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

Skommando

Stheno wrote: »

Yes and I'm self employed

Where are you getting this nine months waiting period?

Where are you getting it from, I never mentioned it ?

Wheeliebin30

23 billion a year welfare.

Let that sink in.

23 billion for a country of no more than 5 million people.

Highest disability claimees in Europe.

Highest jobless households in Europe.

jesus_thats_gre

oik wrote: »

"You should feel grateful for the money you earned"

Typical attitude.

Been tempted to reply to the post you quoted.

Let's assume that the guy did get a pay bump of 2k a month. You would assume that he has earned himself a good promotion and has quite a significant level of responsibility.

People here are complaining about being taxed too much and feeling they are getting anything valuable in return.

How ****ty must the poor bastard who getting less than 1k of that 2k rise into his hand feel?

Stheno

Skommando wrote: »

Where are you getting it from, I never mentioned it ?

Sorry read your post wrong jsb lasts nine months not jsa

Skommando

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

23 billion a year welfare.

Let that sink in.

23 billion for a country of no more than 5 million people.

Highest disability claimees in Europe.

Highest jobless households in Europe.

Peanuts compared to what bankers, developers and bondholders continue to get from the taxpayer, and what multinationals get away with. How about creating some employment for a change, instead of mis-managing the economy and being neck deep in cronieism and incompetency ? Let that sink in for a while.

Bananaleaf

Skommando wrote: »

He pays less PRSI, class S, so unlike his employees, he hasn't paid into Jobseekers benefit.

Pays less PRSI as his employees yes, but still pays more than some perpetual claimants who joined the dole queue straight from school.

SCOOP 64

Yourself isit wrote: »

Unlikely that he won't have any savings through. Personally I think all prsi payers including self employed should get non means tested payments for years.

Well the first 9 months like everyone else definately, before mean test.

jesus_thats_gre

Skommando wrote: »

Peanuts compared to what bankers, developers and bondholders continue to get from the taxpayer, and what multinationals get away with. How about creating some employment for a change, instead of mis-managing the economy and being neck deep in cronieism ? Let that sink in for a while.

Is it though?
Granted, there was some crazy **** for a few years recently but 23 billion a year feels enormous.

Yourself isit

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

23 billion a year welfare.

Let that sink in.

23 billion for a country of no more than 5 million people.

Highest disability claimees in Europe.

Highest jobless households in Europe.

And a lower unemployment rate than most.

Wheeliebin30

Skommando wrote: »

Peanuts compared to what bankers, developers and bondholders continue to get from the taxpayer, and what multinationals get away with. How about creating some employment for a change, instead of mis-managing the economy and being neck deep in cronieism and incompetency ? Let that sink in for a while.

Ah yeah sure the bankers do it so it's grand.

Why can't we talk about one at a time instead of bringing the other into it?

The bankers debt was 63 billion.

In 2 years our welfare Bill would equal that.

Yourself isit

Skommando wrote: »

Peanuts compared to what bankers, developers and bondholders continue to get from the taxpayer, and what multinationals get away with. How about creating some employment for a change, instead of mis-managing the economy and being neck deep in cronieism and incompetency ? Let that sink in for a while.

You are creating a false dilemma here. We can dislike both.

We are creating employment. We had high welfare payments at the height if the boom when employment increased by one million over a few years, many of that immigrant labour.

kippy

jesus_thats_gre wrote: »

Is it though?
Granted, there was some crazy **** for a few years recently but 23 billion a year feels enormous.

You (and others) are aware, that budget includes:
OAP Pensions (and associated payments), Childrens allowance, Sick Pay, FIS, and a whole host of payments that aren't actually direct support for the unemployed?

Skommando

Yourself isit wrote: »

You are creating a false dilemma here. We can dislike both.

Then talk about both instead of being one sided

Wheeliebin30

kippy wrote: »

You (and others) are aware, that budget includes:
OAP Pensions (and associated payments), Childrens allowance, Sick Pay, FIS, and a whole host of payments that aren't actually direct support for the unemployed?

Who said were talking about unemployment?

We're talking about the workers getting absolutely lashed out of it in tax to fund an enormous welfare Bill.

Skommando

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Who said were talking about unemployment?

We're talking about the workers getting absolutely lashed out of it in tax to fund an enormous welfare Bill.

Welfare is far from the only place billions are going that shouldn't be, and personally I'd like to see the corrupt rich dealt with long before the corrupt poor.

kippy

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Who said were talking about unemployment?

We're talking about the workers getting absolutely lashed out of it in tax to fund an enormous welfare Bill.

The general consensus above is in relation to those unemployed screwing the system.
The simple facts are that the social welfare bill (bandied around as above as crazy) covers far more than just unemployment supports and like a lot of comment on these type of threads I think it is important to ensure the full facts are clarified.
For the record, there is a breakdown here:
http://www.thejournal.ie/social-welfare-budget-1562278-Jul2014/
Of where that budget goes.

I have no issues funding a "welfare" bill, the issues I have are funding the lifestyles of those absolutely taking the pi55.

Wheeliebin30

Skommando wrote: »

Welfare is far from the only place billions are going that shouldn't be, and personally I'd like to see the corrupt rich dealt with long before the corrupt poor.

Great.

But I'm discussing the abuse of our welfare system.

Where is billions going it shouldnt be?

Skommando

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Great.

But I'm discussing the abuse of our welfare system.

Where is billions going it shouldnt be?

So you're only bothered when your taxes wrongly go to the corrupt poor on the dole instead of the corrupt and wealthy ?
Pretty cowardly.

Wheeliebin30

Skommando wrote: »

So you're only bothered when your taxes go to the corrupt poor on the dole instead of the corrupt and wealthy ?

Tell me what taxes go to the corrupt and wealthy?

Who are these corrupt and wealthy you speak of?

oik

Skommando wrote: »

Welfare is far from the only place billions are going that shouldn't be, and personally I'd like to see the corrupt rich dealt with long before the corrupt poor.

Do you know how much the corrupt rich take from the state every year? Could you put a rough figure on it?

Skommando

oik wrote: »

Do you know how much the corrupt rich take from the state every year? Could you put a rough figure on it?

At least as much as the poor on the dole cost, the overall cost of corruption at the top is doing far more damage.

What proportion of people who are on the dole shouldn't be exactly ?

Skommando

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Tell me what taxes go to the corrupt and wealthy?

Who are these corrupt and wealthy you speak of?

Did you miss anglo, nama, quinn, crc, irish water and all the other scams ?

Wheeliebin30

Skommando wrote: »

Did you miss anglo, nama, quinn, crc, irish water and all the other scams ?

Nama? Irish water?

Can you provide links to how these are scams?

You may not agree with water charges but a scam they are not.

FortySeven

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Nama? Irish water?

Can you provide links to how these are scams?

You may not agree with water charges but a scam they are not.

I think it is the award of meter installation to Messer O'Brien of gob****ery.

NAMA was such a con it is unbelievable. For a nation facing an acute housing shortage, the selling of homes to vulture funds that were tax exempt in blocks too large for smaller companies or individuals to afford at bargain basement prices was hardly the deal of the week for the nations people.

(I'm assuming you don't need links for these, they've seen a fair bit of mainstream coverage.)

Wheeliebin30

FortySeven wrote: »

I think it is the award of meter installation to Messer O'Brien of gobhitery.

NAMA was such a con it is unbelievable. For a nation facing an acute housing shortage, the selling of homes to vulture funds that were tax exempt in blocks too large for smaller companies or individuals to afford at bargain basement prices was hardly the deal of the week for the nations people.

NAMA have denied any wrongdoing and until it's proved otherwise it's just an accusation.

Has it been proved the award of water meters was a scam?

If it has fair enough but I don't remember hearing about it.

oik

Skommando wrote: »

At least as much as the poor on the dole cost, the overall cost of corruption at the top is doing far more damage.

What proportion of people who are on the dole shouldn't be exactly ?

Where do you get your figures from?

FortySeven

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

NAMA have denied any wrongdoing and until it's proved otherwise it's just an accusation.

Has it been proved the award of water meters was a scam?

If it has fair enough but I don't remember hearing about it.

I'm not really interested in getting into a fact trawling exercise. I'm on my phone and I find copying and pasting an effort.

Maybe just easier for me to pretend there is no corruption in the awarding of government contracts or the disposal of state assets. Never has been.

newacc2015

Skommando wrote: »

At least as much as the poor on the dole cost, the overall cost of corruption at the top is doing far more damage.

What proportion of people who are on the dole shouldn't be exactly ?

Ah the aul 'everyone at the top is corrupt' argument. Yet when you ask these people for examples of corruption, they can never give examples as Ireland isnt that corrupt. Care to example to give me examples of the €15bn of corruption at the top ?

It is not the dole that is the issue. It is the basket of other goodies that comes with it such as free healthcare, a pension you didnt contribute a cent to, the free house, the variety of other welfare cheques throughout the year like back to school allowance etc. There is a sizeable minority in these country where there are generations in the household who have never worked a day in their life.

MPFGLB

Skommando wrote: »

So you're only bothered when your taxes wrongly go to the corrupt poor on the dole instead of the corrupt and wealthy ?
Pretty cowardly.

I think we need to deal with all the corrupt

BTW 23 billion on social welfare is about 5,200 euros per person per year ..based on 2013 population states ....How can any state support that ? No wonder the government keeps borrowing

(BTW the same calculation for UK is 4,000 per annum ...and we have a free NHS say (just saying)

as for the rich...companies and individulas have elaborate tax avoidance scheme and very creative accountants,off shore deposits in Bahama or Jersey etc

kippy

MPFGLB wrote: »

I think we need to deal with all the corrupt

BTW 23 billion on social welfare is about 5,200 euros per person per year ..based on 2013 population states ....How can any state support that ? No wonder the government keeps borrowing

(BTW the same calculation for UK is 4,000 per annum ...and we have a free NHS say (just saying)

as for the rich...companies and individulas have elaborate tax avoidance scheme and very creative accountants,off shore deposits in Bahama or Jersey etc

The above blanket statements are a tad misleading - at best.
http://visual.ons.gov.uk/welfare-spending/

http://www.thejournal.ie/social-welfare-budget-1562278-Jul2014/
The welfare bill makes up 35% of UK spending and 32% of Irish spending in the years I have linked to.
I am not sure what a free NHS has to do with anything either.

Irelands spending on it's welfare budget is in line with most other countries from what little I know of it.
https://ftalphaville.ft.com/2014/11/27/2053392/welfare-spending-across-the-oecd/?

MPFGLB

Sol ets say you have a limited company like many I know...

You can have 'sales' of £100 k per year

You can set your salary low, claims expenses, and dividends ....you could pay half or a third of what a PAYE employee pays..

Now take that up a notch to large company profits, very large farmers ( lots of them pay littel if any tax) and rich with investemnts that give income in the 100Ks

There are many ways the rich avoid tax ....

MPFGLB

kippy wrote: »

The above blanket statements are a tad misleading - at best.
http://visual.ons.gov.uk/welfare-spending/

http://www.thejournal.ie/social-welfare-budget-1562278-Jul2014/
The welfare bill makes up 35% of UK spending and 32% of Irish spending in the years I have linked to.
I am not sure what a free NHS has to do with anything either.

Irelands spending on it's welfare budget is in line with most other countries from what little I know of it.
https://ftalphaville.ft.com/2014/11/27/2053392/welfare-spending-across-the-oecd/?

My calculation is all welfare spending and an averge per person ...ist is a crude but valid comp and is not mis leading .... at best ? ...

Per person Ireland spends more on welfare than UK...nothing miss leading on this

kippy

MPFGLB wrote: »

Solets say you have a limited company like many I know...

You can have 'sales' of £100 k per year

You can set your salary low, claims expenses, and dividends ....you could pay half or a third of what a PAYE employee pays..

Now take that up a notch to large company profits, very large farmers ( lots of them pay littel if any tax) and rich wiht investemnts that give income in the 100Ks

There are many ways the rich avoid tax ....

That's literally like comparing apples and oranges.

kippy

MPFGLB wrote: »

My calculation is all welfare spending and an averge per person ...ist is a crude but valid comp and is not mis leading .... at best ? ...

Per person Ireland spends more on welfare than UK...nothing miss leading on this

Why use "average per person" as the guide? Why not percentage of total spend - and in fairness, what's wrong with spending "more per person" on welfare than another country?
In a civil and just society, we should have ample supports for those that need it and again - I amn't condoning welfare fraud or high taxation for the sake of it.

MPFGLB

kippy wrote: »

Why use "average per person" as the guide? Why not percentage of total spend?

Becuase 10% of 100 is more than 10% of 80

Because percentage do not give a good comparison if the amounts are not comparable and need to be seen in the context of a relative comparison ...like spend per person

its kinda obvious

MPFGLB

kippy wrote: »

That's literally like comparing apples and oranges.

Again 'smoking' tactics.....

The principle of tax avoidance is very obvious

I am not comparing I am demonstarting where the rich avoid tax as was the question

jesus_thats_gre

kippy wrote: »

Why use "average per person" as the guide? Why not percentage of total spend - and in fairness, what's wrong with spending "more per person" on welfare than another country?

Going back to the OP, I don't think there's necessarily a suggestion that this is bad.

I think there is a question about the value being returned.

I have to admit to feeling very frustrated in recent months. I would earn what can be described as a good salary but I really do wonder what I am getting in return for paying a significant amount of income tax.

It feels that it has gone that bit too far when you factor in additional living costs and stealth taxes.

kippy

MPFGLB wrote: »

Becuase 10% of 100 is more than 10% of 80

Because percentage do not give a good comparison if the amounts are not comparable and need to be seen in the context of a relative comparison ...like spend per person

I am not sure what 10% of 100 is more than 10% of 80 has anything to do with tbh.
If the UK spend 35% of their total budget on welfare and we only spend 32% of our total budget on welfare we surely spend less on welfare than the uk as a percentage of government spending?
Surely that's a "relative" comparision?


Pretty much everything I see shows us as about normal for spending on welfare.
https://ftalphaville.ft.com/2014/11/27/2053392/welfare-spending-across-the-oecd/?

MPFGLB

kippy wrote: »

Why use "average per person" as the guide? Why not percentage of total spend - and in fairness, what's wrong with spending "more per person" on welfare than another country?
In a civil and just society, we should have ample supports for those that need it and again - I amn't condoning welfare fraud or high taxation for the sake of it.

First you donlt like the calculation and now that its not more ?

The whole thread is that its too high....I didn;t pass a judgement ...I leave that to others

pilly

MPFGLB wrote:

(BTW the same calculation for UK is 4,000 per annum ...and we have a free NHS say (just saying)

You live in the UK and obviously love it, very happy for you. What's your agenda posting on here then ? You're happy where you are so stay there.

kippy

MPFGLB wrote: »

Again 'smoking' tactics.....

The principle of tax avoidance is very obvious

I am not comparing I am demonstarting where the rich avoid tax as was the question

A PAYE worker, earning nothing but their PAYE salary would find it very very difficult to "avoid" tax - I get that.
A small business or small farmer would also find it very difficult to avoid tax on earnings without professional help.
A large multinational with all the legal and tax advice available to them can control a number of factors to avoid tax.
But these are three very different and distinct scenarios - you cannot compare them.
(what do you class as "rich" by the way)

kippy

MPFGLB wrote: »

First you donlt like the calculation and now that its not more ?

The whole thread is that its too high....I didn;t pass a judgement ...I leave that to others

The whole thread is that we pay too much tax.
Moved onto, scroungers on the dole spending 23 Billion a year on.
I've cleared up that somewhat - and now, I've cleared up that we are actually spending what one would call "average" amounts on our social welfare bill.

MPFGLB

kippy wrote: »

I am not sure what 10% of 100 is more than 10% of 80 has anything to do with tbh.
If the UK spend 35% of their total budget on welfare and we only spend 32% of our total budget on welfare we surely spend less on welfare than the uk as a percentage of government spending?
Surely that's a "relative" comparision?


Pretty much everything I see shows us as about normal for spending on welfare.
https://ftalphaville.ft.com/2014/11/27/2053392/welfare-spending-across-the-oecd/?

Not if Ireland spends more on everything ....
So 32% of a higher relative budget can be higher than 35% of a lower relative budget ....so needs to be compared at a unit value that is comparable...which in my case is spend per person...I cant explain this any more

And Make your mind uo ....your are defending the right to spend more and defending that the spend is 'less' (which it isn't)

FortySeven

kippy wrote: »

I am not sure what 10% of 100 is more than 10% of 80 has anything to do with tbh.
If the UK spend 35% of their total budget on welfare and we only spend 32% of our total budget on welfare we surely spend less on welfare than the uk as a percentage of government spending?
Surely that's a "relative" comparision?


Pretty much everything I see shows us as about normal for spending on welfare.
https://ftalphaville.ft.com/2014/11/27/2053392/welfare-spending-across-the-oecd/?

If the UK had less tax, say, no usc. Their budget would be smaller per capita so the welfare spend per capita would seem much more. I think a division of spend per person gives a much clearer picture of distribution.

Budgets are not the same. For a variety of factors.

MPFGLB

kippy wrote: »

The whole thread is that we pay too much tax.
Moved onto, scroungers on the dole spending 23 Billion a year on.
I've cleared up that somewhat - and now, I've cleared up that we are actually spending what one would call "average" amounts on our social welfare bill.

You have cleared up nothing ...just arrogantly shown you donlt understand how to do a simple comparison

kippy

jesus_thats_gre wrote: »

Going back to the OP, I don't think there's necessarily a suggestion that this is bad.

I think there is a question about the value being returned.

I have to admit to feeling very frustrated in recent months. I would earn what can be described as a good salary but I really do wonder what I am getting in return for paying a significant amount of income tax.

It feels that it has gone that bit too far when you factor in additional living costs and stealth taxes.

Ah look - I don't disagree. Tax sucks - always has and always will - there are no doubt areas where spending can be reigned in and there is nothing worse than watching someone totally abuse the system.

Ultimately if we keep voting in the same clowns we'll get the same results. The older (current) set of clowns are bad enough - however theres a whole new set of clowns waiting in the wings whose policies are ever more off the wall than those in there. That's what worries me more than the tax I currently pay!

FortySeven

pilly wrote: »

You live in the UK and obviously love it, very happy for you. What's your agenda posting on here then ? You're happy where you are so stay there.

I'm also in the UK after 15 years in Ireland. I'm barely back but I'm noticing how much I was being robbed blind in Ireland. Everything here is cheaper. I'm not getting raped in tax and services are excellent. I will be staying and good riddance to you sir.

One less taxpayer to keep the cookie from crumbling.

MPFGLB

kippy wrote: »

A PAYE worker, earning nothing but their PAYE salary would find it very very difficult to "avoid" tax - I get that.
A small business or small farmer would also find it very difficult to avoid tax on earnings without professional help.
A large multinational with all the legal and tax advice available to them can control a number of factors to avoid tax.
But these are three very different and distinct scenarios - you cannot compare them.
(what do you class as "rich" by the way)

I wasn;t comparing them ....I was giving examples of tax avoidance ...aagain quite simple

I can;t argue with someone who is obtuse and delibertely mis leading ..

Just don't answer my post ...I dont want to waste my time on you

cala

ArnieSilvia wrote: »

It's simple when you consider that I, for example, after giving up my job, got 390 per week and my council house cost me 60 a week instead of 120 a week when I was working (job on the doorstep) and earning - wait - 450.

These days are long gone, moved to Dublin, now it's more like:

Working fooking hard in a very stressful job 52+ hours a week
Wife working full time
2 kids in schools
185k left on the mortgage
1.5 k property management fees
Sitting in Dublin traffic for 2hrs a day going to work 10 km's
Sitting in Dublin traffic whenever I have to do anything

... and have less disposable income than when I was on the dole

How could an income increase of less than 20% possibly incur a rent increase of 100%

kippy

MPFGLB wrote: »

You have cleared up nothing ...just arrogantly shown you donlt understand how to do a simple comparison

I've cleared up plenty. There are/were people out there that believe "Welfare" is just job seekers allowance/benefit - where it is much more than that.
2+ million people in this state are recipients of a welfare payment of some type.

I did a simple comparison in the way that it is done when measuring these types of things (see OECD reports).