Calls to slash the top rate of tax for Irish workers by a huge 7%

Geuze

Halloween Jack wrote: »

Both of those points are absolute tripe

The only people who can pay CT are one or more of the following:

shareholders
workers
customers

That is a matter of logic.

If you call for higher CT, then you are calling for higher taxes on one or more of these groups.

Geuze

Halloween Jack wrote: »

Both of those points are absolute tripe

Apple in Ireland did pay 12.5% CT on their profits made in Ireland.

They did not pay CT on profits generated in California.

Geuze

Many people pay very low income taxes.

My parents earn 49k approx, and pay less than 10%.

That is a very low Average Tax Rate [ATR].

In return, they get:

• two med cards
• two travel passes
• free TV licence
• 35 pm off their elec bill

This is a very generous country, with low to very low ATRs on many earners.

It's also very true that the top tax rate kicks in far, far too early.

Geuze

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Tax bands in Ireland are ridiculous. There needs to be at least one extra tier, probably more.

I would go for four rates:

20, 30, 40, 50

Merge USC and PRSI.

PRSI ceiling at 100k.

50% rate after 100k.

FreudianSlippers

Geuze wrote: »

Many people pay very low income taxes.

My parents earn 49k approx, and pay less than 10%.

That is a very low Average Tax Rate [ATR].

In return, they get:

• two med cards
• two travel passes
• free TV licence
• 35 pm off their elec bill

This is a very generous country, with low to very low ATRs on many earners.

It's also very true that the top tax rate kicks in far, far too early.

I paid 11% in USC alone last year.

Old Bill

Sinn Fein would only Tax people on over 100k.

Hollister11

Geuze wrote: »

Many people pay very low income taxes.

My parents earn 49k approx, and pay less than 10%.

That is a very low Average Tax Rate [ATR].

In return, they get:

• two med cards
• two travel passes
• free TV licence
• 35 pm off their elec bill

This is a very generous country, with low to very low ATRs on many earners.

It's also very true that the top tax rate kicks in far, far too early.

It's not generous, there just low earners.

Suryavarman

jcon1913 wrote: »

Survayarman said:

In the medium to long term the cost of employers PRSI is borne entirely by the employee. All that such a policy would do is reduce wages by ~14%.

End quote

Any proof / studies?

Survarman again:

Most evidence on the matter points to the negative effects outweighing the positives when the minimum wage exceeds 50% of the median wage. Ireland's minimum wage is closer to 60% of the median wage.

End quote

Proof / studies / reports?

Grueber (1995):

Despite the growing reliance on payroll taxation worldwide, there is limited evidence on the incidence of payroll taxes. I provide new evidence by examining the experience of Chile before and after the privatization of its Social Security system. This policy change led to a sharp exogenous reduction in the payroll tax burden on Chilean firms; the average payroll tax rate in my sample fell from 30% to 5% over this six year period. I use data from a census of manufacturing firms, which contains information on firm specific tax payments and average wages. I find strong evidence that the incidence of payroll taxation was fully on wages, with no effect on employment. A potential weakness with this approach is that some of the variation in firm-specific tax rates may be spurious, for example due to measurement error in wages. I attempt to surmount this problem by using a variety of different estimators, all of which yield consistent evidence of full shifting.

Dube (2010)

A natural target is to set the minimum wage to half of the median full-time wage. This target has important historical precedence in the United States: in the 1960s, this ratio was 51 percent, reaching a high of 55 percent in 1968. Averaged over the 1960–1979 period, the ratio stood at 48 percent.
Approximately half the median full-time wage is also the norm among all OECD countries with a statutory minimum wage. For OECD countries, on average, the minimum wage in 2012 (using the latest data available) was equal to 49 percent of the median wage; averaged over the entire sample between 1960 and 2012, the minimum stood at 48 percent of the median (OECD 2013).

Setting the state and local minimum wages close to half the median full-time wage is a well-balanced policy option. Such a target is close to both U.S. experiences during the 1960s and 1970s and to current practice in advanced industrialized countries. While it pushes the minimum wage beyond the experience over the recent period in this country, it does so in a measured fashion

Stheno

Hollister11 wrote: »

It's not generous, there just low earners.

So low earners are classed on people on almost 50k?

Yet high earners are classed as the self employed who pay a marginal rate of 55% once they hit 100k?

jcon1913

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Low wages = serfdom

Hollister11

Stheno wrote: »

So low earners are classed on people on almost 50k?

Yet high earners are classed as the self employed who pay a marginal rate of 55% once they hit 100k?

2 people earning 50 between is low. Whatever way it's split 25K:25K, 30K:25K.

A good wage for one person, low for a couple.

Wheeliebin30

Stheno wrote: »

So low earners are classed on people on almost 50k?

Yet high earners are classed as the self employed who pay a marginal rate of 55% once they hit 100k?

.I think some people believe self employed pay no tax.

jcon1913

Suryavarman wrote: »

Grueber (1995):



Dube (2010)
[/

Gruber refers to payroll taxes not Employers PRSI.

Dube concludes "Minimum wage policies are not an antipoverty panacea. They do however tend to raise wages for America's lowest paid workers making an adequate minimum wage an important pillar of a national antipoverty agenda. "

on the other hand in a study by David Card and Alan Krueger the authors concluded "contrary to the central production of the textbook model of the minimum wage but consistent with a number of recent stories based on cross sectional timeseries comparison sense of affected and on affected markets we find no evidence that the rise in New Jerseys minimum wage reduced employment in fast food restaurants in the state. "

I can't post links as I am on my mobile phone

Stheno

Hollister11 wrote: »

2 people earning 50 between is low. Whatever way it's split 25K:25K, 30K:25K.

A good wage for one person, low for a couple.

A single person on 32k takes home 26,730 per annum, or 2,228 per month

http://services.deloitte.ie/tc/Results.aspx

A single person on 50k per annum takes home 3,022.00 per month, or 36,270.00

A single person earning 75k per annum brings home €48,871.00 per annum or per month €4,073.00

So someone earning 2.5 times the average wage brings in less than 46% more than the person on the average 32k wage

Earning more here means paying more here to reduce the tax burden on the lower paid.

listermint

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I think you under estimate the things that Multinationals actually enjoy about Ireland, Yes tax rates, and certainly yes educated workforce (that cant be overstated and i think often is understated i.e ridiculed by some to make a point) but the things that are very often overlooked is ease of doing business, Social attitudes, Genuinely just the way many irish people present themselves with an easy attitude with straight talking and open sensibility.

In fact its one of the many reasons we have done so well internationally when we do go abroad for such a small country.

And people genuinely like it here, That is very powerful and people dont seem to say that often. We hear this constant jibe about low rates being the only thing holding business here. Its a fallacy, it is one of various attributes - but not the top of the list nor bottom.

Its a good place, it has good people, good business can be done here and we can offer people visas relatively easy if other skills are required. ALOT of value in all of that and tbf the IDA are great at selling all of that.





Waves mini green flag.

FreudianSlippers

Old Bill wrote: »

Sinn Fein would only Tax people on over 100k.

Not according to their vague policy - it would seem they advocate (with the exception of USC) keeping all other taxes the same, but increasing taxes on people making over €100k... which is not only insane, but doesn't raise anywhere near enough money to even cover abolition of USC, let alone their mooted spending bonanza.

Old Bill

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Not according to their vague policy - it would seem they advocate (with the exception of USC) keeping all other taxes the same, but increasing taxes on people making over €100k... which is not only insane, but doesn't raise anywhere near enough money to even cover abolition of USC, let alone their mooted spending bonanza.

It would raise alot of money because the likes of Bono are paying little or no tax.

Geuze

Stheno wrote: »

So someone earning 2.5 times the average wage brings in less than 46% more than the person on the average 32k wage

http://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/er/elca/earningsandlabourcostsannualdata2015/

Average earnings 2015 = 36,519

Average earnings for full-time workers 2015 = 45,075

Geuze

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Not according to their vague policy - it would seem they advocate (with the exception of USC) keeping all other taxes the same, but increasing taxes on people making over €100k... which is not only insane, but doesn't raise anywhere near enough money to even cover abolition of USC, let alone their mooted spending bonanza.

Be very clear that SF plan large income tax increases on many workers earning over 35k approx.

SF are up front about this. They don't hide it.

It is to be expected from a socialist party, obviously.

They plan to cut the tax relief on pension conts to 20%.

About half the workers in Irl are in a pension scheme.

This is a large income tax increases, but without increasing rates, or reducing bands/credits.

So it is populist.

FreudianSlippers

Old Bill wrote: »

It would raise alot of money because the likes of Bono are paying little or no tax.

This old chestnut doesn't mathematically add up and belongs firmly in the Cafe with the other unsupported claims.

Suryavarman

jcon1913 wrote: »

Grueber (1995):



Dube (2010)
[/

Gruber refers to payroll taxes not Employers PRSI.

Dube concludes "Minimum wage policies are not an antipoverty panacea. They do however tend to raise wages for America's lowest paid workers making an adequate minimum wage an important pillar of a national antipoverty agenda. "

on the other hand in a study by David Card and Alan Krueger the authors concluded "contrary to the central production of the textbook model of the minimum wage but consistent with a number of recent stories based on cross sectional timeseries comparison sense of affected and on affected markets we find no evidence that the rise in New Jerseys minimum wage reduced employment in fast food restaurants in the state. "

I can't post links as I am on my mobile phone

If you're going to quote me then do it properly. It's quite easy to do.

Also, if you're going to respond to me then I might also ask that you say something that challenges what I say instead of wasting my time and Boards' server space.

There is no difference between employer's PRSI and payroll taxes. Or can you tell me how changing the name of something makes work differently?

The Card and Krueger study has nothing to do with what I said as I'm not advocating the abolition of the minimum wage.

jcon1913

Suryavarman wrote: »

If you're going to quote me then do it properly. It's quite easy to do.

Also, if you're going to respond to me then I might also ask that you say something that challenges what I say instead of wasting my time and Boards' server space.

There is no difference between employer's PRSI and payroll taxes. Or can you tell me how changing the name of something makes work differently?

The Card and Krueger study has nothing to do with what I said as I'm not advocating the abolition of the minimum wage.

I am saying raise the minimum wage. You are quoting a study thats says the minimum wage should ideally be 50% of the average wage. Another poster has come up with a figure for average wage of €45,000 in Ireland in 2015. Half that is €22,500 give or take. The current minimum wage is €9.15 x 37.5 hours x 52 weeks = €17,842. So broadly speaking you agree with me, for which I thank you. I am advocating raising the minimum wage.

You do know that Employers PRSI is paid by Employers? What if that tax increase was used to reduce the tax burden on workers?

And I dont accept the 'cause and effect' of raising one cost has to lower some other cost. If you took that logic to its ectreme then all workers in heavily taxed countries should have lower real earnings. Like Sweden. But they have high real incomes in Sweden.

ted1

Stheno wrote: »

Who do you think should pay more to offset the liss to the exchequer

This thread is probably better suited the politics btw i cam move it if you want

Vulture funds, and other large companies that pay little to no Tax on Irush earnings