I'm sick to death of being taxed to death !

NovemberJersey

BoatMad wrote: »

nope, pharma and tech are , farmers are not net contributors to the tax take overall

Do you have any understanding of how dependent the west is on farming? Where I'm from there'd be nothing without it… all that farming is good for now is making jobs for other people

Sand

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

In other news NAMA expected to give a surplus of €2.3bn to the Irish taxpayer.

Anyone seriously suggesting this doesn't represent the best-case scenario from our bank bailout is in la la land.

I predicted that NAMA would return a profit many years ago. Id agree given all the stupidity that reigned in Ireland from 2008 to date, an accounting profit is about the best to be hoped for.

kippy

Sand wrote: »

I predicted that NAMA would return a profit many years ago. Id agree given all the stupidity that reigned in Ireland from 2008 to date, an accounting profit is about the best to be hoped for.

Yeah. Key word is accounting.
Its relatively easy make a profit when you purchases major loan tranches at a major discount with tax payers putting up the cash and the haircut on the banking side also being paid for by the taxpayer via recapitilisation. Still better than a 'loss'.

marienbad

NovemberJersey wrote: »

Do you have any understanding of how dependent the west is on farming? Where I'm from there'd be nothing without it… all that farming is good for now is making jobs for other people

That's not what you said though , is it ?

Idbatterim

In other news NAMA expected to give a surplus of €2.3bn to the Irish taxpayer.

Anyone seriously suggesting this doesn't represent the best-case scenario from our bank bailout is in la la land.

look I think Iceland comparisons are ridiculous. But if it was purely about achieving profit, I think they they could have done a lot better! The sale of battersea powerstation in london was a particular joke in my opinion. You didnt need to be mystic meg, to know selling towards the bottom of the cycle was a bad idea!!!

Thomas Drennan

Well here here I'm also sick to my b-lx if I happen to go to town from work all I see is people walking around spending money at will our hard earned tax and why are people being allowed into our country without work permits have we not enough Irish on it i tried to earn a few quid outside my job and all I'm allowed is my expenses and they take 41% you could be up all hours of the night for peanuts this country is set up for wasters while they screw the working person

Professor Moriarty

Thomas Drennan wrote: »

Well here here I'm also sick to my b-lx if I happen to go to town from work all I see is people walking around spending money at will our hard earned tax and why are people being allowed into our country without work permits have we not enough Irish on it i tried to earn a few quid outside my job and all I'm allowed is my expenses and they take 41% you could be up all hours of the night for peanuts this country is set up for wasters while they screw the working person

Good man. Get it all out.

K-9

Sand wrote: »

I predicted that NAMA would return a profit many years ago. Id agree given all the stupidity that reigned in Ireland from 2008 to date, an accounting profit is about the best to be hoped for.

I think you were very critical of the concept so I'm not sure if you thought it would be profitable! Doesn't really matter anyway, the big point was we needed it in the first place.

Accounting profit as you say, plus there were some sales that many wonder if they were not sold too quickly, never mind the Cerebus kerfuffle!

Then of course we've the bailouts and Anglo/INBS on top.

And already some are emphasising the "the bailout was for the PS and SW" narrative. 10/15 years time it will all be forgotten just like PMPA and AIB bailouts in the 80's.

Sand

K-9 wrote: »

I think you were very critical of the concept so I'm not sure if you thought it would be profitable! Doesn't really matter anyway, the big point was we needed it in the first place.

Accounting profit as you say, plus there were some sales that many wonder if they were not sold too quickly, never mind the Cerebus kerfuffle!

Then of course we've the bailouts and Anglo/INBS on top.

And already some are emphasising the "the bailout was for the PS and SW" narrative. 10/15 years time it will all be forgotten just like PMPA and AIB bailouts in the 80's.

I was/am very critical of NAMA. NAMA as initially envisaged was forced to be slightly less shameless a 'Green Jersey' institution run by the banks for the banks. I think some of our EU 'partners' were happy to ride us, but even they were embarrassed by NAMA as initially put together. I recall a lot of reference to the Swedish crisis and how NAMA was drawn from best practise - until the Swedish politician responsible showed up and said NAMA was actually nothing like their plan and he had a lot of issues with it. It was a secretive bank with little oversight, huge resources and power to dole out to the great, good and wealthy. A perfect breeding ground for corruption Irish style and mission creep. The actual pricing of the loans was overall a cosmetic shift - tax payer was going to pay one way or the other.

I was sure it would be intensely negative for the taxpayer overall which it is/was and the taxpayer would see no return from it, but I also acknowledged that politically only a profit would be reported. The same bank management that were saved want everyone to forget about how how all their debt became our debt but their profits belong to them alone. A paper profit helps close NAMA with the least amount of oversight, just how it was designed to be. Probably the same auditors who gave Anglo Irish a clean bill of health year in, year out giving it the rubberstamp of approval.

You're right, I wholly agree that the banks learned nothing from their earlier failures. And they will repeat those errors when given the chance. The Irish bank management failures were nothing to do with complicated derivatives. They made a balls of simple bread and butter property loans and basic, basic risk management. Their survival under NAMA and the moral hazard generated plays a large role in my view of the ignored costs of NAMA to the taxpayer - among many, many others. NAMA drove government policy for years in every sphere and was a hugely negative force preventing reform. The idea that it represents a best case scenario...well, obviously the bank PR is working.

realitykeeper

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

In other news NAMA expected to give a surplus of €2.3bn to the Irish taxpayer.

Anyone seriously suggesting this doesn't represent the best-case scenario from our bank bailout is in la la land.

There will be no surplus. Bailing out the banks will cost the Irish taxpayer tens of billions of euro. Unfortunately, that is not even the main problem.

EU bank bailouts were made possible by ECB helicopter money and this was just the beginning of massive monetary expansion. The Euro as a currency as well as Eurozone bond markets will fail as a consequence.

FreudianSlippers

Idbatterim wrote: »

look I think Iceland comparisons are ridiculous. But if it was purely about achieving profit, I think they they could have done a lot better! The sale of battersea powerstation in london was a particular joke in my opinion. You didnt need to be mystic meg, to know selling towards the bottom of the cycle was a bad idea!!!

Undoubtedly, I just have two points in response:

1) When NAMA was established, most people on here and on the streets wouldn't have ever imagined it would turn a profit;

2) NAMA also isn't Mystic Meg and was in retrospect wrong to sell certain assets... but at the same time, people would be up-in-arms if they didn't and the price plummeted.

BoatMad

kippy wrote: »

Yeah. Key word is accounting.
Its relatively easy make a profit when you purchases major loan tranches at a major discount with tax payers putting up the cash and the haircut on the banking side also being paid for by the taxpayer via recapitilisation. Still better than a 'loss'.

recapitalisation is an investment , an investment that will return a coupon to the exchequer, given the rock bottom share value price the taxpayer got these shares for, the exchequer will be in for quite a nice little windfall in the next few years.

BoatMad

realitykeeper wrote: »

There will be no surplus.

The is clearly an operating surplus from Nama operation

Bailing out the banks will cost the Irish taxpayer tens of billions of euro.

only Anglo was bailed out , the rest were recapitalised , i.e. the exchequer ( the NPRB) bought shares and invested in the banks , note " invested" and will in time receive a nice little windfall .


Unfortunately, that is not even the main problem.

EU bank bailouts were made possible by ECB helicopter money

we its a fiat currency just like the US dollar and Sterling

and this was just the beginning of massive monetary expansion. The Euro as a currency as well as Eurozone bond markets will fail as a consequence.

a chicken little statement , with little backup. QE is needed in a contracting low inflation /deflation situation. with it comes a currency devaluation , also needed, It has worked in the US, where inflation is returning and interest rates will rise leading too a strengthening of the dollar and that befits Eurozone growth chances.

Are you seriously suggesting more austerity and a tightening of the money supply , that would have been utter madness

greendom

This is really how it should be. Well done Ireland in attempting to create an equitable tax system

BoatMad

Thomas Drennan wrote: »

Well here here I'm also sick to my b-lx if I happen to go to town from work all I see is people walking around spending money at will our hard earned tax and why are people being allowed into our country without work permits have we not enough Irish on it i tried to earn a few quid outside my job and all I'm allowed is my expenses and they take 41% you could be up all hours of the night for peanuts this country is set up for wasters while they screw the working person

very few people here without work permits and those that are are usually supply with direct provision while their claims are evaluated . MCI estimate there are about 20,000 " undocumented " aliens, out of a workforce of close to 2.5 million its drop in the ocean

take 41% you could be up all hours of the night for peanuts this country is set up for waster

I suppose we could shutdown the health , education and social welfare systems so that you could keep a few more quid of your nixer

greendom

greendom wrote: »

This is really how it should be. Well done Ireland in attempting to create an equitable tax system

That is absolutely ridiculous. Why is the highest earner a woman.

realitykeeper

BoatMad wrote: »

The is clearly an operating surplus from Nama operation


only Anglo was bailed out , the rest were recapitalised , i.e. the exchequer ( the NPRB) bought shares and invested in the banks , note " invested" and will in time receive a nice little windfall .


Unfortunately, that is not even the main problem.



we its a fiat currency just like the US dollar and Sterling



a chicken little statement , with little backup. QE is needed in a contracting low inflation /deflation situation. with it comes a currency devaluation , also needed, It has worked in the US, where inflation is returning and interest rates will rise leading too a strengthening of the dollar and that befits Eurozone growth chances.

Are you seriously suggesting more austerity and a tightening of the money supply , that would have been utter madness

Even if NAMA does eventually register a profit upon conclusion of its activities (which I doubt), the taxpayer will still be tens of billions out of pocket when you subtract the Anglo losses.

Yes the Euro is a fiat currency and in case you did not know, that is not a good thing.

The rhetoric from the ECB is not fact, it is Keynesian nonsense. A better authority is the Bank of International Settlements and unfortunately for poor old Europe, the ECB is not doing what the BIS recommends.

nice_guy80

Deleted User wrote: »

That is absolutely ridiculous. Why is the highest earner a woman.

she works weekends as a stripper

Sand

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Undoubtedly, I just have two points in response:

1) When NAMA was established, most people on here and on the streets wouldn't have ever imagined it would turn a profit;

Under the original terms of 'Long Term Economic Value' it certainly couldn't and it was not designed to. It was a SPV designed to buyup trash for cash, keep it off the government books (like Irish Water) and avoid bank recapitalisation. It failed on all counts by its original terms.

2) NAMA also isn't Mystic Meg and was in retrospect wrong to sell certain assets... but at the same time, people would be up-in-arms if they didn't and the price plummeted.

Well, again, the whole claim of NAMA was that it could manage the banks loans better than the banks could. Long term economic value was thrown around. So yes, it was claiming to be Mystic Meg. But it could only manage market value and often much worse. Again, it failed by its own definition.

Yourself isit

realitykeeper wrote: »

Even if NAMA does eventually register a profit upon conclusion of its activities (which I doubt), the taxpayer will still be tens of billions out of pocket when you subtract the Anglo losses.

Yes the Euro is a fiat currency and in case you did not know, that is not a good thing.

The rhetoric from the ECB is not fact, it is Keynesian nonsense. A better authority is the Bank of International Settlements and unfortunately for poor old Europe, the ECB is not doing what the BIS recommends.

Nothing Keynesian about monetary policy alone.

K-9

Sand wrote: »

Under the original terms of 'Long Term Economic Value' it certainly couldn't and it was not designed to. It was a SPV designed to buyup trash for cash, keep it off the government books (like Irish Water) and avoid bank recapitalisation. It failed on all counts by its original terms.



Well, again, the whole claim of NAMA was that it could manage the banks loans better than the banks could. Long term economic value was thrown around. So yes, it was claiming to be Mystic Meg. But it could only manage market value and often much worse. Again, it failed by its own definition.

I don't think it was to avoid recapitalisations though? Money had already been put in IIRC and the shortfall in valuations would have to be made up?

The really embarrassing part was trying to present Anglo as a viable bank to the EU, bit like the dead parrot sketch in Monty Python!

Sand

K-9 wrote: »

I don't think it was to avoid recapitalisations though? Money had already been put in IIRC and the shortfall in valuations would have to be made up?

NAMA was released in 2009 when the whole soft landing mantra was still being held onto. Donnie Cassidy made his infamous 'unbelievable value in the marketplace today' recommendation to young people just the year before.

Some recapitalisation had happened by that point but only a drop in the bucket, but it with the likes of Lenny parroting long term economic value and the 'talking down the economy' narrative from the Green Jersey brigade I recall there was a serious view to use a SPV structure to somehow weasel out of further recapitalisation and keep it off the books. The banks of course from the start wanted only minor recap to start with - and then to reel in the taxpayer with more and more recaps, throwing good money after bad. Neary had only resigned a few months before and Lennys natural position when facing the banks was on his knees.

Personally, as an Irish person I remain dismayed that Bank of Ireland is bailed out by the Irish people but retains control of the Irish Parliament building, fulfilling its old pledge to the British crown to ensure the building can never be used as a parliament again.

The really embarrassing part was trying to present Anglo as a viable bank to the EU, bit like the dead parrot sketch in Monty Python!

The funny thing is good old Allied Irish Bank is still strutting about despite costing the Irish taxpayer a comparable amount to keep alive as a dead bank like Anglo. Anglo cost 35 billion euro. AIB 21 billion to recapitalise.

And it will cost us and our children a lot more than Anglo, again and again and again. Anglo at least cost 35 billion, and that's the end of them.

Its worth noting that given we are supposed to view the 2 billion euro or so profit on NAMA as a great victory, how dismissive TINA people were about the gains on burning unsecured bondholders which there was no liability on.

spuddy

greendom wrote: »

This is really how it should be. Well done Ireland in attempting to create an equitable tax system

I think you're right, it should be equitable, but the tax rates themselves only tell half he story... I've lived and worked in a few mainland European countries and the tax rates in Ireland are in or around the same as I paid there. Where Ireland differs is the value its citizens get relative to the taxes paid. This was clear in two ways.

1. The level and quality of services you got access to. Free/heavily subsidised health care and medication, excellent public transport, inexpensive childcare, plus a lower cost of living (heat, light, food, insurance etc).
   
2. The benefits were available universally. There was no talk of middle/higher earners being well-off enough to pay for the benefits themselves. As they earned more, they paid more into the system, and therefore they were as entitled to these benefits as anyone else.

That's where the equity really lies... While I never encountered anyone who liked paying taxes in any of my travels, there was far less disquiet as people felt they got some value from their contribution. Ireland has some way to go here.

Skommando

spuddy wrote: »

[*]The benefits were available universally. There was no talk of middle/higher earners being well-off enough to pay for the benefits themselves. As they earned more, they paid more into the system, and therefore they were as entitled to these benefits as anyone else.[/LIST]

That's where the equity really lies... While I never encountered anyone who liked paying taxes in any of my travels, there was far less disquiet as people felt they got some value from their contribution. Ireland has some way to go here.

This sounds great, but in real terms middle earner wages in Ireland are lower than they were ten years ago. There are going to be fewer and fewer "middle earners" as the years go on. Younger professionals with a few years experience are leaving Ireland, as there is no long term wages growth anymore, and it's a financial race to the bottom.

K-9

Ireland is pretty unique in that over a third of the population pays no income tax, so how can people demand excellent services if that's the case.

And rather than addressing that anomaly Government is looking to abolish USC which is a fair, well designed tax. It's progressive and very hard to avoid.

Meanwhile little or nothing is being done on raising the higher rate cut off point. People hit the higher tax here very quickly and that is borne out by analysis.

FreudianSlippers

Sand wrote: »

Under the original terms of 'Long Term Economic Value' it certainly couldn't and it was not designed to. It was a SPV designed to buyup trash for cash, keep it off the government books (like Irish Water) and avoid bank recapitalisation. It failed on all counts by its original terms.



Well, again, the whole claim of NAMA was that it could manage the banks loans better than the banks could. Long term economic value was thrown around. So yes, it was claiming to be Mystic Meg. But it could only manage market value and often much worse. Again, it failed by its own definition.

So... SPV designed to fail makes a profit and it still fails?

flutered

the 5.5m wasted on iw since may would have made some dent in many a rightfull service's balance sheet

Jim2007

K-9 wrote: »

Ireland is pretty unique in that over a third of the population pays no income tax, so how can people demand excellent services if that's the case.

Nonsense! Only about 45% of Americans pay income tax, here in Switzerland it's about 40% of the population, hell you don't even need to submit a tax return if you earn less than about 150K and in India only about 26M people pay taxes.  There is nothing special about Ireland, but perception.

K-9

Is that federal taxes?

realitykeeper

Yourself isit wrote: »

Nothing Keynesian about monetary policy alone.

What do you mean? Alone or in company, ECB monetary policy is Keynesian.

Skommando

K-9 wrote: »

Ireland is pretty unique in that over a third of the population pays no income tax, so how can people demand excellent services if that's the case.

Neither do the very wealthy, nor do large corporations, but all people here cowardly complain about is the people less well off than them.

BoatMad

Jim2007 wrote: »

Nonsense! Only about 45% of Americans pay income tax, here in Switzerland it's about 40% of the population, hell you don't even need to submit a tax return if you earn less than about 150K and in India only about 26M people pay taxes.  There is nothing special about Ireland, but perception.

The stats are there to be googled , Ireland has the 2nd lowest tax burden on low paid people, according to the OECD.

as for tax returns, no paye worker on any income including 150K is required to submit a tax return

BoatMad

Skommando wrote: »

Neither do the very wealthy, nor do large corporations, but all people here cowardly complain about is the people less well off than them.

the wealthy are somewhat irrelevant, primarily because , while we might feel better taxing them to death , the actually number of " wealthy " people is very small and therefore the actual monetary value the exchequer could accumulate is also small. only 1 in 20 people ( 5% ) in ireland earn over 100K

this is why Gov come back again and again to the middle classes for tax, there just so many of them about the place

BoatMad

The funny thing is good old Allied Irish Bank is still strutting about despite costing the Irish taxpayer a comparable amount to keep alive as a dead bank like Anglo. Anglo cost 35 billion euro. AIB 21 billion to recapitalise.

where is the evidence that AIB will not return a gain to the exchequer on the shares invested in.

BoatMad

Well, again, the whole claim of NAMA was that it could manage the banks loans better than the banks could. Long term economic value was thrown around. So yes, it was claiming to be Mystic Meg. But it could only manage market value and often much worse. Again, it failed by its own definition.

not really, the point of NAMA was to remove loan books that the market viewed as vulnerable and therefore so that capital adequacy ratios could then be built in a " solid " foundation of a good loan book.

To some extent the state then of course frigged the books, by ensuring the haircut was such that anyone was likely to make a profit and on the other hand, the state recapitalised an arguably better off banking system them NAMA made it appear.

Skommando

BoatMad wrote: »

the wealthy are somewhat irrelevant, primarily because , while we might feel better taxing them to death

the wealthy are irrelevant ?

No need to 'tax them to death', just the affordable level of tax would be fine instead of little or none. And to claim that the nationalisation of billions of their private speculation debts, while they remain extremely wealthy, and ordinary people pay their debts off has no effect on our finances , and the tax border of ordinary workers, is not true.

BoatMad

Personally, as an Irish person I remain dismayed that Bank of Ireland is bailed out by the Irish people but retains control of the Irish Parliament building, fulfilling its old pledge to the British crown to ensure the building can never be used as a parliament again.

how are those two issues relevant , bailing out a bank , ( well actually the exchequer re-invested ) doesnt mean a shere holder gets to avoid or sidestep the law. the sale terms of the building are still legally binding

BoatMad

spuddy wrote: »

I think you're right, it should be equitable, but the tax rates themselves only tell half he story... I've lived and worked in a few mainland European countries and the tax rates in Ireland are in or around the same as I paid there. Where Ireland differs is the value its citizens get relative to the taxes paid. This was clear in two ways.

1. The level and quality of services you got access to. Free/heavily subsidised health care and medication, excellent public transport, inexpensive childcare, plus a lower cost of living (heat, light, food, insurance etc).
   
2. The benefits were available universally. There was no talk of middle/higher earners being well-off enough to pay for the benefits themselves. As they earned more, they paid more into the system, and therefore they were as entitled to these benefits as anyone else.

That's where the equity really lies... While I never encountered anyone who liked paying taxes in any of my travels, there was far less disquiet as people felt they got some value from their contribution. Ireland has some way to go here.

there is no real evidence that somehow in ireland , we squander our tax take, we do have some different priorities , for example , we have a very generous social welfare system for example

The key thing you miss when comparing us to other European countries is population density. Here tax is raised from comparatively a small group of people and hence funding large tax consuming projects is difficult. couple that with the fact that we have huge swathes of lower income groups from paying hardly any tax and you have the situation where a relatively small group of tax payers are in essence funding the whole show. Given our demographics and political realities, there is little that can be done to correct this. Those that scream for more public services are exactly those that in fact pay very little tax towards them relatively

BoatMad

Skommando wrote: »

the wealthy are irrelevant ?

No need to 'tax them to death', just the affordable level of tax would be fine instead of little or none. And to claim that the nationalisation of billions of their private speculation debts, while they remain extremely wealthy, and ordinary people pay their debts off has no effect on our finances , and the tax border of ordinary workers, is not true.

the fact remains , there are simply too few that qualify as tax resident , to make any appreciable difference,

as for " And to claim that the nationalisation of billions of their private speculation debts" , I have no idea who this applies to. companies fail and leave debts, people go bankrupt and leave debts, etc . You cannot get blood out of a stone and businesses and businessmen must be allowed to fail and get back on their feet to try again, Other wise you would have no businesses at all.

BoatMad

Yes the Euro is a fiat currency and in case you did not know, that is not a good thing.

well that boat sailed in ww2

BoatMad

The rhetoric from the ECB is not fact, it is Keynesian nonsense. A better authority is the Bank of International Settlements and unfortunately for poor old Europe, the ECB is not doing what the BIS recommends.

The BIS has warned the ECB and bank of japan , that excessive negative interest rates may have unexpected consequences, especially where such rates do not percolate into ordinary businesses.

However the BIS has no more foresight then the ECB , and the consequences of a contraction of money supply at this point in the Eurozone would over inflate the currency , further adding to deflationary pressure and depressing exports , either of which would be disastrous for the Euro economy. Arguably german intransigence in not allowing QE early enough has made the ECBs job harder to boot

Skommando

BoatMad wrote: »

as for " And to claim that the nationalisation of billions of their private speculation debts" , I have no idea who this applies to. companies fail and leave debts, people go bankrupt and leave debts, etc . You cannot get blood out of a stone and businesses and businessmen must be allowed to fail and get back on their feet to try again, Other wise you would have no businesses at all.

so you believe that private debts should be nationalised, and the wealthy by in large should not be taxed ?
if they are so irrelevant , why is it so important that they pay little or no tax ?
what should the tax bands and rates be and why ?

BoatMad

Skommando wrote: »

so you believe that private debts should be nationalised, and the wealthy by in large should not be taxed ?
if they are so irrelevant , why is it so important that they pay little or no tax ?
what should the tax bands and rates be ?

as a general comment , I do not believe that private debt should be nationalised, however in the recent banking crash , I can well understand why it happened as there was a systemic risk to the Euro . I personally would have selectively guaranteed AIB and BOFI and let the rest go to the wall, but I can well understand what the Eurozone was terrified of that and prevented it

As for the wealthy being taxed, other then a sense of shadenfreude , there is simply not enough uber wealthy people that fall inside the tax residency net , that would constitute any meaningful additional tax take, Most of those individuals that might have such incomes, have in general very mobile capital and are personally mobile, hence can easily remove wealth from the clutches of any one country.

The fact remains , we dont have enough wealthy people within the tax net to make any appreciable difference , so it doesnt matter , its not important to me whether we waste time trying to chase these people into the tax net, most likely we will fail, and the net outcome is not materially beneficial to even start trying

Skommando

BoatMad wrote: »

As for the wealthy being taxed, other then a sense of shadenfreude , there is simply not enough uber wealthy people that fall inside the tax residency net , that would constitute any meaningful additional tax take, Most of those individuals that might have such incomes, have in general very mobile capital and are personally mobile, hence can easily remove wealth from the clutches of any one country.

The fact remains , we dont have enough wealthy people within the tax net to make any appreciable difference , so it doesnt matter , its not important to me whether we waste time trying to chase these people into the tax net, most likely we will fail, and the net outcome is not materially beneficial to even start trying

So by and large the wealthy should not be taxed or at least taxed very little, is that correct ?

What should the tax bands and rates be, can you give some examples ?

BoatMad

Skommando wrote: »

So by and large the wealthy should not be taxed or at least taxed very little, is that correct ?

What should the tax bands and rates be, can you give some examples ?

no stop putting words ( or letters ) into my mouth,

what I said is the the wealthy , i.e. the uber wealthy , are typically mobile , both personally and financially , therefore its very difficult to tax them unless globally everyone acts together and thats unlikely

Therefore we have very few " resident " uber wealthy , so the amount of tax raised will not be materially sufficient to make any real difference. therefore I dont care how the user wealthy are taxed in Ireland , its not the source of a solution

in fact arguably what we need to do is raise taxes (or constrain benefits ) on the lower paid , to european levels, however in this country thats not politically possible, so therefore , for the foreseeable future , the burden will fall onto the middle classes

Skommando

BoatMad wrote: »

no stop putting words ( or letters ) into my mouth,

I didn't, I asked you was it correct.

BoatMad wrote: »

what I said is the the wealthy , i.e. the uber wealthy , are typically mobile , both personally and financially , therefore its very difficult to tax them unless globally everyone acts together and thats unlikely

Same could be said about Uber criminals, do you think that is also acceptable ?

BoatMad wrote: »

Therefore we have very few " resident " uber wealthy , so the amount of tax raised will not be materially sufficient to make any real difference. therefore I dont care how the user wealthy are taxed in Ireland , its not the source of a solution

So if the uber wealthy are irrelevant and should get a free pass from paying taxes because it's too difficult to make them pay any, what taxes should the merely wealthy pay ?

BoatMad wrote: »

in fact arguably what we need to do is raise taxes (or constrain benefits ) on the lower paid , to european levels, however in this country thats not politically possible

Excluding the Uber wealthy from paying any txes, what should the tax bands and rates be from poor to wealthy ? Can you give some examples ?

BoatMad

Same could be said about Uber criminals, do you think that is also acceptable ?

of course in an utopian world , neither uber criminals escaping the justice system nor uber wealthy escaping the taxation system should exist. I denounce all of them ( are you happy )

define the " merely wealthy " in ireland that has typically been pitched at individuals earning over 100K , in other countries thats simply seen as " comfortable ". here people earning 100K are very heavily taxed

Excluding the Uber wealthy from paying any txes, what should the tax bands and rates be from poor to wealthy ? Can you give some examples ?

I would bring up low income tax take to standard European norms, typically around 15% of aggregate income, middle income here is around 30%-35% of aggregate income and higher earners ( over 100K ) are on about 40% of aggregate earners . without dramatic reductions in the exchequer budget , theres not much room to change that . There is more scope for asset taxes ( farmer land tax etc, land bank taxes etc ) , but they are very politically difficult to stomach

I dont think we have much room for change in that regard. The demand for services cannot be really afforded in this country , given the low population and its been a huge challenge since the foundation of the state to square this issue, and repeatedly we have beggared the country in the process, because voters want less tax and more services and those two things are essentially incompatible

Skommando

BoatMad wrote: »

I would bring up low income tax take to standard European norms, typically around 15% of aggregate income, middle income here is around 30%-35% of aggregate income and higher earners ( over 100K ) are on about 40% of aggregate earners

what would be the bands and the tax rates applied to them ?

BoatMad

Skommando wrote: »

what would be the bands and the tax rates applied to them ?

Thats a complex subject, because tax and bands and allowances and benefits and rebates etc all play a part and the tax code, combined with social welfare codes, benefits all comprise in effect an income for lower paid .

Hence my comment that " tax rate " aggregate rates on the lower paid arguably need to rise European levels , and therefore middle earners rate need to fall closer to European aggregate levels . However , Ireland has engineered itself into an almost unique position where it provides benefits funded by one group of earners and gives them to another group of earners , that make little or no contribution. Politically thats not going to change and that leaves the Exchequer in the same old quandary , where do you go to get maximum tax take ,

marienbad

Skommando wrote: »

So by and large the wealthy should not be taxed or at least taxed very little, is that correct ?

What should the tax bands and rates be, can you give some examples ?

you are just demanding a simplistic answer to a question that will have little or no effect on the overall picture .

Tax them out of existence if you wish and when they are gone what will you do as our problems remain the same ?