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

Zebra3

Geuze wrote: »

Permabear isn't lying.

Many socialists do call for a 100% inheritance tax.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jul/24/utopian-thinking-fund-welfare-state-inheritance-tax

You claimed socialists want to have everything belonging to everyone (ie 100% tax on everything) and then you back it up by linking to one person calling for one tax of 100%.

Fail.

James Brown

facehugger99 wrote: »

It's pretty apparent the 'moral' outrage at having to pay a fairly small percentage on average inheritance amounts is less driven by political orthodoxy than by narrow self-interest.

And anyone without a house must give up the fantasy of owning their own home one day, despite working hard all their lives and anyone needing a state dig out to rent is looking for a 'free home'.
But if I own a home or get left a home, the state can get f**ked. Double standards. It's literally the haves expecting the have nots to be happy with their lot, while complaining about being asked to contribute.

suicide_circus

Matt Barrett wrote: »

while complaining about being asked to contribute.

When someone inherits the family home do all future earnings become tax exempt or something? These people do contribute and will in the future, Just like their parents before them.

hognef

HappyAsLarE wrote: »

We inherit their genes. Why not their money?

We inherit their genes. Why should we get their money?

I am truly miffed by peoples hatred of rich people. They are better than you at some things, get over it.

My comments do not imply a hatred of rich people, and indeed they are better at me, probably at lots of things. But whether they are or not, why should that give them a right to hand everything, for free, to somebody, just because they happen to be related?

Dravokivich

seamus wrote: »

I'd be of the opposite point of view, and I don't see why anyone should inherit money tax free when they've done f-all to earn it. Put a €1m cap on inheritance, everything else gets taken by the state. Spend it on your kids while you're alive, put the money into the economy. Hoarding resources away in bank accounts benefits nobody, I don't see why we should encourage it.

1 million wouldn't get you far on the monopoly board here. It's barely 3 houses.

hognef

Ronnie Clever Billionaire wrote: »

What's the point of working, owning a house, or anything if that's your view point?

To earn money to be able to live a nice life, to live in the house, I would've thought?

That implies that all children are not hard working. That's a self defeating statement. It's up to the owner of the house who it goes to. If they want to pass it on to family, why stop them?

No, it doesn't imply that at all. It implies that some children will have no need to work at all, just because their parents did.

And I'm not saying anybody should ne stopped from passing on anything, just that a bit of tax is no hardship to anyone at that point.

You can look at it that way or you could say that people are being unfairly taxed on something that has been taxed already.

Every single euro has been taxed numerous times already.

If you shouldn't be taxed because your dad has already been taxed, then I shouldn't be taxed because my employer / customer has already been taxed.

Galwayguy35

I think Doherty is backtracking, I'd bet the house she was in favour of it being introduced if there wasn't too much kickback from Joe Public about it.

We're becoming a welfare state, if you study hard and get a good education with the intention of getting a well paid job be prepared to spend the next 40 years being hammered by the taxman to fund wasters who will never contribute anything to society only breed the next generation of wasters.

If anyone even mentions a tax cut some SJW of a member of the looney left will jump all over it whinging and moaning.

Wanderer78

Galwayguy35 wrote:

We're becoming a welfare state, if you study hard and get a good education with the intention of getting a well paid job be prepared to spend the next 40 years being hammered by the taxman to fund wasters who will never contribute anything to society only breed the next generation of wasters.

Neoliberalism and neoclassical theory are alive and well in Ireland, with a sprinkle of leftism to boot

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Avatar MIA

This will be a terrific idea in... 21 months' time :pac::D

Galwayguy35

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Unless the Government start to change thing a bit there's probably quite a few of the young men and women who are sitting the LC at the moment who will emigrate to other countries because they don't want to end up being taxed to the hilt like their parents.

So we end up losing talented young people and are left with skangers.

Wanderer78

Galwayguy35 wrote:

So we end up losing talented young people and are left with skangers.

I wonder, has neoliberial/neoclassical ideologies such as austerity had anything to do with the youth leaving countries such as ours?

Nermal

On CAT: 'society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in.'

I plant trees for my children.

Not interested in planting trees that will be seized and redistributed to the unworthy.

Wanderer78

Nermal wrote:

Not interested in planting trees that will be seized and redistributed to the unworthy.

What if the 'unworthy' eat all your trees trying to survive and or Rob them?

Pkiernan

Typical and fully expected responses from the far left multi generational welfare recipients.

I'm sick of paying 54% to support you. Please get jobs. Please.

Wanderer78

Pkiernan wrote:

I'm sick of paying 54% to support you. Please get jobs. Please.

Maybe we should be doing proactive things to get them into a position to work

jon1981

Given the ridiculous low entry point into the higher tax bracket they can go jump if they remove childrens allowance. As said by many, high earners contribute a significant amount as it is.

um7y1h83ge06nx

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Maybe we should be doing proactive things to get them into a position to work

If there was work in the bed they would sleep on the floor. Any chance they would fcuk off to North Korea and live the dream.

hmmm

facehugger99 wrote: »

It's pretty apparent the 'moral' outrage at having to pay a fairly small percentage on average inheritance amounts is less driven by political orthodoxy than by narrow self-interest.

They're happy to see working families pay 50%+ in tax and receive little or no benefits for it, but god help you if you propose they won't get the inheritance they have worked so little for.

We are a desperately unfair country for people who work and contribute, while those who take from the state or sit around waiting for an inheritance to drop into their lap pay little or no tax.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

storker

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

What socialist state? Did the North Koreans take over last night?

Wanderer78

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

again, its clearly obvious, that the neoliberial/neoclassical economic ideology is the most predominate one in the western world, including ireland.

Galwayguy35

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Maybe we should be doing proactive things to get them into a position to work

Or maybe how about they look for work themselves instead of spending half the day in bed expecting the Government to do everything for them.

I grew up in the 70's and 80s and come from a poor backround when most families hadn't a pot to piss in, I'm sure other posters here had a similar experience but my folks had a strong work ethic that was passed on and we went out and worked at everything and anything.

I worked my way up and have a reasonable standard of living now but the price anyone who does that pays is you're taxed to the bollix.

Wanderer78

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

Or maybe how about they look for work themselves instead of spending half the day in bed expecting the Government to do everything for them.

I grew up in the 70's and 80s and come from a poor backround when most families hadn't a pot to piss in, I'm sure other posters here had a similar experience but my folks had a strong work ethic that was passed on and we went out and worked at everything and anything.

I worked my way up and have a reasonable standard of living now but the price anyone who does that pays is you're taxed to the bollix.

why are they in bed all day?

good for you, society needs people like you

maybe just maybe the complex workings of our modern economic systems is in fact why you re getting taxed heavily, maybe its because tax has been slowly moved from capital onto labour over the years?

Zebra3

Amazing that on the day David Drumm is convicted, all the right-wing nuts still think it’s the poor that they are subsidising.

hognef

Lily Melodic Squeegee wrote: »

yet there are many many countries who have 0% inheritance tax, so its not really that ridiculous at all. Many of the counties are ones people are constantly saying we should be trying to emulate also.

One of those, presumably, is Norway, who reduced it to 0 in 2014, a year after the most extreme right-wing mainstream party (Fremskrittspartiet / Progress Party) made it into (a coalition) government for the first time in its 40-year history and were handed the Finance Minister role. This is, by the way, a party that, throughout the years, has been ridiculed in much the same way as Sinn Fein is here.

The party's main (and only?) goal has always been reduced taxes (mainly for the wealthy of course), which people were clearly ultimately happy to accept. How long they will last (they are still in government following last year's election, and still have the Finance Minister) is anyone's guess, but, so far, this is an anomaly in how Norway normally operates (though, it might be the direction that things will end up going in).

I, for one, would not be surprised to see inheritance tax returning in the not so distant future.

The thing is Ive never encountered a person in real life with these types of opinion, everyone I've ever heard mention gift or inheritance tax thought it was despicable and should never have existed. As I said the small few who agree with it are just jealous simple as that.

I'm not jealous. I've already, in the past, contributed inheritance tax, and have no problem continuing with that.

storker

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

Or maybe how about they look for work themselves instead of spending half the day in bed expecting the Government to do everything for them.

I grew up in the 70's and 80s and come from a poor backround when most families hadn't a pot to piss in, I'm sure other posters here had a similar experience but my folks had a strong work ethic that was passed on and we went out and worked at everything and anything.

I worked my way up and have a reasonable standard of living now but the price anyone who does that pays is you're taxed to the bollix.

I'm a higher-rate taxpayer and I certainly don't enjoy paying tax, particularly as the lump that comes out of my gross also includes my employer PRSI, since I'm a contractor, but I've never turned down extra hours because of it. In fact I'm in the process of learning some new skills with the intention of increasing my daily rate because, despite the tax that comes out, it's still more money in my pocket. Sure, some of the tax I pay goes to undeserving wasters, and if that's cracked down on I'll support it, but there are always things you don't want your tax used for that it gets used for. That's how the system works. It's not socialism, it's a social contract. We all chip something to act as insurance for ourselves and also to help maintain a cohesive society, and even if that means a bite out of my pay packet then so be it, because I'd rather have that than live in a society run on the kind of I'm-alright-Jack devil-take-the-hindmost attitude that seems to be on display around here.

As regards, inheritance tax, I don't believe it should be paid on the family home, mainly because nobody, no matter how well off, should have the stress of being forced to move out added to the stress of a bereavement, but I don't see any issue with putting a tax on other assets. 30% sounds a bit steep, though.

And by the way..."I grew up in the 70's and 80s and come from a poor backround when most families hadn't a pot to piss in, I'm sure other posters here had a similar experience but my folks had a strong work ethic that was passed on and we went out and worked at everything and anything."...applies to me too, and I had my first job at 13. I have spent the odd period of time unemployed but never for long. Last time was in 2015 which I was officially out of work for one week. I could have signed on and claimed for that week, but I couldn't be ar5ed. I guess that makes me lazy...I wasn't in bed, though, promise. :rolleyes:



_

Colonel Claptrap

Matt Barrett wrote: »

So is it you or your neighbour that's the common family? We've people who commit crimes living next door to people who don't, I'm not sure what your analogy shows on the grand scale of things.

Matt, what are you talking about - Common families? Criminals?

My post explains how my family can't afford more children but his can.
I thought that was obvious.

Please don't infer anything nefarious in what I said. I was very clear.

Matt Barrett wrote: »

We should means test on a case by case. Personally I'd cut any child welfare completely after two kids regardless.

Interestingly....we both agree on this one!

Colonel Claptrap wrote: »

How about a sliding scale with diminishing returns?

1 kid = full benefit
2 kids = full benefit
3 kids = 90% benefit

9 kids? You're taking the p1ss.

Why are we rewarding the long term unemployed by having more kids?

animaal

Lily Melodic Squeegee wrote: »

And neither should family members. A parent to child or uncle to nephew gift/inheritance should be looked on as the same situation from an inheritance point of view as a husband to wife. Once inside the family the money should be free to move around unhindered.

I can understand a free transfer of assets with immediate family, but not extended family.

In effect, you're suggesting that the extended family be treated as a single economic unit for the purposes of inheritance. If this was the case, would you be agreeable for the same people to be treated as a single economic unit for other purposes too? E.g. the wealth of an uncle to be taken into account when means-testing the niece?

worded

Tefral wrote: »

My missus is the manager of a shop and she was telling me theres a marked increase in spending on cigarettes and general ****e on childrens allowance days.

She has a friend that works in a betting office and its the same there.

So its not only higher incomes this is wasted on its most certainly not used correctly by all..

Are you referring to St Michaels days?

diomed

Phoebas wrote: »

Once they get rid of the universality of the payment it'll be easy to tweak it in subsequent budgets.
100k this year, then 80, 60 ...

You are our next Minister of Finance.

hmmm

storker wrote: »

As regards, inheritance tax, I don't believe it should be paid on the family home, mainly because nobody, no matter how well off, should have the stress of being forced to move out added to the stress of a bereavement, but I don't see any issue with putting a tax on other assets. 30% sounds a bit steep, though.

There is no inheritance tax between married couples, so having to move out of a family home doesn't really apply.

Why should a worker have to pay 50% tax, but someone inheriting only pays 30%? How is someone without a rich relative supposed to save enough to buy a house if they are paying huge rates of income tax?

Cyrus

Wanderer78 wrote: »

again, its clearly obvious, that the neoliberial/neoclassical economic ideology is the most predominate one in the western world, including ireland.

You don’t have to repeat it 10 times on every thread

Cyrus

Zebra3 wrote: »

Amazing that on the day David Drumm is convicted, all the right-wing nuts still think it’s the poor that they are subsidising.

Amazing that your grasp of what we are subsiding starts and stops at Anglo

Anglo has been great for the left finally someone to blame , political careers have been built off it parasites like Boyd Barrett and his pals taking advantage of their support bases lack of understanding

Wanderer78

Cyrus wrote: »

You don’t have to repeat it 10 times on every thread

disturbingly, some individuals are not getting the message, regularly sprouting all sorts of nonsense such as lefty-loonies, socialists etc etc etc

storker

hmmm wrote: »

There is no inheritance tax between married couples, so having to move out of a family home doesn't really apply.

I know. I was speaking hypothetically, with those hypothetical socialists in mind who want to tax it at 100%.

Why should a worker have to pay 50% tax, but someone inheriting only pays 30%? How is someone without a rich relative supposed to save enough to buy a house if they are paying huge rates of income tax?

No idea, except that it's a common enough theme in the tax system that different things are taxed at different rates. Maybe there should be a flat tax, I don't know. I don't support any political ideology - for me, voting is usually a case of trying to decide which lunatics are best equipped to run the asylum.



_

Wanderer78

storker wrote: »

I know. I was speaking hypothetically, with those hypothetical socialists in mind who want to tax it at 100%.



No idea, except that it's a common enough theme in the tax system that different things are taxed at different rates. Maybe there should be a flat tax, I don't know. I don't support any political ideology - for me, voting is usually a case of trying to decide which lunatics are best equipped to run the asylum.



_

Marxist economist michael hudson has done some good work on flat taxes, probably a none runner to

diomed

hmmm wrote: »

There is no inheritance tax between married couples, so having to move out of a family home doesn't really apply.

Why should a worker have to pay 50% tax, but someone inheriting only pays 30%? How is someone without a rich relative supposed to save enough to buy a house if they are paying huge rates of income tax?

Single person €34,550 at 20%, balance at 40%.
No 50% rate as far as I can see. Perhaps others could advise as I am no expert.

Cyrus

Wanderer78 wrote: »

disturbingly, some individuals are not getting the message, regularly sprouting all sorts of nonsense such as lefty-loonies, socialists etc etc etc

So there are no lefty loonies or socialists ?

Cyrus

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Marxist economist michael hudson has done some good work on flat taxes, probably a none runner to

Renua ran on that platform and got destroyed so unlikely although a good idea imo

Wanderer78

Cyrus wrote: »

So there are no lefty loonies or socialists ?

what does lefty loonie mean, and of course there are socialists in our society, always have been, probably always will be?

Cyrus

diomed wrote: »

Single person €34,550 at 20%, balance at 40%.
No 50% rate as far as I can see. Perhaps others could advise as I am no expert.

You are missing a few taxes , usc prsi .....

Cyrus

Wanderer78 wrote: »

what does lefty loonie mean, and of course there are socialists in our society, always have been, probably always will be?

A left leaning loon of course what do you think it means.

Wanderer78

Cyrus wrote: »

Renua ran on that platform and got destroyed so unlikely although a good idea imo

ah been following hudson for a while, i ll go on his expertise, id say its a none runner. it ll be interesting to see how renua get on though in the next ge

Wanderer78

Cyrus wrote: »

A left leaning loon of course what do you think it means.

what does this actually mean? im a proud lefty btw

Colonel Claptrap

As time goes by I become more and more convinced that wanderer78 is a primitive model of one of those reddit bots.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Wanderer78

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

we should probably also add indirect taxes such as consumption taxes etc on that to, any idea what that would add up to in total?

storker

diomed wrote: »

Single person €34,550 at 20%, balance at 40%.
No 50% rate as far as I can see. Perhaps others could advise as I am no expert.

Even paying higher rate tax and my own employer PRSI, I still usually take home +/- 60%. However, that percentage does drop the more days I work, so I imagine there's a point at which I would reach 50%, but if I got to that point I'd be so happy about getting there that precious little else would matter.

Some calculations from the website of the company that handles my pay and tax:

To pay 50% of all earnings in tax I would need to:

• Be a standard PAYE employee on over €250,000 annual salary. Monthly takehome 11,100.
• Work 20 days in a month at 750 per day (PAYE). Monthly takehome €7550.
• Work 20 days in a month at 750 per day (self-employed). Monthly takehome €8190.

Sore_toe

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

I think Doherty is backtracking, I'd bet the house she was in favour of it being introduced if there wasn't too much kickback from Joe Public about it.

We're becoming a welfare state, if you study hard and get a good education with the intention of getting a well paid job be prepared to spend the next 40 years being hammered by the taxman to fund wasters who will never contribute anything to society only breed the next generation of wasters.

If anyone even mentions a tax cut some SJW of a member of the looney left will jump all over it whinging and moaning.

Ireland has always been a welfare state, what's changed is a movememt which demands those who don't work are every bit as entitled to goods and services as those who work, the reaction to Leo's " those who get up early in the morning" speech is a case in point