Unpopular Opinions - OP Updated with Threadban List 4/5/21

stefanovich

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Yeah, I’m always amused by this. Is tax a surprise to some people? Income is subject to tax. The more income the more tax and the more is left over to enjoy. Good deal, eh?

If you could choose between a median wage and low tax or a high wage which comes with higher tax and fewer benefits, which would you choose?

That would be true except we do not have a flat tax.

Graduated taxation (so called progressive) means that as the economy grows your rate of tax goes up whilst your purchasing power stagnates.

stefanovich

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Good deal, eh?

Terrible deal. Instead of choosing where to spend your money the government takes it and spends on your behalf. Wasting a lot in the process. Feathering the nests of useless bureaucrats and enabling long term unemployment which results in depression, suicide etc

partyguinness

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

That sounds about right. If one income is over 60k (over twice the uk median wage) then you don’t need child benefit. And that’s not even including your partner’s income.

Don’t be jealous of someone getting a small few bob. They will never have all the things you’d be able to buy on 60k pa.

I have no issue with people who need the money. In the UK it is meant to help those who need it not as a nice spare income for the likes of me. I get that 100%.

What is a tad annoying is that married friends on mine in Ireland who I know for a fact earn combined salaries of €140-150k pa get €140.00 per month per child. So one friend of mine with 4 young kids gets €6,720.00 pa tax free in addtion to the €150k salary.

We get £1820.00 pa for 2 kids (say €2000) but then 100% clawed back so that is a nothing. Oh it reduces down with the more kids you have. £21.05 for first kid and then £13.95 for the addtional. A grand total of £35.00 per week.

Correct me if I am wrong but it is not taxable in Ireland?

stefanovich

partyguinness wrote: »

I have no issue with people who need the money. In the UK it is meant to help those who need it not as a nice spare income for the likes of me. I get that 100%.

What is a tad annoying is that married friends on mine in Ireland who I know for a fact earn combined salaries of €140-150k pa get €140.00 per month per child. So one friend of mine with 4 young kids gets €6,720.00 pa tax free in addtion to the €150k salary.

We get £1820.00 pa for 2 kids (say €2000) but then 100% clawed back so that is a nothing. Oh it reduces down with the more kids you have.

Correct me if I am wrong but it is not taxable in Ireland?

Difference is you have 10K tax free to begin with in the UK or is it more now?

El_Duderino 09

stefanovich wrote: »

That would be true except we do not have a flat tax.

Graduated taxation (so called progressive) means that as the economy grows your rate of tax goes up whilst your purchasing power stagnates.

Stagnates? Ah here. Someone on 60k has more power than someone at the top of the lower lax bracket. Sounds like a case of “mo money, mo problems. Less money, fewer but much more serious problems”.

In any case, it’s not my job to explain how earning more money means you have more money after tax, to someone who pretends not to understand it.

stefanovich

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Stagnates? Ah here. Someone on 60k has more power than someone at the top of the lower lax bracket. Sounds like a case of “mo money, mo problems. Less money, fewer but much more serious problems”.

In any case, it’s not my job to explain how earning more money means you have more money after tax, to someone who pretends not to understand it.

You understand that we try to keep a positive rate of inflation?

That means things get more expensive over time.

If your wage increase is equal to inflation then your buying power is equal.

But wait, there are tax bands and USC bands. The government takes a larger percentage by default as you move up the bands. You have less buying power by default.

It's a stealth tax increase sold to the public as making rich people pay more.

El_Duderino 09

partyguinness wrote: »

I have no issue with people who need the money. In the UK it is meant to help those who need it not as a nice spare income for the likes of me. I get that 100%.

What is a tad annoying is that married friends on mine in Ireland who I know for a fact earn combined salaries of €140-150k pa get €140.00 per month per child. So one friend of mine with 4 young kids gets €6,720.00 pa tax free in addtion to the €150k salary.

We get £1820.00 pa for 2 kids (say €2000) but then 100% clawed back so that is a nothing. Oh it reduces down with the more kids you have. £21.05 for first kid and then £13.95 for the addtional. A grand total of £35.00 per week.

Correct me if I am wrong but it is not taxable in Ireland?

Yeah I’m pretty sure that’s all correct. The Irish system is more generous than the uk system. The uk system is better, in my opinion.

El_Duderino 09

stefanovich wrote: »

You understand that we try to keep a positive rate of inflation?

That means things get more expensive over time.

If your wage increase is equal to inflation then your buying power is equal.

But wait, there are tax bands and USC bands. The government takes a larger percentage by default as you move up the bands. You have less buying power by default.

It's a stealth tax increase sold to the public as making rich people pay more.

Less buying power? Less buying power would mean someone on lower wages than you can buy more stuff. Or do you mean less buying power relative to absolute income? Because the first one suggests that the more money you earn the less buying power you have which is absolutely wrong. The second one is a description of paying more tax in a higher tax bracket which we all already know - but you’re left with more money at the end than someone on lower wages than you.

This really is explaining something to someone who doesn’t want to know.

stefanovich

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Less buying power? Less buying power would mean someone on lower wages than you can buy more stuff. Or do you mean less buying power relative to absolute income? Because the first one suggests that the more money you earn the less buying power you have which is absolutely wrong. The second one is a description of paying more tax in a higher tax bracket which we all already know - but you’re left with more money at the end than someone on lower wages than you.

This really is explaining something to someone who doesn’t want to know.

Less buying power relative to the previous year. Your rate of taxation increases as the economy grows.

stefanovich

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

This really is explaining something to someone who doesn’t want to know.

Someone who understands basic economics you mean.

sbsquarepants

partyguinness wrote: »

We get £1820.00 pa for 2 kids (say €2000) but then 100% clawed back so that is a nothing. Oh it reduces down with the more kids you have. £21.05 for first kid and then £13.95 for the addtional. A grand total of £35.00 per week.

Correct me if I am wrong but it is not taxable in Ireland?

It's not taxable in Ireland, no matter what you earn, which seems a bit weird but the argument given is that it would cost more to claw it back than to pay it, which doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me but that's the official line!


I don't get how you pay back all of it in the UK though, if it's taxed as income you must get to keep some if not most of it, no? There's no 100% tax band. Earning extra money will always leave you better off.

stefanovich

sbsquarepants wrote: »

It's not taxable in Ireland, no matter what you earn, which seems a bit weird but the argument given is that it would cost more to claw it back than to pay it, which doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me but that's the official line!


I don't get how you pay back all of it in the UK though, if it's taxed as income you must get to keep some if not most of it, no? There's no 100% tax band. Earning extra money will always leave you better off.

100% taxation is slavery?

partyguinness

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I don't get how you pay back all of it in the UK though, if it's taxed as income you must get to keep some if not most of it, no? There's no 100% tax band. Earning extra money will always leave you better off.

It is self assessment. You are specifically asked. It was introduced around 2013 when I was not earning over £60k and I genuinely knew nothing about it when I did cross the threshold in 2016.

Last year I received a letter from HMRC out of the blue basically saying that a review of my tax affairs would indicate that I was liable for the charge.

Bottom line they then did a reassessment and billed me an extra £700.00 odd quid which I had to pay. Now i must insert the child benefit received in my income tax return as income. It should have been double but on some technicality they waived 50% of it.

Taken from HMRC's website:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/high-income-child-benefit-charge-data/high-income-child-benefit-charge

"If an individual’s income is over £60,000, the charge will equal the total amount of the Child Benefit."

You pay less back if you earn between £50-£60k.

Limpy

I think men deciding to participate in womens sport as its easier to win are sound.

El_Duderino 09

stefanovich wrote: »

Someone who understands basic economics you mean.

Someone who mistakes inflation for tax, can't really claim to understand economics.

stefanovich

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Someone who mistakes inflation for tax, can't really claim to understand economics.

I presume you skimmed my post rather than read it?

El_Duderino 09

stefanovich wrote: »

I presume you skimmed my post rather than read it?

Yeah, you talked about a very niche position of having a wage that exactly tracked inflation and moving up a tax bracket. Obviously your problem there is the lack of actual pay increase over inflation. Increasing tax based on increased income and the impact of inflation, shouldn't be a shock to anyone.

stefanovich

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Yeah, you talked about a very niche position of having a wage that exactly tracked inflation and moving up a tax bracket. Obviously your problem there is the lack of actual pay increase over inflation. Increasing tax based on increased income and the impact of inflation, shouldn't be a shock to anyone.

If your wage increases track inflation and you have "progressive" taxation you are worse off in real terms every year.

stefanovich

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Yeah, you talked about a very niche position of having a wage that exactly tracked inflation and moving up a tax bracket. Obviously your problem there is the lack of actual pay increase over inflation. Increasing tax based on increased income and the impact of inflation, shouldn't be a shock to anyone.

No, you do not need to move up a tax bracket, you just need your salary to straddle a tax bracket.

El_Duderino 09

stefanovich wrote: »

If your wage increases track inflation and you have "progressive" taxation you are worse off in real terms every year.

Because you're earning more money, you're taxed more - this can't be a surprise to anyone. After that your problem in your scenario is inflation, not tax.

stefanovich

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Because you're earning more money, you're taxed more - this can't be a surprise to anyone. After that your problem in your scenario is inflation, not tax.

Is not the value the money what goods or services one can exchange for it?

If your salary increases with inflation but you can afford less and less goods and service each year are you not worse off?

El_Duderino 09

stefanovich wrote: »

Is not the value the money what goods or services one can exchange for it?

If your salary increases with inflation but you can afford less and less goods and service each year are you not worse off?

You mean if your salary didn't even beat inflation? Not better off How cold you be if your salary didn't even beat inflation but your tax went up because your wages did go up?

I yield. You're right. The more money you earn the less money you have to spend. The highest earners are the poorest people, the lowest earners have the most spending power. It's all back to front and for too "progressive", isn't it?.

Have you considered getting a minimum wage job? I bet those guys have really low tax and must have loads of disposable income. Lol

stefanovich

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

You mean if your salary didn't even beat inflation? Not better off How cold you be if your salary didn't even beat inflation but your tax went up because your wages did go up?

I yield. You're right. The more money you earn the less money you have to spend. The highest earners are the poorest people, the lowest earners have the most spending power. It's all back to front and for too "progressive", isn't it?.

Have you considered getting a minimum wage job? I bet those guys have really low tax and must have loads of disposable income. Lol

Again, stoking envy, instead of addressing my point.

You wages are effectively static but the percent you give to the government increases, making you worse off.

People on low income pay no or negative tax.

99nsr125

stefanovich wrote: »

Less buying power relative to the previous year. Your rate of taxation increases as the economy grows.

Omg, you are not a special case or singled out.
Inflation / buying power / PPP applies to everyone.

Eleven Benevolent Elephants

A certain ethnic minority are a blight on society.
They are a net drain on society. The bleading hearts who bang on would never live near them.
Most sane people wouldn't.

They would significantly lower property prices if specific accommodation was built nearby.

They are bullies and evil. They prey on the elderly, vulnerable and disabled. Whichever minority I'm talking about, we'd be better off if they were no longer part of society.
I'd rather have a plague of rats in Ireland.

stefanovich

99nsr125 wrote: »

Omg, you are not a special case or singled out.
Inflation / buying power / PPP applies to everyone.

I am talking about graduated taxation. "Progressive" taxation.

If tax bands do not rise in line with inflation then every year everyone pays more by default.

Eleven Benevolent Elephants

I would love to see a United Ireland, but unfortunately it's decades off. So it's preventing us from joining Schengen.

I'd actually prefer if they just put a border up north and let us get on with Schengen. I'd prefer to be in Schengen than the CTA.

The GFA should've stipulated that if either country left the EU, it would automatically result in a UI.

stefanovich

Eleven Benevolent Elephants wrote: »

I would love to see a United Ireland, but unfortunately it's decades off. So it's preventing us from joining Schengen.

I'd actually prefer if they just put a border up north and let us get on with Schengen. I'd prefer to be in Schengen than the CTA.

The GFA should've stipulated that if either country left the EU, it would automatically result in a UI.

I don't think joining Schengen is a good idea with the mass immigration into Europe.

partyguinness

Tacitus Kilgore wrote: »

Jez lad,


Is there anyone you aren't pissed off at :pac:

It's early yet. Give me a chance...:pac:

Mules

I'd say this will be a genuinely unpopular opinion. I think a bad part of Irish society is how we always play the victim. People are still bitter about the British, 100 years after independence. The catholic church is now another example. Some people in Ireland were terribly treated by the British government and the catholic church. But plenty of Irish people were complicit in both and most just didn't care about the people who were badly treated. In the case of the church, these same people now act shocked by everything.

The British establishment treated their own working class like crap as well, we weren't alone in that. British people were shipped off to the west indies as indentured servants too but there's a false narrative that Irish people were slaves.

We always act like we are helpless victims and it's encouraged by the media. We blame every ill in our society on things that others have done to us in the past, rather than take responsibility for them. Ireland is no different than other countries, every people has had bad things happen throughout history. We aren't any more persecuted than anyone else. I think it's a real failing.