Tax USC cuts and or Public sector pay

K-9

mickdw wrote: »

But progressive is not the term id use where no usc is payable if earning under a threshold of 12k approx but usc on entire earnings is due if you earn a euro more than the threshold.
Crazy stuff.

That's just math though! If you move from paying no PRSI to the 4% rate you could end up with less money even with a pay rise, same from the 20% tax rate to 40%.

K-9

Deleted User wrote: »

All those numbers relate to tax on income, which is only about a third of the total tax take.

So when people say 'person on x pays y times more than person on z" you need to add the qualifier 'in taxes on income'.

No real surprise that the journalists in the Independent are too stupid to understand that not exactly complicated point.

But then people on higher income will tend to be the ones buying new cars, houses etc. so pay loads of VAT, stamp duty, VRT etc.

Put it this way, there isn't a specific VAT rate that targets lower incomes. Petrol taxes might hit somebody harder on SW or 15k a year because there income is limited, but somebody on 60k is paying 40% income tax, PRSI, higher USC and more VAT as they afford to buy more things.

VAT isn't something people can really avoid regardless of incomes.

mickdw

K-9 wrote: »

That's just math though! If you move from paying no PRSI to the 4% rate you could end up with less money even with a pay rise, same from the 20% tax rate to 40%.

Its not just maths, it's unfairly written tax rules.
The 20 to 40 percent rate doesn't operate as you say anyway. Income to a threshold is at 20 percent with remainder at 40 percent. If the law said that once income went over a threshold, all income would be at the high rate - that would be crazy but similar to usc.

Charles Babbage

This thread is typical fact free Boards nonsense. The public service pay rates were cut, because of a poor economy, that reason is no longer present and so they will be restored. This is only an increase if you look at the short term, compared to the longer term it is not.

The entire premise of this thread is that these things are a matter of opinion, when of course they should not be. You pay people the going rate, you ensure the going level of productivity (for instance by not having politicians fiddle with the pay rates on a basis other than performance) . You then decide the level of service you want and the taxes required for that. In Ireland, people, such as the OP, seem to regard all these things as independent, that you fix PS pay rates based on some bull**** about such people having to work for nothing or some politically derived figure because the government employs them, then you decide to have world class services, but not to pay for them.

The sad thing is that after a great recession, people seem to have learned nothing and seem proud to have learned nothing.

johnnyskeleton

Charles Babbage wrote: »

This thread is typical fact free Boards nonsense. The public service pay rates were cut, because of a poor economy, that reason is no longer present and so they will be restored. This is only an increase if you look at the short term, compared to the longer term it is not.

Maybe they rose from 1997-2007 because of a bubble economy with windfall taxes and the cuts were simply restoring them to closer to the long term average.

The entire premise of this thread is that these things are a matter of opinion, when of course they should not be.

This is democracy I'm afraid.

You pay people the going rate, you ensure the going level of productivity (for instance by not having politicians fiddle with the pay rates on a basis other than performance) .

How do you decide the going rate? For example, the bus drivers earning 600-800 per week wanting a raise. But if someone who is currently unemployed would do the job for 500 per week, surely the 500 is the going rate?

You then decide the level of service you want and the taxes required for that. In Ireland, people, such as the OP, seem to regard all these things as independent, that you fix PS pay rates based on some bull**** about such people having to work for nothing or some politically derived figure because the government employs them, then you decide to have world class services, but not to pay for them.

The OP said no such thing. But at present we are still borrowing to balance the books, have a large debt and an underfunded capital investment budget e.g. building roads etc. So in that sense we should neither cut taxes nor increase current expenditure but work on balancing our books. But that is not a popular option and the current government is in a very precarious position.

The sad thing is that after a great recession, people seem to have learned nothing and seem proud to have learned nothing.

I think youre underestimating peoples intelligence and overestimating them in another way. People know what should be done for the good of the country, but they also know that the government is weak at the moment so they can advance their private interests ahead of the national interest.

Geuze

draiochtanois wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

More capital spending is a very good idea.

But we now face fiscal rules meaning our public debt must fall, not rise.

By the way, we issued a 10 yr bond this month as part of regular debt issuing.

The yield was 0.33% approx, so we do borrow at those rates.

draiochtanois

This post has been deleted.

draiochtanois

This post has been deleted.

Godge

K-9 wrote: »

But then people on higher income will tend to be the ones buying new cars, houses etc. so pay loads of VAT, stamp duty, VRT etc.

Put it this way, there isn't a specific VAT rate that targets lower incomes. Petrol taxes might hit somebody harder on SW or 15k a year because there income is limited, but somebody on 60k is paying 40% income tax, PRSI, higher USC and more VAT as they afford to buy more things.

VAT isn't something people can really avoid regardless of incomes.

If the social welfare rates are high enough to allow a single individual on social welfare to afford a car, then there is something wrong with the social welfare rates.

There are many working families paying tax who can't afford a car.

draiochtanois

This post has been deleted.

K-9

Godge wrote: »

If the social welfare rates are high enough to allow a single individual on social welfare to afford a car, then there is something wrong with the social welfare rates.

There are many working families paying tax who can't afford a car.

Some people might need a car for any new job so would priortise that above other things.

Everybody is different, including those on SW.

draiochtanois

This post has been deleted.

Rightwing

Godge wrote: »

If the social welfare rates are high enough to allow a single individual on social welfare to afford a car, then there is something wrong with the social welfare rates.

There are many working families paying tax who can't afford a car.

Can they drive ?

Only a complete and utter dunce can't afford a car nowadays.

strandroad

Rightwing wrote: »

Can they drive ?

Only a complete and utter dunce can't afford a car nowadays.

Or someone who pays double childcare. Get real.

Rightwing

mhge wrote: »

Or someone who pays double childcare. Get real.

I'm not buying any of these hard luck stories.

Dardania

Rightwing wrote: »

mhge wrote: »

Or someone who pays double childcare. Get real.

I'm not buying any of these hard luck stories.

Your username is quite apt

Godge

Rightwing wrote: »

Can they drive ?

Only a complete and utter dunce can't afford a car nowadays.

Household Car ownership was only 82.4% in 2011.

http://www.cso.ie/px/pxeirestat/Statire/SelectVarVal/saveselections.asp

A lot of your dunces out there.

Rightwing

Godge wrote: »

Household Car ownership was only 82.4% in 2011.

http://www.cso.ie/px/pxeirestat/Statire/SelectVarVal/saveselections.asp

A lot of your dunces out there.

Does the article mention affordibility ? I doubt it, but I would say most of those punters wouldn't be fit to drive. Safer if they use the bus......for us all.

K-9

Rightwing, up the standard please.

fliball123

Charles Babbage wrote: »

This thread is typical fact free Boards nonsense. The public service pay rates were cut, because of a poor economy, that reason is no longer present and so they will be restored. This is only an increase if you look at the short term, compared to the longer term it is not.

The entire premise of this thread is that these things are a matter of opinion, when of course they should not be. You pay people the going rate, you ensure the going level of productivity (for instance by not having politicians fiddle with the pay rates on a basis other than performance) . You then decide the level of service you want and the taxes required for that. In Ireland, people, such as the OP, seem to regard all these things as independent, that you fix PS pay rates based on some bull**** about such people having to work for nothing or some politically derived figure because the government employs them, then you decide to have world class services, but not to pay for them.

The sad thing is that after a great recession, people seem to have learned nothing and seem proud to have learned nothing.

Sorry last I checked we were borrowing 2 billion this year and we are 206billion in debt..We have to pay that off so how are we out of reason why you guys got a pay cut?

So longer term where in the years between 2000 and 2007 ps pay and penisions more than doubled? yeah your talking absolute waffle

Charles Babbage

fliball123 wrote: »

Sorry last I checked we were borrowing 2 billion this year and we are 206billion in debt..We have to pay that off so how are we out of reason why you guys got a pay cut?

Current borrowing is because money has been given away to buy votes. Overall borrowing is everyone's responsibility to pay back, not just some people.

So longer term where in the years between 2000 and 2007 ps pay and penisions more than doubled? yeah your talking absolute waffle

everyone's pay is higher than 2000. Try harder, this is supposed to be a serious forum.

Charles Babbage

Charles Babbage wrote: »

You then decide the level of service you want and the taxes required for that. In Ireland, people, such as the OP, seem to regard all these things as independent, that you fix PS pay rates based on some bull**** about such people having to work for nothing or some politically derived figure because the government employs them, then you decide to have world class services, but not to pay for them.

The sad thing is that after a great recession, people seem to have learned nothing and seem proud to have learned nothing.

I'm sorry but this is seriously indicative of the problems people have with public sector pay increases - the idea that they are, or will be, somehow reflected in an improvement of services. If you are making €10 an hour and that goes up to €11, the service stays exactly the same. If we take that 1 euro pay rise and instead add one worker for every 10 we have (pensions etc, I know..) then we have an increase in service. Pay rises mean we're just paying more for the same service.

If there's Gardai complaining they can't do their job because of a lack of equipment, how does a pay rise solve that? It simply takes money away from being able to supply the necessary equipment, or manpower, or training, or whatever else will actually improve service for the end user.

fliball123

Charles Babbage wrote: »

Current borrowing is because money has been given away to buy votes. Overall borrowing is everyone's responsibility to pay back, not just some people.



everyone's pay is higher than 2000. Try harder, this is supposed to be a serious forum.

So having to pay for a ps pay and pensions bill along with a spiraling welfare bill over the last decade and half which put us into about 150 billion in debt is my responsibility? how so?. I never voted for this or for that shower of Cretans and that was Ahern and FF buying votes for the different blocks as in the ps and those on welfare..The problem is now what has been given is hard to take away.

Try harder to do what the data is there to back up what I am saying the decade preceding the bust Ahearn more than doubled ps pay and pensions as well as welfare and at a speed that far out paced inflation and just about every other country in the world.

Also the private sector did not go up at the same rate during the same period. Back before Ahearn greesed the wheels things like "job for life" and "gold plated pensions" for the ps were because they were supposed to not earn the same as their private sector counter part. Yet by all measures now PS are paid significantly more than the private sector counter parts.

benchmarking III should be entered withe the ps measured against the private sector and some people will get a payrise in the ps but the majority would be cut to shreds.

I await your "but you cant compare the 2"..Yet it was done twice during benchmarking and then the evidence of benchmarking was shredded and torched by fire at midnight on all hallows eve, you couldn't make it up.

FF and Ahearn managed through buying votes to throw our income tax payers under the bus.

So dont blame me I never voted for them and yet Bertie is still there walking in the sunset with a couple of pensions and body guards and car all provided by the unwashed masses

Also you compare how the private sector dealt with the crash 1/4 companies in Ireland went to the wall in that period not to mention other people getting pay cuts. What happened in the ps..?

They took a small pay cut and then were asked to pay a contribution to a defined benefit which those of us in the real world could only dream off. They then asked throughout the dream land that is the ps to leave politely and given a golden handshake if they did, and a lot rehired on higher (off books) contract rates. No one even bothered filtering who was offered the golden handshakes and all the while between 2008 and 2013 5 years of ps pay increments continued.

We now find ourselves in a predicament that areas like health due to Ahearn 80 to 85% of the monies spent in that area is ringfenced for pay and pensions leaving feck all for the actual service.

Same with education but the % is a little bit lower. (75%)

We are paying out over 20billion a year in welfare

So you will excuse me you if I think that the feather touch approach taken with the ps that has us now at the mercy of the bearded unions who cry poverty for their members from behind their platinum ladened fingers and will strike because they think they were the hardest done by or from the lefties who wont be happy until the poor have more than those working, and all the while neather group has come no where near the pain of what those in the private sector who have worked over the last 15 years have had to deal with

FreudianSlippers

mhge wrote: »

Or someone who pays double childcare. Get real.

Maybe people shouldn't have children they can't afford?

draiochtanois

This post has been deleted.

Charles Babbage

Sergio Georgini wrote: »

I'm sorry but this is seriously indicative of the problems people have with public sector pay increases - the idea that they are, or will be, somehow reflected in an improvement of services. If you are making 10 an hour and that goes up to 11, the service stays exactly the same. If we take that 1 euro pay rise and instead add one worker for every 10 we have (pensions etc, I know..) then we have an increase in service. Pay rises mean we're just paying more for the same service.

Of course you are paying more for the same service. People are not paid the same as they were in 1900. Once my dad could get a haircut for 5/, now it costs 11. Pretending that barbers should earn only 1980 rates or 2000 rates because their service is similar is complete and utter nonsense.

If there's Gardai complaining they can't do their job because of a lack of equipment, how does a pay rise solve that? It simply takes money away from being able to supply the necessary equipment, or manpower, or training, or whatever else will actually improve service for the end user.

People should both be equipped and paid, these things are not mutually exclusive.

Charles Babbage

Charles Babbage wrote: »

Of course you are paying more for the same service.

So why are you implying the opposite?

Charles Babbage wrote: »

People are not paid the same as they were in 1900.

Correct...?

Charles Babbage wrote: »

Once my dad could get a haircut for 5/, now it costs 11.

And I pay 25 - what's your point? That's a choice. I can't remember the last time the barbers went on strike for higher prices, explains why everyone had such awful hair in the 70s though.

Charles Babbage wrote: »

Pretending that barbers should earn only 1980 rates or 2000 rates because their service is similar is complete and utter nonsense.

Barbers earnings arent automatically taken out of your pay packet. What a barber earns is of no interest to anyone else, because nobody is forcing anyone to support a barber.

Charles Babbage wrote: »

People should both be equipped and paid, these things are not mutually exclusive.

And if there isn't money for both? Which do we choose?


I see the Gardai are next out on strike. An illegal one to boot. So we can hear nothing but waffle about basic pay, while forgetting to mention rent allowance, pension contributions and all the other cash that tops up that basic pay.

And they'll get their pay rise, and then they'll turn around and say "well, we can't stop crime because we don't have the resources."

The same applies to nurses and teachers too.

Charles Babbage

Charles Babbage wrote: »

Of course you are paying more for the same service. People are not paid the same as they were in 1900. Once my dad could get a haircut for 5/, now it costs 11. Pretending that barbers should earn only 1980 rates or 2000 rates because their service is similar is complete and utter nonsense.

Inflation is close to 0%. In a low/no inflation world, your wage packet does not need to change for you to earn the same standard of living.

The 1980s barber to the 2000 barber and beyond had large inflationary pressures to compete with, and so the price of labour has to rise just for people to stand still.

Charles Babbage

Sergio Georgini wrote: »

Barbers earnings arent automatically taken out of your pay packet. What a barber earns is of no interest to anyone else, because nobody is forcing anyone to support a barber.

We should privatise law enforcement, then I could patronise the 11 gardai and you could use the 25 gardai, or we could just sort things ourselves as we have a choice.

Sergio Georgini wrote: »

And they'll get their pay rise, and then they'll turn around and say "well, we can't stop crime because we don't have the resources."

The same applies to nurses and teachers too.

So health should be funded by nurses, education by teachers and the army should work for nothing so they can buy a gun.

Deleted User wrote: »

Inflation is close to 0%. In a low/no inflation world, your wage packet does not need to change for you to earn the same standard of living.

I agree, although many people are getting increases,the rate og wage increase in a growing economy exceeds the rate of inflation. The issue is not so much increases, as the removal of pay cuts, introduced when there was harder times, which are now being continued for political advantage, not because economic conditions remain the same.

Charles Babbage

Charles Babbage wrote: »

I agree, although many people are getting increases,the rate og wage increase in a growing economy exceeds the rate of inflation. The issue is not so much increases, as the removal of pay cuts, introduced when there was harder times, which are now being continued for political advantage, not because economic conditions remain the same.

=> Because other people are getting pay increase (vague 'many people' - who might indeed be improving productivity / profitability etc), the public sector should also get pay increases.

Is that really the logic?