USC Abolition

Pelvis

jjmcclure wrote: »

Fact is those who pay the most receive the least.

Well, no. Public services are accessible to everyone equally for the most part. That's the whole point.

How much you receive depends on how much you need, not how much you pay.

L1011

Rennaws wrote: »

Yes I I pay for all of them. Last time I called the fire service it was €700..

Which won't have even come close to the cost of provision of service.

Amirani

jjmcclure wrote: »

I think you are missing the point. I'm not arguing that I get "No Benefit", I do get some small benefit but it in no way matches my inputs to the tax system.


BTW are you a Civil Servant? this is a serious question, I'm not being funny

Funnily enough I'm not. Previously worked in Capital Markets for a medium-sized bank and currently working for one of the largest Global consultancy firms. So I'm pretty capitalist all things considered!

FreudianSlippers

I've noticed that people who don't totally understand state subsidization frequently use the word "subvention" to describe it...

"It's not free because I had to pay a fraction of the cost" as an argument against getting things for free is like a technicality that buy-one-get-one free is actually half-off both items; ok, what's your point?

The Bishop Basher

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I've noticed that people who don't totally understand state subsidization frequently use the word "subvention" to describe it...

I understand both. Is there some other secret meaning to these words that Im not aware of ?

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

"It's not free because I had to pay a fraction of the cost" as an argument against getting things for free is like a technicality that buy-one-get-one free is actually half-off both items; ok, what's your point?

No offence, but I haven't a clue what you're point is

Maybe if you re write it in intelligible English i'll be in a position to respond..

the_syco

If you get rid of the USC, will you be getting rid of the social welfare as well?

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

"It's not free because I had to pay a fraction of the cost" as an argument against getting things for free is like a technicality that buy-one-get-one free is actually half-off both items; ok, what's your point?

Perhaps point out to them that they money from which they pay the part from, is also free?

Sam Russell

doolox wrote: »

Or stated to be so as not to frighten the horses.

Income tax was a wartime measure in WW1 and has become a huge source of revenue for the government. The US federal income tax was started sometime after WW1 and was so novel that many gangsters tried to evade it, not so much to save money because they knew the utility and expedience of giving a cut to a fellow gangster organisation with great power, which is how they viewed governments, but to avoid admitting that they were making huge money through illegal acts. They got Al Capone in this manner but he was in a tight spot, declare all his earnings and pay the tax but then prove that he was a bootlegger and racketeer while doing so. Either course of action means Jail.

Not WW I but Napolionic wars. Introduced in 1798 by W. Pitt and repaled by Addington in 1802 but brought back in 1803. It has been a political promise to be abolished but never was, so still here today.

Idbatterim

L1011 wrote: »

Ran. They ran on that platform two years ago and lost all their seats

They are now a single issue hard right Catholic party.

You appear to be the only person who hasn't noticed that

Hard right lol. Fg must be hard left then supporting massive public service pay and pensions, massive welfare and extortionate income tax rates over a very low threshold?

L1011

Renua don't have economic policies of any description - their single issue is Catholic-viewpoint social issues - so you're still fighting the wrong thing.

Their 2016 GE policies are gone and never coming back. You need to realise that. Creighton will probably be back in FG to run for Europe next summer

FreudianSlippers

Rennaws wrote: »

I understand both. Is there some other secret meaning to these words that Im not aware of ?

No - I'm just making an observation. Those who seem to lack a fundamental understanding of government subsidy tend to use the word "subvention" whereas those that do tend to understand it use the word "subsidy".

I'm not making a claim that there is any manifest difference between the two words; it's just my observation as to the use of the word.

No offence, but I haven't a clue what you're point is

Maybe if you re write it in intelligible English i'll be in a position to respond..

FreudianSlippers

Idbatterim wrote: »

Hard right lol. Fg must be hard left then supporting massive public service pay and pensions, massive welfare and extortionate income tax rates over a very low threshold?

L1011 wrote: »

Renua don't have economic policies of any description - their single issue is Catholic-viewpoint social issues - so you're still fighting the wrong thing.

Their 2016 GE policies are gone and never coming back. You need to realise that. Creighton will probably be back in FG to run for Europe next summer

They are socially right, but I'd hardly say "far right".

Economically, they threw out that flat tax idea, but I think that was window-dressing to look different from FG; I don't get the impression that they ever actually did a deep-dig into it from a viability perspective (IMHO it is very viable in Ireland) nor did they do anything really to actually explain how it would benefit the majority of people.

Idbatterim

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

They are socially right, but I'd hardly say "far right".

Economically, they threw out that flat tax idea, but I think that was window-dressing to look different from FG; I don't get the impression that they ever actually did a deep-dig into it from a viability perspective (IMHO it is very viable in Ireland) nor did they do anything really to actually explain how it would benefit the majority of people.

They made the right call. Look at the idiots you are dealing with here, most couldn’t work out a household budget. You have to be somewhat populist to win votes, you want populist and simple to understand? Usc abolition...

blackwhite

Idbatterim wrote: »

They made the right call. Look at the idiots you are dealing with here, most couldn’t work out a household budget. You have to be somewhat populist to win votes, you want populist and simple to understand? Usc abolition...

USC abolition would actually be a disaster for the "pressed middle" that Renua claim to want to appeal to.

USC has a much wider base than income tax, so any revenues sacrificed via the scrapping of USC would just end up getting lumped onto the income tax (and likely with the marginal rate taking most of the burden) - meaning that yet again the "High Earners" (i.e. earning over €35k) would end up paying across an even greater share than they already do.

crafty dodger

Why do I pay USC and PRSI on contributions i put INTO a pension fund and then I have to pay it AGAIN when I take it out as income?

In other words if I put €5000 into a PRSA I need to pay PRSI and USC on that portion of income that I set aside (the €5000). Then when I got to take out the €5000 as pension income, I have to pay PRSI and USC again......I pay it twice on the SAME money?

Double taxation again!

Geuze

No PRSI to pay on income if you are over 66.

Eric Cartman

blackwhite wrote: »

USC abolition would actually be a disaster for the "pressed middle" that Renua claim to want to appeal to.

USC has a much wider base than income tax, so any revenues sacrificed via the scrapping of USC would just end up getting lumped onto the income tax (and likely with the marginal rate taking most of the burden) - meaning that yet again the "High Earners" (i.e. earning over €35k) would end up paying across an even greater share than they already do.

the tax base needs to be massively widened, we have far too many people completely outside it. Moving income tax to a flat tax and broadening the base would allow the abolition of USC, with cutting spending to make up any shortfall. The task should be to reduce the tax burden on people on a 30-250k income by a noticeable amount.

megaten

Eric Cartman wrote: »

the tax base needs to be massively widened, we have far too many people completely outside it. Moving income tax to a flat tax and broadening the base would allow the abolition of USC, with cutting spending to make up any shortfall. The task should be to reduce the tax burden on people on a 30-250k income by a noticeable amount.

What good is Flat tax to anyone.

hots

Eric Cartman wrote: »

the tax base needs to be massively widened, we have far too many people completely outside it. Moving income tax to a flat tax and broadening the base would allow the abolition of USC, with cutting spending to make up any shortfall. The task should be to reduce the tax burden on people on a 30-250k income by a noticeable amount.

Interesting but 30-250k is a massive bracket, I would guess the massive bulk of tax income comes from there currently.

Plumbthedepths

Eric Cartman wrote:

the tax base needs to be massively widened, we have far too many people completely outside it. Moving income tax to a flat tax and broadening the base would allow the abolition of USC, with cutting spending to make up any shortfall. The task should be to reduce the tax burden on people on a 30-250k income by a noticeable amount.

How would widen the tax base further?

blanch152

blackwhite wrote: »

USC abolition would actually be a disaster for the "pressed middle" that Renua claim to want to appeal to.

USC has a much wider base than income tax, so any revenues sacrificed via the scrapping of USC would just end up getting lumped onto the income tax (and likely with the marginal rate taking most of the burden) - meaning that yet again the "High Earners" (i.e. earning over €35k) would end up paying across an even greater share than they already do.

I completely agree with this. We would be much better off if we abolished income tax, and increased USC at all levels, as we would have lower overall tax rates.

We should also have a low rate of 2-5% that applies to all income.

Eric Cartman

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

How would widen the tax base further?

A flat tax,applied to everyone in all income brackets , around 20%