Government Spending [See post 106]

McGiver

Geuze wrote: »

I do not agree that we are a low-tax economy.

Middle-tax, I would say.

Many low earners, and middle-earners over 65, pay low amounts of income tax, yes.

Direct evidence confirm it is indeed a low tax economy. Now, we're talking about compounded income tax, social security payments and modelled VAT impact.
Ireland has the lowest total tax burden in the EU. I ignore micro states and offshoring tax havens Cyprus and Malta. See attached.

I have to repeat this again and again as Irish people seem to live in an illusion of being heavily taxed. There's no evidence for it. I would really like to see their shocked faces when confronted with tax reality in Germany, Italy or Finland for example.

EDIT: Note the paper is using average gross salaries in all countries, because that's the only meaningful way of comparing total tax burden between EU countries. Data pulled from https://www.institutmolinari.org/IMG/pdf/tax-burden-eu-2018.pdf

Good loser

Geuze wrote: »

Yes, fair enough, our VAT rates are a touch higher than typical, and our excise duties are higher than the EU averages (mostly), so yes you may be right.

https://www.nerinstitute.net/download/pdf/household_tax_contributions_neri_wp18.pdf


Your 27.7% seems to indirect tax only.

Note the massive difference between income and expenditure of the lowest decile............???

Would you agree that a lot of the lowest decile's indirect tax contribution is voluntary i.e. on drink and tobacco? That is if they pay the nominal duty on tobacco.

James Brown

Good loser wrote: »

Would you agree that a lot of the lowest decile's indirect tax contribution is voluntary i.e. on drink and tobacco? That is if they pay the nominal duty on tobacco.

Likely food.

L1011

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Likely food.

Go check the VAT element of a supermarket bill; particularly those that show what hits which rate

There is no VAT on most food in Ireland.

Liberta Per Gli Ultra

Good loser wrote: »

Would you agree that a lot of the lowest decile's indirect tax contribution is voluntary i.e. on drink and tobacco? That is if they pay the nominal duty on tobacco.

I'd like to think he/she is better than you at reading and interpreting statistics, if you even bothered, and therefore would not agree. Alcoholic drink and tobacco are not the only goods which have an excise levied on them.

Table A3 on page 31 of that link has a breakdown of expenditure which shows the lowest decile spends a smaller percentage on drink and tobacco than the next two and less than 1% more than the middle deciles. That table also contains figures for transport (13%) and fuel & light (7%) which are relevant to the overall excise figure for that decile, which is less than 30% of total indirect tax contribution in the first place.

So a bad day for those who like to paint a certain picture of poor people drinking cans and smoking all day.

blanch152

Liberta Per Gli Ultra wrote: »

I'd like to think he/she is better than you at reading and interpreting statistics, if you even bothered, and therefore would not agree. Alcoholic drink and tobacco are not the only goods which have an excise levied on them.

Table A3 on page 31 of that link has a breakdown of expenditure which shows the lowest decile spends a smaller percentage on drink and tobacco than the next two and less than 1% more than the middle deciles. That table also contains figures for transport (13%) and fuel & light (7%) which are relevant to the overall excise figure for that decile, which is less than 30% of total indirect tax contribution in the first place.

So a bad day for those who like to paint a certain picture of poor people drinking cans and smoking all day.

The lowest decile are an outlier.

They consist of situations where families with young children have one of the parents working a small amount of part-time, of students working to support their studies etc.

They are not really the poorest because they are mostly supplementing household income rather than being the main earner. You really need to look at the second lowest decile to see where the lowest main earners are. Not surprisingly, that's where the alcohol and cigs spend kicks in.

James Brown

If people with the least money spend a higher percentage on higher taxed items such as alcohol and tobacco, is it possible they spend no more or maybe even less than those on higher incomes? Even a reasonable or small amount can seem like a lot if you are on minimum wage.

I'd wager, on a night out in Ballsbridge, you would spend more than most on minimum wage might spend in a fortnight buying cans from Lidl.

It's a very Fine Gael angle to take I must say. How about improving their lot rather than casting aspersions on their lives?

Fine Gael TD hits out at people 'stacking up their trolleys with drink'
https://www.thejournal.ie/catherine-byrne-stacking-trolleys-drink-wine-beer-2196721-Jul2015/

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

If people with the least money spend a higher percentage on higher taxed items such as alcohol and tobacco, is it possible they spend no more or maybe even less than those on higher incomes? Even a reasonable or small amount can seem like a lot if you are on minimum wage.

I'd wager, on a night out in Ballsbridge, you would spend more than most on minimum wage might spend in a fortnight buying cans from Lidl.

It's a very Fine Gael angle to take I must say. How about improving their lot rather than casting aspersions on their lives?

That's an old link, hardly news.

However, there is an interesting point around drink and cigarettes. Consumption among the poor is at record levels despite all the education taking place and despite the advertising bans and plain packaging. Clearly, minimum pricing and further excise duty are needed on alcohol.

L1011

Minimum pricing just moves consumption to cheaper brands large pack sizes, creating a false impression that it's done something but actually does nothing. Also any extra cash goes to the retailers

It's a wheeze by the publicans to try get their off sales business back as the supermarkets are undercutting them - not a viable public health measure.

It's also barely legal at an EU level. We tried it on cigarettes and were forced to remove it remember

McGiver

blanch152 wrote:

However, there is an interesting point around drink and cigarettes. Consumption among the poor is at record levels despite all the education taking place and despite the advertising bans and plain packaging. Clearly, minimum pricing and further excise duty are needed on alcohol.

Generally in favour of highly taxing and regulating drugs (any, including tobacco and alcohol) rather than banning. But the price needs be right, if its too low you encourage consumption, if it's too late high you'll create a black market/smug etc. The latter being the main reason why drugs are legalised but taxed and controlled - to the eliminate organised crime involvement due to black market...

Bishop of hope

Higher taxes and such have just about closed up your rural pubs, along with the stringent drink driving laws.
4 euro plus for a pint or a bottle of most beers, same for shorts then add a mixer.
Dunnes and tesco for instance, there are others as well, most off licences and supermarkets, get a box of beer and a bottle of spirits for the price of one night out in the pub, you can drink every night at home for less than most nights out.
I think this policy of high taxation has actually increased alcoholism by causing people to buy in bulk and having it at home, rather than going out for a couple of pints and a chat a couple of nights a week.

stefanovich

Bishop of hope wrote: »

Higher taxes and such have just about closed up your rural pubs, along with the stringent drink driving laws.
4 euro plus for a pint or a bottle of most beers, same for shorts then add a mixer.
Dunnes and tesco for instance, there are others as well, most off licences and supermarkets, get a box of beer and a bottle of spirits for the price of one night out in the pub, you can drink every night at home for less than most nights out.
I think this policy of high taxation has actually increased alcoholism by causing people to buy in bulk and having it at home, rather than going out for a couple of pints and a chat a couple of nights a week.

Perhaps we don't need so many pubs.

Bishop of hope

stefanovich wrote: »

Perhaps we don't need so many pubs.

Perhaps, but that wasn't my point really.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

That's an old link, hardly news.

However, there is an interesting point around drink and cigarettes. Consumption among the poor is at record levels despite all the education taking place and despite the advertising bans and plain packaging. Clearly, minimum pricing and further excise duty are needed on alcohol.

She's my local TD, it's the same government party, it supports my opinion and it's on topic.

Will just open it up for criminality. It stands to reason that those on lower incomes spend a greater percentage of their wage on expensive items.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

She's my local TD, it's the same government party, it supports my opinion and it's on topic.

Will just open it up for criminality. It stands to reason that those on lower incomes spend a greater percentage of their wage on expensive items.

How does it stand to reason that those on lower incomes spend a greater percentage of their wages on expensive items? Doesn't make sense to me.

Surely those on lower incomes spend a greater percentage of their wages on basic items as they don't have spare income for luxury items?

Edit: If you are right, a higher percentage of lower income people would own Mercedes and Audi than higher income people.

McGiver

Bishop of hope wrote:

Perhaps, but that wasn't my point really.

And what was it?

Bishop of hope

McGiver wrote: »

And what was it?

That higher taxes, increasing prices, doesent necessarily mean that you will stop people doing stuff, like drinking for instance.
Governments love to kid people into thinking that revenue measures are for their own good, like increasing drink prices to stop them consuming too much, fecked up the pubs but made a boom for the off-licence and the corporate stores
Like the fuel rise also if you want to include it from the last budget, for the climate, but not at all really, its for the revenue coffers. Just stealth taxes dressed up.

McGiver

Bishop of hope wrote: »

That higher taxes, increasing prices, doesent necessarily mean that you will stop people doing stuff, like drinking for instance.
Governments love to kid people into thinking that revenue measures are for their own good, like increasing drink prices to stop them consuming too much, fecked up the pubs but made a boom for the off-licence and the corporate stores
Like the fuel rise also if you want to include it from the last budget, for the climate, but not at all really, its for the revenue coffers. Just stealth taxes dressed up.

So you're another one who thinks overall taxation in RoI is high?

Have you been to Germany, Austria, ...or elsewhere? I think you're head would explode if you did The fact is - taxes are much higher elsewhere.

VAT is high in here, that's true, plus some weird duties, such as on tobacco or alcohol. Although I support high taxes on drugs, it's a right thing to do.

Anyhow, the overall the VAT impact is low and doesn't offset the comparatively low income tax and low social contributions. If you take an average Joe with an average salary in RoI and their counterpart in say Germany, the overall taxation in RoI is much lower.

But I'm not saying there are no weird, high taxes in RoI. For example capital gains tax is a joke - 40% is a daylight robbery and discourages investment. Rent Profit for individual landlords is another joke, again at 40% mostly, whilst corporate landlords pay little tax due to art of "tax optimisation" and loopholes.

I agree that the carbon tax is just a convenient excuse to raise more tax, no doubt.

Bishop of hope

I'm not against the taxes as such, except the way they are handled and the way some are unevenly dispensed.
Fuel for instance has a far more devastating affect where people have no choice but to drive.
Drink in a pub is taxed highly, but yet I can get drink in a store for less than quarter the price it is in my local because of the way it is taxed in the pub. 20 bottles of bud can be bought for €20 euro in tesco or dunnes for instance.
If I drink a few shorts in my local a bottle of spirits would cost me over a hundred euro, but I can buy a bottle of spirits to have at home for 20euro.
I have no problem with the tobacco tax, but yet if I want I can get cigs for less than half price easily. I don't smoke BTW.

I drive a 1.5 diesel Nissan, tax is 270 pa, my neighbour drives a 1.6 vw diesel, tax is 200, another friend has a 1.9 diesel, 07, his tax is 690.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

How does it stand to reason that those on lower incomes spend a greater percentage of their wages on expensive items? Doesn't make sense to me.

Surely those on lower incomes spend a greater percentage of their wages on basic items as they don't have spare income for luxury items?

Edit: If you are right, a higher percentage of lower income people would own Mercedes and Audi than higher income people.

You make 200 a week. You go out one night, spend 30/40 that's almost 25% of your income on booze. All I'm saying is if it's expensive it would take a higher percentage of their income, even if socialising moderately.
If earning 1000 and going out for one night, maybe spending 200, a lower percentage of income spent. Socialising no more or less.
Wasn't the inference that the poor love spending all their money on booze and fags? If poor you can spend a large percent of your income socialising moderately.

Yes, Blanch they're all buying Mercs....

CrabRevolution

Bishop of hope wrote: »

Higher taxes and such have just about closed up your rural pubs, along with the stringent drink driving laws.
4 euro plus for a pint or a bottle of most beers, same for shorts then add a mixer.
Dunnes and tesco for instance, there are others as well, most off licences and supermarkets, get a box of beer and a bottle of spirits for the price of one night out in the pub, you can drink every night at home for less than most nights out.
I think this policy of high taxation has actually increased alcoholism by causing people to buy in bulk and having it at home, rather than going out for a couple of pints and a chat a couple of nights a week.

The excise on beer hasn't changed since 2014 and even then it's not much higher than the level it's been at since 1993, barring a decrease during the recession to help pubs.

Wine seems to have been hit a bit more.

Bishop of hope

CrabRevolution wrote: »

The excise on beer hasn't changed since 2014 and even then it's not much higher than the level it's been at since 1993, barring a decrease during the recession to help pubs.

Wine seems to have been hit a bit more.

It's still stifling pubs in rural and small town areas.

https://www.thesun.ie/money/3142785/irelands-alcohol-excise-tax-figures/

McGiver

Bishop of hope wrote:

It's still stifling pubs in rural and small town areas.

What do you suggest?

McGiver

Bishop of hope wrote:

I'm not against the taxes as such, except the way they are handled and the way some are unevenly dispensed. Fuel for instance has a far more devastating affect where people have no choice but to drive. Drink in a pub is taxed highly, but yet I can get drink in a store for less than quarter the price it is in my local because of the way it is taxed in the pub.20 bottles of bud can be bought for €20 euro in tesco or dunnes for instance. If I drink a few shorts in my local a bottle of spirits would cost me over a hundred euro, but I can buy a bottle of spirits to have at home for 20euro. I have no problem with the tobacco tax, but yet if I want I can get cigs for less than half price easily. I don't smoke BTW.

Wouldn't that be because you need to pay staff, rent, energy, taxes etc?

This is exactly the same in all countries. And even broadly with all services. I can buy q pizza for 2 quid in Lidl or go to pizzeria for 11 quid.

I was in Denmark last year - you can get a bottle of local beer for 2 quid, if you go to a pub, we'll that's 8 quid.

Do you want to subsidise pubs???

Bishop of hope

McGiver wrote: »

Wouldn't that be because you need to pay staff, rent, energy, taxes etc?

This is exactly the same in all countries. And even broadly with all services. I can buy q pizza for 2 quid in Lidl or go to pizzeria for 11 quid.

I was in Denmark last year - you can get a bottle of local beer for 2 quid, if you go to a pub, we'll that's 8 quid.

Do you want to subsidise pubs???

Perhaps some, depending on geographical location. Lots of other stuff is subsidised.
They do provide a valuable service in remote areas and small villages.
Rates and insurance is a huge issue as well. Maybe a bit of help with that.
I can tell you that in the area around me a lot have shut up shop as it wasn't worth their while staying open. If it continues as is it will happen more and more.
Family pubs are going to close because young family members couldn't afford to live off them.

McGiver

Bishop of hope wrote:

Perhaps some, depending on geographical location. Lots of other stuff is subsidised. They do provide a valuable service in remote areas and small villages. Rates and insurance is a huge issue as well. Maybe a bit of help with that. I can tell you that in the area around me a lot have shut up shop as it wasn't worth their while staying open. If it continues as is it will happen more and more. Family pubs are going to close because young family members couldn't afford to live off them.

What are the rates roughly?

Is that for locally authority charging the business? What for?

L1011

CrabRevolution wrote: »

The excise on beer hasn't changed since 2014 and even then it's not much higher than the level it's been at since 1993, barring a decrease during the recession to help pubs.

Wine seems to have been hit a bit more.

Proportionally cider has been absolutely hammered

There is a 50% reduction for up to medium sized domestic breweries also, of which there is at least one and usually many in every county.

Bishop of hope

McGiver wrote: »

What are the rates roughly?

Is that for locally authority charging the business? What for?

I don't know, just listening to a few local bar owners and their gripes, I'm not a publican or involved in the industry myself.
I assume its the council that sets the rate OK.
Taxes, rates and insurance seem to be the main problem.
When I moved here a few years ago I had 2 pubs within a mile from me, now my nearest pub is 4 miles away.
Both closed down because of charges, not because their trade was that bad.

beggars_bush

There are too many pubs in Ireland per head of population.

The licencing laws are still archaic imho. Pubs should be allowed open later and earlier if they want.

If pubs don't offer something else apart from drink they are only going to go one way. Closure.

stefanovich

CrabRevolution wrote: »

The excise on beer hasn't changed since 2014 and even then it's not much higher than the level it's been at since 1993, barring a decrease during the recession to help pubs.

Wine seems to have been hit a bit more.

Go to France for your wine.