New Dail / New Taoiseach

Scoundrel

Green policies on public transport are indeed quite sensible and we need proper investment from Government in public transport not the creeping privatisation that we have seen or has been mooted we'll end up in a fiasco like the UK's hideous privatised train network but the proposed carbon tax is simply another tax on hard working low earning people.

charlie14

efanton wrote: »

I think you missed my point.
Yes the consumer will end up paying any taxes retailers incur, but if the retailer has to pay those taxes upfront before putting goods on their shelves it will hit their operating costs.

Think of it from a retailers point of view he has a choice of two products from two suppliers, one has recyclable packaging the other doesn't. He is going to have to spend more of his operating capital on one because it incurs a levy and less on the other that doesn't incur a levy but still end up making the same profit which ever he chooses. Which one will the retailer choose?

There would be no difference than how VAT works.
It is charged all the way down the chain from manufacturer to the end consumer who is the only one that actually pays it where all the others can claim it back.
Same as VAT by charging carbon tax all through the consumer chain the end user would be paying plus the extra added by every other link for cost of administration.
At the end of the day, similar to VAT, it would be cheaper for the consumer to pay carbon tax to the final link in the chain.

efanton

charlie14 wrote: »

There would be no difference than how VAT works.
It is charged all the way down the chain from manufacturer to the end consumer who is the only one that actually pays it where all the others can claim it back.
Same as VAT by charging carbon tax all through the consumer chain the end user would be paying plus the extra added by every other link for cost of administration.
At the end of the day, similar to VAT, it would be cheaper for the consumer to pay carbon tax to the final link in the chain.

Who said anything about VAT.

Let me make it simple for you.
A wholesaler buy 10,000 packets of of what ever from a supplier.
He is offered one product that has recyclable packaging that does not incur a levy.
He is offered another product that does not have recyclable packaging. Because of this he now has to pay the green levy immediately if he chooses this product.
He sells it on to a retailer, and recoups his costs plus the cost of the levy, who then sell it to a consumer who pays for the levy included in the price.

The wholesaler now suddenly has to use a whole lot more of his operating capital if he wishes to buy the product that doesn't use recyclable packaging.
He simply is not going to do that, He will either buy the product that incurs no levy, or he will insist the other supplier switches to packaging that incurs no levy.

Problem solved. You the consumer are now buying a more environmentally friendly product and are likely to only see products with environmentally friendly packaging on the shelves. No one pays an environmental levy because all packaging is now more environmentally friendly.
Its a win/win situation.

Bishop of hope

efanton wrote: »

Who said anything about VAT.

Let me make it simple for you.
A wholesaler buy 10,000 packets of of what ever from a supplier.
He is offered one product that has recyclable packaging that does not incur a levy.
He is offered another product that does not have recyclable packaging. Because of this he now has to pay the green levy immediately if he chooses this product.
He sells it on to a retailer, and recoups his costs plus the cost of the levy, who then sell it to a consumer who pay for the levy included in the price.

The wholesaler now suddenly has to use a whole lot more of his operating capital if he wishes to buy the product that doesn't use recyclable packaging.
He simply is not going to do that, He will either buy the product that incurs no levy, or he will insist the other supplier switches to packaging that incurs no levy.

Problem solved. You the consumer are now buying a more environmentally friendly product and are likely to only see products with environmentally friendly packaging on the shelves. No one pays a environmental levy because all packaging is now more environmentally friendly.
Its a win/win situation.

Why would this not already be the case?
Would it not be because of the price of the packaging in the first place?
I/we, shop for two most weeks, we buy mostly fresh products, with no packaging, but it's more expensive than packaged goods, so I for one don't get your point whatsoever.

blanch152

efanton wrote: »

I think you missed my point.
Yes the consumer will end up paying any taxes retailers incur, but if the retailer has to pay those taxes upfront before putting goods on their shelves it will hit their operating costs.

Think of it from a retailers point of view he has a choice of two products from two suppliers, one has recyclable packaging the other doesn't. He is going to have to spend more of his operating capital on one because it incurs a levy and less on the other that doesn't incur a levy but still end up making the same profit which ever he chooses. Which one will the retailer choose?

Not really, it just increases the amount of working capital the retailer requires.

efanton

Bishop of hope wrote: »

Why would this not already be the case?
Would it not be because of the price of the packaging in the first place?
I/we, shop for two most weeks, we buy mostly fresh products, with no packaging, but it's more expensive than packaged goods, so I for one don't get your point whatsoever.

THat is not how it works and its pure lunacy.

At the moment levy is only applied when the consumer buys the product as I understand it and has been explained to me.

This is why carbon taxes or green taxes dont work as well as they should.
If a retailer can just simply whack on the cost of a levy to a consumer without being first hit by it themselves why would they even bother to change anything to be more environmentally friendly?


If the retailers or wholesalers were hit with this additional operating cost of the levy you can be damn sure that manufactures would quickly be told to change their practices.

efanton

blanch152 wrote: »

Not really, it just increases the amount of working capital the retailer requires.

so are you suggesting that retailer faced with this additional overhead would not insist their supplier change their practices, or seek a different supplier so that they would no have this additional overhead?

Sam Russell

efanton wrote: »

so are you suggesting that retailer faced with this additional overhead would not insist their supplier change their practices, or seek a different supplier so that they would no have this additional overhead?

There was a time not so many years ago that when I purchased a large electronic product it would be packed in a polystyrene foam lined box. Now, the polystyrene is replaced by cardboard. The polystyrene is not recycled, but the cardboard is.

Why would that be?

efanton

I have to put my hand up here and admit what I have been saying is wrong.

Just talked to the publican that explained this to me and he admits he told me wrong.

the FIRST SUPPLIER pays and green levy.

He told me to use this link

https://www.revenue.ie/en/companies-and-charities/excise-and-licences/energy-taxes/solid-fuel-carbon-tax/taxable-solid-fuels-and-liability.aspx

Solid Fuel Carbon Tax liability
A liability to SFCT arises on the first supply of a quantity of solid fuel in Ireland by a supplier. The supplier is accountable for, and must pay the tax to Revenue.

What is First Supply?
First supply means a quantity of solid fuel supplied in Ireland that had not previously been supplied in Ireland.

What is Supply in Ireland?
For SFCT purposes, supply in Ireland means a supply from one supplier established in Ireland to another supplier established in Ireland, or from a supplier established in Ireland to a consumer in Ireland. This applies also in situations where suppliers supply solid fuel to themselves for their own use. See also treatment of supplies of solid fuel for manufacturing.

My apologies to all. it was not my intention to mislead anyone or create confusion. We were only discussing this a week or so ago so I thought what I was say was correct.

The tax is imposed on businesses and then passed on to consumer

charlie14

efanton wrote: »

Who said anything about VAT.

Let me make it simple for you.
A wholesaler buy 10,000 packets of of what ever from a supplier.
He is offered one product that has recyclable packaging that does not incur a levy.
He is offered another product that does not have recyclable packaging. Because of this he now has to pay the green levy immediately if he chooses this product.
He sells it on to a retailer, and recoups his costs plus the cost of the levy, who then sell it to a consumer who pays for the levy included in the price.

The wholesaler now suddenly has to use a whole lot more of his operating capital if he wishes to buy the product that doesn't use recyclable packaging.
He simply is not going to do that, He will either buy the product that incurs no levy, or he will insist the other supplier switches to packaging that incurs no levy.

Problem solved. You the consumer are now buying a more environmentally friendly product and are likely to only see products with environmentally friendly packaging on the shelves. No one pays an environmental levy because all packaging is now more environmentally friendly.
Its a win/win situation.

What you are failing to see is that the consumer buying a product that is not listed as requiring a carbon tax does not have to pay this tax.
Same as a product that is 0% VAT rated.


If the consumer is buying a product that is liable for carbon tax, under your proposal, that product through all the links in the chain will have that cost passed down to the consumer, PLUS the admin costs from each link.

Same as VAT.
Charging the consumer only as the final link cuts out all the added admin costs and thus would work out cheaper.

Geuze

Scoundrel wrote: »

Tax the little people that's your solution to everything blueshirts on bikes is all the greens are.

All taxes are paid by people, who else is there to pay taxes?

Scoundrel

Geuze wrote: »

All taxes are paid by people, who else is there to pay taxes?

The many companies responsible for polluting the earth can a carbon tax not be added to their business/profits in Ireland? Why is it always the hard working ordinary citizen that has to pay? Under FF/FG we already pay a massive amount in taxes in return for terrible services and you want to trust these clowns with a carbon tax as well?

blanch152

Scoundrel wrote: »

The many companies responsible for polluting the earth can a carbon tax not be added to their business/profits in Ireland? Why is it always the hard working ordinary citizen that has to pay? Under FF/FG we already pay a massive amount in taxes in return for terrible services and you want to trust these clowns with a carbon tax as well?

A company is owned by people somewhere down the line, whether it is after trusts or after pension funds or just ordinary shareholders. Those people will want to maintain their income, so they will pass on at least some of the carbon tax to the consumer.

If there were no people, there would be no companies.

charlie14

Scoundrel wrote: »

The many companies responsible for polluting the earth can a carbon tax not be added to their business/profits in Ireland? Why is it always the hard working ordinary citizen that has to pay? Under FF/FG we already pay a massive amount in taxes in return for terrible services and you want to trust these clowns with a carbon tax as well?

It could, but they would just increase prices to compensate so the end user will end up paying anyway.
I would not trust any political party if a carbon tax was just going to be added to the general tax pot.

If we are going to have a carbon tax, then it should be ring fenced for specific purposes with a complete yearly account of how much was collected and where it was spent.

Last Stop

Can someone explain to me how SF propose to fund all their policies?
https://www.sinnfein.ie/files/2020/SF_GE2020_Manifesto.pdf

Their manifesto includes €22.1bn in additional expenditure over the next 5 years plus €2.4bn in tax cuts while only increasing tax take by €3.8bn.

Surely that leaves a budget deficit of €20.7bn over 5 years or €4.14bn per annum??

Even if they take the €14.3bn from apple, they’re still well short...

And yet they claim they will run a surplus of €3.4bn in 2025

Salary Negotiator

Something something costed something tax the rich

Fann Linn

Salary Negotiator wrote: »

Something something costed something tax the rich

So you can't answer the question asked.

Salary Negotiator

Fann Linn wrote: »

So you can't answer the question asked.

The demographics?

irishgrover

Fann Linn wrote: »

So you can't answer the question asked.

In fairness I don't think anyone can answer that particular question

Fann Linn

irishgrover wrote: »

In fairness I don't think anyone can answer that particular question

The op asks a fairly detailed relevant question. And next of all the 'after hours stock answer' is thrown up.

It would be nice to see some proper engagement on the topic.
And 'no' I don't know the answer either.

Last Stop

Just to add that these figures also don’t include projects currently under design/planning such as Metrolink, Busconnects, DART expansion, M20 or Galway bypass which could add another €9bn...

irishgrover

Fann Linn wrote: »

The op asks a fairly detailed relevant question. And next of all the 'after hours stock answer' is thrown up.

It would be nice to see some proper engagement on the topic.
And 'no' I don't know the answer either.

I fully agree. My answer was not flippant, or not meant to be anyway. I just have 0 confidence that it actually can be answered, in any kind of rational way, either politically or economically. But seriously, I did not mean to be "afterhoury"

piplip87

Doubling the Vacent site tax will bring in 100M a year. Although it bring in 1 million now. So I'd suggest they invest in Maths teachers as a priority.

CiarraiAbu2

Last Stop wrote: »

Just to add that these figures also don’t include projects currently under design/planning such as Metrolink, Busconnects, DART expansion, M20 or Galway bypass which could add another €9bn...

Don't forget the hospital.

Last Stop

CiarraiAbu2 wrote: »

Don't forget the hospital.

The Children’s hospital is already included as it is committed expenditure.

Salary Negotiator

piplip87 wrote: »

Doubling the Vacent site tax will bring in 100M a year. Although it bring in 1 million now. So I'd suggest they invest in Maths teachers as a priority.

And most of that will come from local authorities which will reduce their spending in other areas.

Or the LA’s will build on the vacant sites and the money won’t be raised at all.

_Brian

Last Stop wrote: »

Can someone explain to me how SF propose to fund all their policies?
https://www.sinnfein.ie/files/2020/SF_GE2020_Manifesto.pdf

Their manifesto includes €22.1bn in additional expenditure over the next 5 years plus €2.4bn in tax cuts while only increasing tax take by €3.8bn.

Surely that leaves a budget deficit of €20.7bn over 5 years or €4.14bn per annum??

Even if they take the €14.3bn from apple, they’re still well short...

And yet they claim they will run a surplus of €3.4bn in 2025

It doesn’t matter, seriously.

The vast cohort of their supporters have no interest in economics, or budgets. They have been promised more houses for free, and that’s the only thing that matters.

SF have no economic solution, they are a professional opposition party who are caught in the headlights now. Not sure what to do. They have a big problem going into government because as you have pointed out they will need to break the country to deliver what they have gotten the support to do.

I’d say they are dearly hoping that FF/FG/greens get their **** together and keep SF out of government. That’s their ideal position, it’s like the lad taking off his jackets a fight and shouting to his friends “hold me back or I’ll do something”. If they are held back from government they will constantly bluster about they nearly had a chance to fix Ireland but were prevented doing so by the parties who didn’t want change.
If they get into government in any sort of controlling position - god help us all !

CiarraiAbu2

Last Stop wrote: »

The Children’s hospital is already included as it is committed expenditure.

True

Gunmonkey

Fann Linn wrote: »

The op asks a fairly detailed relevant question. And next of all the 'after hours stock answer' is thrown up.

It would be nice to see some proper engagement on the topic.
And 'no' I don't know the answer either.

Sadly its the best we have out of SF. They only mentioned tax cuts and spending increases in their manifesto, and during the election every time one of the head honchos were asked how they will pay for all the increased spending/tax cuts we got "Its been costed by the Dept of Finance" which means what?

-Did they take their new figures and slap it onto the 2019 budget and it balances out?
-Do we have to go ask the Dept of Finance for the other half of SF's manifesto, the half with the tax hikes and spending cuts?
-Is it a throw away phrase meaning they got the DoF to cost each increase individually and so thats how much each tax cut will remove/spending will cost? But all in a vacuum, not connected together into a budget?

Theres be rumours of a "Wealth" Tax and Vacant Site Tax, but so far Ive seen no confirmation from SF higher ups they will happen guaranteed or how much they will generate. Not the €7bn of tax cuts/increased spending I roughly counted up from their "costed" manifesto.

Last Stop

Gunmonkey wrote: »

Is it a throw away phrase meaning they got the DoF to cost each increase individually and so thats how much each tax cut will remove/spending will cost? But all in a vacuum, not connected together into a budget?

I suspect this is what happened. The DoF would need to provide figures on all these items as they are generally not publicly.
Adding them up however I assume is up to the individual parties as the DoF couldn’t be seen to be favouring one party over another etc.

Theres be rumours of a "Wealth" Tax and Vacant Site Tax, but so far Ive seen no confirmation from SF higher ups they will happen guaranteed or how much they will generate. Not the €7bn of tax cuts/increased spending I roughly counted up from their "costed" manifesto.

To be fair, the wealth tax and vacant site levy are in there generating a grand total of €196m between them. This of course is entirely lost (and more) by abolishing property tax at a cost of €485m. And yet in the debates Mary Lou just brushed this aside as if it was a non issue.