Cut to child benifit for people earning over 100k to help fund childcare

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

storker

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

True enough, but let's stop pretending that tax and the government is the only problem here, because tax is just a contributor to the shortage that lies at the root of people's frustrations: disposable income. Sure, tax takes the biggest bite, but there's also rent and mortgage payments, the cost of buying and running a car, the cost of childcare etc. Having anyone gouge you is bad, be it government or business. The right-wingers will pretend that the business gouging is OK, and the lefties will tell you that it's all down to the private sector, but the truth is they're all at it. There are two levels to the problem, what you keep of the money you're paid, and what you keep of what you keep.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

But why are the companies here not paying higher salaries to account for the high taxes? After all, they pay relatively little Coperate Tax.

You are a great proponent of competion and free enterprise, so why is the demand for all these great and talented graduates not driving up the salaries? You can hardly blame the government for that.

Seems to me, the businesses here are fine with watching graduates hop on a plane and leave.
That suggests these graduates aren't all that, or the business can do fine without.

Permabear

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Taxes are just one cost of living.

If it wasn't taxes or the cost of government here that was the issue here, let's say it was the cost of food and fuel that broke people, would you be calling for Govt action then? Or more likely, you'd want the government to stay out of any market interface.

So why do you think it should be up to the government to dramatically reduce tax to compensate for people's lack of disposable income?

Captcha

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Nonsense, the college educated ones come into the workplace with basically no skills in most cases.

I have no leaving cert or education but well into the 6 figures now the past few years, 33 years old.

I was incompatible with the way school teach, so I went and tought myself.

Designed computer games in my copy books at school instead of school work

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Captcha

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Wow 7 figures is a lot! Congratz!

By focusing on money making industries, be a great communicator with technical abilities and you will clean up here, in Sales or Sales engineering.

The ones with the degrees are in the background making the solutions on their lower salaries...

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

storker

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Oh, I don't. I'm just pointing out that the "big bad government" isn't the only one with its hand in the cookie jar at the citizen's expense. But yes, its contribution to peoples' costs isn't limited to simply wetting its beak from their pay packets.

Permabear

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Err, because by paying more, people would have more disposable income even after paying income tax

Permabear wrote: »

It might seem that way to you, but actual evidence suggests otherwise. In reality, Irish-based businesses and multinationals are doing a lot to recruit qualified staff.

So why do people are not seeing any increase in disposable income. And are the salary increases greater than increases in accommodation costs and other costs of living?

Permabear wrote: »

For many above-average earners, taxes are the single biggest factor reducing their disposable income. Trying to dismiss them as just one more aspect of the cost of living is disingenuous.

Taxes also provides a lot more than other bills, ie living in a functional society.

Permabear wrote: »

You believe that taxes aren't an issue when it comes to things like fuel costs? Around 65 percent of the retail price of fuel in Ireland goes to the government in tax.

OK, bad example.

Say food and medicine was eating up large amounts of disposable income. You would not be calling for the government to intervene.

Permabear wrote: »

Yes, I think it should be up to the government to reduce the rampant waste in the state sector. We have far too many quangos, far too many unproductive paper-pushers in the state sector (the HSE alone squandering billions on its bloated middle management), ridiculous pension entitlements, multi-million-euro payouts to retiring politicians, you name it.

Cut all the bloat and waste out of the state sector, and then come back and tell me how much tax people have to pay to fund what's actually needed.

I agree. High costs of living in Dublin suits the unions because they can use that to leverage up salaries across the country, where most people live.

They never mention that comparable advantages of those living in more rural areas.

People are being squeezed but I would like more action shown from profitable companies. Increased salaries or exert proper pressure on the Government on behalf of their employees to reduce taxes. MNCs should be able to put the fear into Government more than any Union could.

Franz Von Peppercorn

Captcha wrote: »

Wow 7 figures is a lot! Congratz!

By focusing on money making industries, be a great communicator with technical abilities and you will clean up here, in Sales or Sales engineering.

The ones with the degrees are in the background making the solutions on their lower salaries...

That tends to be true only until the next recession, when sales engineers are first against the wall, because skills matter.

Anyway, most people in IT making money have degrees. Not all of them are in the background, and not all of the people in the background are making low salaries, or "low" salaries by the standards of the industry. Quite the opposite of course.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Captcha

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

That tends to be true only until the next recession, when sales engineers are first against the wall, because skills matter.

Anyway, most people in IT making money have degrees. Not all of them are in the background, and not all of the people in the background are making low salaries, or "low" salaries by the standards of the industry. Quite the opposite of course.

Their salaries are high in comparison to most, technical sales people are always in demand, it was during the recent recession I built myself into this type of role.

Franz Von Peppercorn

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Behind all that is the fact that the government in Germany could probably trust that light regulation worked, and we definitely couldn't. There's far more problems than priory hall. Not getting reported though, so I wonder if theres a news blackout.

The state also introduced new deposit requirements to protect the banks. These new requirements, combined with marginal tax rates of 52 percent on average earners, make it much more difficult to save for a deposit -- especially for people are paying a grand a month per child in a creche, with no tax relief. Renters are stuck in a trap -- after taxes and child care and ever-increasing rent, many have nothing left to save for a house deposit.

This was also to protect us from the free market capitalism where the banks were giving out 100% plus loans, and would again.

Add to this the 13.5% VAT the government adds to new homes, meaning that people have to borrow to pay lump-sum taxes, and then repay that with interest.

The cost of the 13.5% is in the price of the house, which is what the buyer can afford. Econ 101 would suggest that that price would stay the same regardless of the government take, what is affected is profit.

We don't need hundreds of quangos, thousands of middle management paper-pushers in the public sector, and retired politicians and civil servants drawing lavish six-figure pensions for a "functional society." The Irish government spends around €77 billion a year. It is perfectly possible to imagine a fully functional society that costs much less than that.

Maybe theres something true about that but the wages are all contracted, and especially the pensions. Theres not fixing that for generations.

Most families' spending on food and medicine is not remotely close to what they are expected to fork over in taxes, so the comparison really is irrelevant.

Someone on €100k might spend €5k to feed himself, but he's expected to spend nearly €40k to feed the state.

The real problem is rent and/or mortgage for some.

Of course they don't. A teacher/guard couple in Roscommon or Donegal will have a very comfortable standard of living, far higher than that represented by the unions. There is definitely a case for adjusting public-sector salaries by geographical location so that those in Dublin earn more, while those in affordable rural locations earn less.

Agree with that but it would probably be an additional cost, rather than a savings.

Idbatterim

the reduced rate on hospitality should be increased back to 13.5%, leave the LPT as it is, no more reductions, no welfare increases. With those 3 alone, USC can be abolished in over 3/4 budgets...

Franz Von Peppercorn

Captcha wrote: »

Their salaries are high in comparison to most, technical sales people are always in demand, it was during the recent recession I built myself into this type of role.

There are plenty of places that won't hire without degrees, and plenty of supposed soft roles ( i.e product manager or even sales engineer) where they have white board tests and full technical tests. Maybe you could do that, but most people would ned a degree.

animaal

Idbatterim wrote: »

the reduced rate on hospitality should be increased back to 13.5%, leave the LPT as it is, no more reductions, no welfare increases. With those 3 alone, USC can be abolished in over 3/4 budgets...

I'm not sure USC is the tax that needs abolishing...

USC seems to be the only tax on income that provides a "broad tax base". I.e. the low-paid pay it, and the high-paid can't wriggle out of it.

If the aim is to have the smallest number of people pay the highest amount of tax, then abolish USC.

Franz Von Peppercorn

Idbatterim wrote: »

the reduced rate on hospitality should be increased back to 13.5%, leave the LPT as it is, no more reductions, no welfare increases. With those 3 alone, USC can be abolished in over 3/4 budgets...

Agree on the hospitality tax, but the hotels will probably claim they have to increase prices now to compensate.

Idbatterim

animaal wrote: »

I'm not sure USC is the tax that needs abolishing...

USC seems to be the only tax on income that provides a "broad tax base". I.e. the low-paid pay it, and the high-paid can't wriggle out of it.

If the aim is to have the smallest number of people pay the highest amount of tax, then abolish USC.

abolishing USC seems crazy, I would agree in a way it is, but from a political perspective, can you imagine them tackling the only elephant in the room, i.e. the marginal rate, this is Ireland, NOT! A! CHANCE!

Idbatterim

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Agree on the hospitality tax, but the hotels will probably claim they have to increase prices now to compensate.

let them, its not quite that simple either, you cant keep on just jacking up prices... it was there to help them through a tough period, most of them are highly profitable again...

Franz Von Peppercorn

Idbatterim wrote: »

abolishing USC seems crazy, I would agree in a way it is, but from a political perspective, can you imagine them tackling the only elephant in the room, i.e. the marginal rate, this is Ireland, NOT! A! CHANCE!

Hmm, I think they may try and increase the level people enter into the marginal rate, if not the rate itself. I mean that should double.

Franz Von Peppercorn

Idbatterim wrote: »

let them, its not quite that simple either, you cant keep on just jacking up prices... it was there to help them through a tough period, they are highly profitable again...

Of course. If they survived selling rooms for 50-80 euro they can survive a 4% tax increase on rooms sold at 220 euro.

sbsquarepants

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Ireland being Ireland that would only possibly mean an increase for those in Dublin, not a decrease for someone in Donegal, meaning more tax for the rest of us!

Slightly derailing but it certainly seems to me that it would yield enormous savings to privatise huge swathes of the public service. I see no real reason why the average doctor or nurse for example needs to be a direct employee of the state, or why they couldn't be sourced from doctors & nurses-R-us instead.

You may bet doctors & nurses-R-us would manage to get by just fine without every second person being in management.

Idbatterim

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Hmm, I think they may try and increase the level people enter into the marginal rate, if not the rate itself. I mean that should double.

this is the main problem and yes it slightly to do with the outrageous low entry point, but how can you charge 51% tax on nearly any income, its totally outrageous! Its extremely anti business, enterprise and employment! Say I was your typical 20 something year old finished college, I'd be out of here so quick, my feet wouldnt touch the ground, outrageous cost of accomodation in Dublin, fairly crap pay in most industries, ridiculous rate of taxation on mid to high incomes.... Thats for a start! It ignores those who wont return home or who ambition is stymied by outrageous marginal tax rates...

Franz Von Peppercorn

Idbatterim wrote: »

this is the main problem and yes it slightly to do with the outrageous low entry point, but how can you charge 51% tax on nearly any income, its totally outrageous! Its extremely anti business, enterprise and employment! Say I was your typical 20 something year old finished college, I'd be out of here so quick, my feet wouldnt touch the ground, outrageous cost of accomodation in Dublin, fairly crap pay in most industries, ridiculous rate of taxation on mid to high incomes.... Thats for a start! It ignores those who wont return home or who ambition is stymied by outrageous marginal tax rates...

That should be fixed but without a rental fix I don’t see how it can be if much use to people, as rents will just go up.

tea and coffee

're the 9% hospitality VAT rate: absolutely put it back up. The hotels no longer need it to drive business. Most days you can't get a hotel room in Dublin such is the under supply so the market could definitely bear an increase. It doesn't necessarily have to be passed on to the customer either if occupancy rates are high ; but unlikely that they won't pass it on.

animaal

tea and coffee wrote: »

It doesn't necessarily have to be passed on to the customer either if occupancy rates are high ; but unlikely that they won't pass it on.

Two other ways to look at it...

1. They're not charging Cost+profit at the moment anyway. They're charging what the market will bear. "Restoration" of the VAT rate won't increase the amount people are willing to pay.

2. When the VAT rate came down, a lot of places didn't drop their rates. I had a holiday in Ireland that year, and I was looking for a price drop in the place where I was to stay. It didn't drop.

Idbatterim

I read this earlier, costing a billion a year, it should be scrapped!

https://m.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/donohoe-sparks-fears-of-cuts-to-generous-pension-tax-relief-37016481.html

Idbatterim

Idbatterim wrote: »

I read this earlier, costing a billion a year, it should be scrapped!

https://m.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/donohoe-sparks-fears-of-cuts-to-generous-pension-tax-relief-37016481.html

No it certainly should not, again trying to gouge more from people who are trying to plan for their future. Disgusting. There should be tax cuts and more pension relief for those paying tax at the higher rate not talk of reducing it to further support the welfare classes, baby producing machines and other useless layabouts.

Blaas4life

If all children are equal....surly the level of child support should be equal irregardless of parents income?

steddyeddy

Lily Melodic Squeegee wrote: »

No it certainly should not, again trying to gouge more from people who are trying to plan for their future. Disgusting. There should be tax cuts and more pension relief for those paying tax at the higher rate not talk of reducing it to further support the welfare classes, baby producing machines and other useless layabouts.

Earlier in the thread you claimed your mother did indeed wash your clothes for you. Please stop taking a moral high ground regarding work ethic. It's insulting to people like me who does work hard.

steddyeddy

steddyeddy wrote: »

Earlier in the thread you claimed your mother did indeed wash your clothes for you. Please stop taking a moral high ground regarding work ethic. It's insulting to people like me who does work hard.

Would you ever give it a rest, bowing your own trumpet. Someone washing your clothes for you some of the time has nothing to do with work ethic or how hard a person works (it's just normal family behaviour). If you think it does you are sadly mistaken.

steddyeddy

Blaas4life wrote: »

If all children are equal....surly the level of child support should be equal irregardless of parents income?

But countless studies show that they're not. The quality of education the child receives as well as socio-economic group dictates their future. So maybe the level of support should match the need.

Lily Melodic Squeegee

Lily Melodic Squeegee wrote: »

No it certainly should not, again trying to gouge more from people who are trying to plan for their future. Disgusting. There should be tax cuts and more pension relief for those paying tax at the higher rate not talk of reducing it to further support the welfare classes, baby producing machines and other useless layabouts.

You would be in favour then of cutting the old age pension?

Because that is probably the most significant spend on Welfare and increasing all the time due to aging population.

salonfire

salonfire wrote: »

You would be in favour then of cutting the old age pension?

Because that is probably the most significant spend on Welfare and increasing all the time due to aging population.

No, the old age pension is for those who have worked hard and they deserve every cent of it.

Its the people who never worked we need to tackle and put out on their ear not though who worked all their life. Coupe this with bringing the people into the tax net and ask them to contribute a very small amount, as this is a lot of people the extra income would be significant and allow cuts to though who deserve it, paying massive tax on very normal wages and subsidising large amounts of people who pay little or nothing or have the hand out for dole, housing etc.

steddyeddy

Lily Melodic Squeegee wrote: »

Would you ever give it a rest, bowing your own trumpet. Someone washing your clothes for you some of the time has nothing to do with work ethic or how hard a person works (it's just normal family behaviour). If you think it does you are sadly mistaken.

I find those with the right wing attitudes towards work are often the most sensitive to their own handouts.

Lily Melodic Squeegee

Lily Melodic Squeegee wrote: »

No, the old age pension is for those who have worked hard and they deserve every cent of it.

Its the people who never worked we need to tackle and put out on their ear not though who worked all their life. Coupe this with bringing the people into the tax net and ask them to contribute a very small amount, as this is a lot of people the extra income would be significant and allow cuts to though who deserve it, paying massive tax on very normal wages and subsidising large amounts of people who pay little or nothing or have the hand out for dole, housing etc.

Oh OK, so you don't actually give a sh*t about the spending amounts or balancing budgets or whatever, as long as the recipients are those you approve of.

Should the Finance Minister run it by you first if you approve those benefitting from the Welfare budget?

steddyeddy

steddyeddy wrote: »

I find those with the right wing attitudes towards work are often the most sensitive to their own handouts.

Nox wants those who he considers as 'deserving' to pay less tax while at the same getting all the benefits they 'deserve'.

He doesn't give a damn about anything else and thinks the unemployed are out to rob him of his money. Odd, considering the number of people unemployed has tumbled in recent years.

Idbatterim

Lily Melodic Squeegee wrote: »

No, the old age pension is for those who have worked hard and they deserve every cent of it.

Its the people who never worked we need to tackle and put out on their ear not though who worked all their life. Coupe this with bringing the people into the tax net and ask them to contribute a very small amount, as this is a lot of people the extra income would be significant and allow cuts to though who deserve it, paying massive tax on very normal wages and subsidising large amounts of people who pay little or nothing or have the hand out for dole, housing etc.

oh I totally agree. I think the billion saved should go towards usc abolition. Ideally reducing only the marginal rate, but that will never happen here ...

steddyeddy

salonfire wrote: »

Nox wants those who he considers as 'deserving' to pay less tax while at the same getting all the benefits they 'deserve'.

He doesn't give a damn about anything else and thinks the unemployed are out to rob him of his money. Odd, considering the number of people unemployed has tumbled in recent years.

That's it. It's nothing to do with fairness in this case. It's to do with whatever benefits one specific group at the expense of the others.

Nermal

Idbatterim wrote: »

I read this earlier, costing a billion a year, it should be scrapped!

https://m.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/donohoe-sparks-fears-of-cuts-to-generous-pension-tax-relief-37016481.html

It takes a truly warped viewpoint to construe not applying tax as a 'cost'.

Idbatterim

Nermal wrote: »

It takes a truly warped viewpoint to construe not applying tax as a 'cost'.

You’re right to a point. I just don’t agree with taxing at an insane rate, the billion euro should go to reducing it. Young and Middle Age are screwed here, I’m not worried about surviving when retired, I’m worried about now!

Cyrus

steddyeddy wrote: »

That's it. It's nothing to do with fairness in this case. It's to do with whatever benefits one specific group at the expense of the others.

The more is only one specific group he is targeting

steddyeddy

steddyeddy wrote: »

I find those with the right wing attitudes towards work are often the most sensitive to their own handouts.

Yeah because having your clothes washed is a handout :rolleyes:, especially considering it is usually being done while I am working hard on the farm during my weekends or other time
Off from work.

Idbatterim wrote: »

oh I totally agree. I think the billion saved should go towards usc abolition. Ideally reducing only the marginal rate, but that will never happen here ...

As has been pointed out the problem with getting rid of USC is that it should the only tax that many lower earners pay so if you get rid of it you narrow the tax net and out even more reliance on those already being robbed with the higher rate of tax.

Lily Melodic Squeegee

Lily Melodic Squeegee wrote: »

Yeah because having your clothes washed is a handout :rolleyes:, especially considering it is usually being done while I am working hard on the farm during my weekends or other time
Off from work.

Your farm is fully self-sufficient I take it and are not in receipt of any grants?

After all, we can't have farmers 'scrounging' off our hard earned taxes, especially yours since you are feeling you are getting robbed, particularly when it comes to things like third level grants.

salonfire

salonfire wrote: »

Your farm is fully self-sufficient I take it and are not in receipt of any grants?

After all, we can't have farmers 'scrounging' off our hard earned taxes, especially yours since you are feeling you are getting robbed, particularly when it comes to things like third level grants.

Like all farms it gets a fairly small amount of eu subsidies, the main reason being to have cheap food on the shelf for consumers. Get rid of grants and the cost of food would increase significantly so in reality it's a grant for consumers.

Also farm subsidies are from Europe not from our income tax or otherwise paid in Ireland and income tax is paid on farm subsidies so it's irrelevant to really to a conversation about taxation in Ireland.

Lily Melodic Squeegee

Lily Melodic Squeegee wrote: »

Like all farms it gets a fairly small amount of eu subsidies, the main reason being to have cheap food on the shelf for consumers. Get rid of grants and the cost of food would increase significantly so in reality it's a grant for consumers.

Also farm subsidies are from Europe not from our income tax or otherwise paid in Ireland and income tax is paid on farm subsidies so it's irrelevant to really to a conversation about taxation in Ireland.

OK, I'm trying to keep up here.

So welfare to farmers... Good
Welfare to pensioners... Good
Welfare to the unemployed... Bad

I think the Minister should just consult with you before spending your 'hard earned' money that was robbed from you.

Blaas4life

Lily Melodic Squeegee wrote: »

Like all farms it gets a fairly small amount of eu subsidies, the main reason being to have cheap food on the shelf for consumers. Get rid of grants and the cost of food would increase significantly so in reality it's a grant for consumers.

Also farm subsidies are from Europe not from our income tax or otherwise paid in Ireland and income tax is paid on farm subsidies so it's irrelevant to really to a conversation about taxation in Ireland.

If the grant is small....how come the cost of food would rise significantly??


Do you think ireland pays no tax to the EU?