady move to outsourcing services from the state and large businesses. Originally this was because of the perception that the outsourced service was cheaper but in fact this is a fallacy. The reduced cost is usually at the expense of the employees of both sides of the contract. Civil servants used to have skills in house but now do not and so have to outsource so no competitive forces at work.

Charles Babbage

Sam Russell wrote: »

One thing wrong with our current system is the way the self employed are treated.

A self employed person earning above €100k (I think) pays a higher rate of USC than an employed person. That is just insane.

Do they pay Employers PRSI? If they are employing themselves, why not?

colossus-x

For the politician to attack the interviewers salary was such a cheep shot. Politicians have much more benefits aside from their salary.

Stacksofwacks

Sam Russell wrote: »

One thing wrong with our current system is the way the self employed are treated.

A self employed person earning above €100k (I think) pays a higher rate of USC than an employed person. That is just insane.

A self employed person is not entitled to any unemployment benefit. That is insane. Some 'self employed' people are plumbers or painters or airline pilots that are 'self employed' to benefit the actual employer.

Also, over the last twenty years or so, there has been a steady move to outsourcing services from the state and large businesses. Originally this was because of the perception that the outsourced service was cheaper but in fact this is a fallacy. The reduced cost is usually at the expense of the employees of both sides of the contract. Civil servants used to have skills in house but now do not and so have to outsource so no competitive forces at work.

not true. all unemployed persons are entitled to jobseekers allowance. If you got turned down, id consider taking it to european level..

edit: its means tested providing you dont have 20k in money/assets left over from your defunct business

Sam Russell

Stacksofwacks wrote: »

not true. all unemployed persons are entitled to jobseekers allowance. If you got turned down, id consider taking it to european level..

edit: its means tested providing you dont have 20k in money/assets left over from your defunct business

I actually said 'benefit' not 'allowance'. They are different.

oscarBravo

Charles Babbage wrote: »

Do they pay Employers PRSI? If they are employing themselves, why not?

Because they're not allowed to.

I part-own a company from which all I get is a salary. Because I own more than 15% of the company, I'm treated as self-employed, so I don't get a PAYE tax credit despite paying income tax through the PAY system, and I qualify for very few social welfare benefits.

drunkmonkey

You qualify for a pension and can draw it even if your still working as self employed after retirement.

Sam Russell

drunkmonkey wrote: »

You qualify for a pension and can draw it even if your still working as self employed after retirement.

But that is true of employed people as well. Contributory pensions are not means tested and are a right.