Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
New Dail / New Taoiseach
Comments
-
johnnyskeleton and Water John you are missing my point completely.
Most people will not be paying MORE tax, they will be paying the same or a similar amount of tax, but LPT would not be one of them.
How does a PAYE worker avoid taxation? they don't. Generally its only the self employed than can avail of tax avoidance schemes.
The majority of workers who own homes are currently paying somewhere in the region of €10 to €15 a week.
If you transfer LPT to income tax many more people would be contributing, and therefore that weekly cost would significantly be reduced as more people pay income tax than LPT. The aim would be to collect a similar amount not use it as a excuse to gouge tax payers yet more.
Are you truly suggesting people will be less inclined to work or avoid being productive in their jobs because they are now paying less than €10 a week extra in income tax while at the same time being no longer liable to LPT
For many (single home owners) they will be paying a slightly less. Maybe according to your theory these worker will now become hyper-productive, but they certainly will not become any less productive.
For those that do not own homes, they are probably renting. rents are set to cover such costs as LPT. So although they will appear to be paying more tax as long as landlords are not let pull a swift one and the government put some mechanism in place to prevent that, there would be very little difference in their personal spending budget at the end of the month.
An adjustment of .25% or less to the lower band of income tax should more than cover the cost of lost revenue due to LPT being scrapped. In fact that would probably be enough to cover the current shortfall in county council spending budgets as well.0 -
Anyone who has studied macroeconomics disagrees with you and I won't take this discussion any further.0
-
Water John wrote: »Once income tax goes too high, workers look for avoidance. They look for a bit in cash. Staff even in the political parties were getting, under the counter cash, in the 1980s.
Standard rate of VAT was increased to 35% in the early 80`s a well.
The black economy became so rife that the law of diminishing returns resulted in it being reduced to 23%0 -
Water John wrote: »Anyone who has studied macroeconomics disagrees with you and I won't take this discussion any further.
And that is why people have little trust in the governments we had in the last 20 years.
Its a simple point, but being told that 'you are not clever enough or educated enough' to understand doesn't wash anymor
So I will assume that in the absence of a rational answer, there is no reason not to get rid of LPT, the only reason being dogma or political philosophy.0 -
Standard rate of VAT was increased to 35% in the early 80`s a well.
The black economy became so rife that the law of diminishing returns resulted in it being reduced to 23%
I would agree 35% is way to high for the lower band.
However to get rid of LPT and compensate for the resulting loss in revenue we are talking about a increase in rate of less that 0.25%0 -
Advertisement
-
I would agree 35% is way to high for the lower band.
However to get rid of LPT and compensate for the resulting loss in revenue we are talking about a increase in rate of less that 0.25%
What I do not get is that a lot of people who are in favour of scraping LPT for it being inequitable, are also in favour of scraping the USC which is probably the most equitable tax we have.0 -
What I do not get is that a lot of people who are in favour of scraping LPT for it being inequitable, are also in favour of scraping the USC which is probably the most equitable tax we have.
I dont think people are against USC because it is inequitable, it more because of the broken promises associated with that tax. It was an emergency measure that was to be removed once the austerity crisis had abated.
After all it was a tax measure allegedly designed to get the country out of the mess that was austerity. Yet we have FG now claiming that the austerity period is gone, although many from personal experience would argue differently. If austerity is gone why hasn't this tax been dropped, or an equivalent adjustment made to income taxes so that the USC can remain. But it seems the government wants its bread buttered on both sides in neither scrapping the USC or making adjustments to income tax rates removing that extra burden imposed as a 'emergency' measure during austerity.
If the austerity measures are still required then obviously FG are lying, we have yet to escape austerity.
As always you reap what you sow. If you deceive people they are unlikely to trust you or believe whatever excuse you give, even if that excuse is perfectly valid, to go back on your word.
The truth is governments are like kids with sweet money. Give a child a couple of euro to go buy sweets and they are perfectly content. Give a child €5 to go buy sweets and most will spend the lot even though they couldn't possibly eat that many sweets at once.
But the question remains where has the austerity money been spent? It would be a safe assumption to assume that most if not all of it has gone towards servicing the horrendous debts this country has now built up. If that is true, and knowing that we would be servicing those debts for decades, why did the government lie about it being an 'emergency' and temporary tax?0 -
-
Main reason I don't like USC is because it makes tax more difficult to calculate because we've three effective taxes in income between PRSI, PAYE and USC.
I scrap all three and introduce a three tier PAYE across the board. 15% on everything up to 40k. 40% on income 40-70k. And 48% on all income 70k. I would put in credits to help people in low pay exceptional family situations, but ultimately everyone pays some tax. Richer paying more tax.
On house tax, I agree with something in principle. I think site valuation is fairer.
There should be water charges as its a consumable commodity that generally richer people consume more of, so they are getting off scot free under present system.0 -
PommieBast wrote: »Most or all of it would have gone to plug the horrendous deficit...
I would have assumed DEBT in this case was the correct term.
the way I understand it and as has been explained to me is
A deficit is created when a government spends more than it receives in tax revenues. It then issues government bonds to cover that deficit. In effect it underwrites its own debt. A deficit is a yearly thing, if not corrected by the following year it the becomes debt.
If the government borrows from another country, state or a financial institution (the ECB, IMF or EU for example) then I thought it would be correctly considered as debt.
Have I misunderstood those terms?
Its strange that the Irish Times always refers to the money owed for bailout as debt.0 -
Advertisement
-
I would have assumed DEBT in this case was the correct term.
A deficit is created when a government spends more than it receives in tax revenues. It then issues government bonds to cover that deficit. In effect it underwrites its own debt.
If the government borrows from another country, state or a financial institution (the ECB, IMF or EU for example) then I thought it would be correctly considered as debt.
Have I misunderstood those terms?
Basically, governments fund deficits by borrowing. The bond is a particular form of borrowing. All borrowing creates debt, bonds included.0 -
Peregrinus wrote: »I think you have. A state issues bond by selling them to people. Those people could be other public or private financial institutions, corporate investors, or individuals. In every case the bond represents a debt owed by the state to the entity/institution/individual to whom the bond has been sold (or to other entities/institutions/individuals to whom the bond is onsold, gifted, transferred or whatever).
Basically, governments fund deficits by borrowing. The bond is a particular form of borrowing. All borrowing creates debt, bonds included.
So the deficit is the difference between what revenue is collected and what is spent.
But it becomes debt when the government borrows to cover that deficit?
Isnt that what I said?0 -
So the deficit is the difference between what revenue is collected and what is spent.
But it becomes debt when the government borrows to cover that deficit?
Isnt that what I said?
"If the government borrows from another country, state or a financial institution (the ECB, IMF or EU for example) then I thought it would be correctly considered as debt".
If the government borrows from anyone at all, that's debt.
The other point to clear up is that the borrowing isn't something that happens after the government has spent more than it gets in in tax revenue. They can't spend money they don't have, so they borrow the money and then spend it. I think you are mistaken to suggest that the government has a year after spending the money to raise it through borrowing; until they raise it through borrowing, they don't have it to spend.
But issuing a bond is only one method of borrowing. The government could, e.g., run an overdraft to finance spending today, and then next week or next month issue a bond, and use the issue proceeds to clear the overdraft. In that example, though, the debt arises as soon as the overdraft is created; an overdraft is borrowing, and borrowing is debt. The subsequent issue of the bond doesn't create new or extra debt; it just swaps one kind of debt for another.0 -
Peregrinus wrote: »Ah. Possibly I misunderstood when you said:
"If the government borrows from another country, state or a financial institution (the ECB, IMF or EU for example) then I thought it would be correctly considered as debt".
If the government borrows from anyone at all, that's debt.
The other point to clear up is that the borrowing isn't something that happens after the government has spent more than it gets in in tax revenue. They can't spend money they don't have, so they borrow the money and then spend it. I think you are mistaken to suggest that the government has a year after spending the money to raise it through borrowing; until they raise it through borrowing, they don't have it to spend.
But issuing a bond is only one method of borrowing. The government could, e.g., run an overdraft to finance spending today, and then next week or next month issue a bond, and use the issue proceeds to clear the overdraft. In that example, though, the debt arises as soon as the overdraft is created; an overdraft is borrowing, and borrowing is debt. The subsequent issue of the bond doesn't create debt; it just swaps one kind of debt for another.
Thanks, That's has cleared it up. Much appreciated.
I am aware that governments cant spend whats not there, they have to borrow through the fiscal year to do so. Probably my bad grammar or explanation.
I was initially responding to Pommiebast who saidPommiebast
Most or all of it would have gone to plug the horrendous deficit...
Correcting my earlier statementIt would be a safe assumption to assume that most if not all of it [USC] has gone towards servicing the horrendous debts this country has now built up.
So its safe to say it is DEBT not a DEFICIT0 -
Thanks, That's has cleared it up. Much appreciated.
I am aware that governments cant spend whats not there, they have to borrow through the fiscal year to do so. Probably my bad grammar or explanation.
I was initially responding to Pommiebast who said
Correcting my earlier statement
So its safe to say it is DEBT not a DEFICIT0 -
Now I am totally confused.
Ireland now owes billions, but we are not repaying a debt, but instead a deficit, but a deficit is always a debt0 -
-
Now I am totally confused.
Ireland now owes billions, but we are not repaying a debt, but instead a deficit, but a deficit is always a debt
The deficit is the amount by which, in any year, government spending exceeds tax receipts. It will have to be financed by raising new debt.
You can lower or eliminate the deficit in any year by increasing taxes for that year. if you increase taxes so much that tax receipts now fully cover the current year's expenditure, there will be a nil deficit - possibly even a surplus (where tax receipts exceed expenditure).0 -
Join Date:Posts: 19465
I dont think people are against USC because it is inequitable, it more because of the broken promises associated with that tax. It was an emergency measure that was to be removed once the austerity crisis had abated.
Income tax was a temporary tax to pay for the Napoleonic war. It is still with us, only much increased.
New tax headings are always temporary.
USC is a 'good' tax in that it is hard to avoid, and has no relief that would give rise to loop holes.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 13683
johnnyskeleton and Water John you are missing my point completely.
Most people will not be paying MORE tax, they will be paying the same or a similar amount of tax, but LPT would not be one of them.
Yes I understand that the same amount of tax will be collected overall. But you are saying that the person who owns a 500k house and earns 30k a yewr should pay the same tax as someone who rents and earns 30k a year. I think thats unfair on the renter as they are objectively less wealthy.How does a PAYE worker avoid taxation? they don't. Generally its only the self employed than can avail of tax avoidance schemes.
This is the third time youve asserted that some people can avoid tax, but have been very vague on the details. It shifted from tax breaks to tax schemes to only the self employed. But even still, what tax schemes do self employed people get that PAYE employees dont get?
Meanwhile, in the real world, self employed tac credits are only now being brought up to the same level as PAYE employees; lower paid employees are exempted from prsi (less than 352 per week) when self employed people are not and higher paid self employed people pay 3% extra usc over 100k. So self employed people are liable to more taxes generally, and thats before we get into the unequal welfare options, private pensions, admin and accountancy fees, no sick leave etc etc.Are you truly suggesting people will be less inclined to work or avoid being productive in their jobs because they are now paying less than €10 a week extra in income tax while at the same time being no longer liable to LPT
For many (single home owners) they will be paying a slightly less. Maybe according to your theory these worker will now become hyper-productive, but they certainly will not become any less productive.
When the government introduced a pension levy on stste employees, they started to work to rule. Many people decide to work less hours when they get up into the higher tax bands. Many high inckme earners already are not tax resident in Ireland because our taxes are so high, and this is also a problem with attracting multinationals to relocate staff here.
It is undeniable that increasing tax on an activity discourages that activity. It is however a lot trickier when you have to measure it. Of all the things to discourage, proeuctive labour is the easiest to tax, but is bad for the economy at large to discourage.For those that do not own homes, they are probably renting. rents are set to cover such costs as LPT. So although they will appear to be paying more tax as long as landlords are not let pull a swift one and the government put some mechanism in place to prevent that, there would be very little difference in their personal spending budget at the end of the month.[/quore]
Rents are set based on supply and demand. The idea that removing property taxes is a move that benefits renters is an extremely illogical leap.0 -
Advertisement
-
johnnyskeleton wrote: »Yes I understand that the same amount of tax will be collected overall. But you are saying that the person who owns a 500k house and earns 30k a yewr should pay the same tax as someone who rents and earns 30k a year. I think thats unfair on the renter as they are objectively less wealthy.
Does the disabled person have more money to spend?
Does the widowed wife with kids have more money to spend?
That list can go on and on. Not everyone is as fortunate as ourselves.
Yes they have an asset, but its a non productive asset that earns them no additional income.
Do you think for one minute that those who rent are not paying property taxes. I can guarantee you every landlord in the country has factored in the full cost of that tax in the rents they charge.
By transferring property taxes to income taxes both the home owner and the renter would be paying similar amounts, as they do already. What is unfair about that?This is the third time youve asserted that some people can avoid tax, but have been very vague on the details. It shifted from tax breaks to tax schemes to only the self employed. But even still, what tax schemes do self employed people get that PAYE employees dont get?
A self employed person owns a relatively success business,What is the first thing they will do to reduce the taxation they pay?
They will award themselves a very modest income for which they will pay similar taxes to a reasonably well paid PAYE worker. At the end of the year their company makes profit, significantly more profit because they only awarded themselves a modest wage. They pay a dividend on those profits to the share holders, probably himself and his wife or a partner in the business. Those dividend are taxed at 20%, had they taken a better wage they would have paid 40%. He has reduce the tax on a sizeable chunk of his earnings by 20%. Can a PAYE worker do that?Meanwhile, in the real world, self employed tac credits are only now being brought up to the same level as PAYE employees; lower paid employees are exempted from prsi (less than 352 per week) when self employed people are not and higher paid self employed people pay 3% extra usc over 100k. So self employed people are liable to more taxes generally, and thats before we get into the unequal welfare options, private pensions, admin and accountancy fees, no sick leave etc etc.
No self employed person earns a wage over 100k, if they do then they are just plain stupid and their accountant would tell them that. They will use the dividends dodge which is a perfectly legal tax avoidance measure.When the government introduced a pension levy on stste employees, they started to work to rule. Many people decide to work less hours when they get up into the higher tax bands. Many high inckme earners already are not tax resident in Ireland because our taxes are so high, and this is also a problem with attracting multinationals to relocate staff here.
Wealthy people do not become non resident to avoid income tax. They become non resident to avoid other taxes.
Workers of Multinational that relocate staff to Ireland can avail of SARP for a period of up to 5 years.
They pay a rate of 30% on all income between €75k and €500k, normal income tax rates apply for the remainder. Significantly lower than the normal rate and probably lower than the rate they were previously paying in the country they came from.It is undeniable that increasing tax on an activity discourages that activity. It is however a lot trickier when you have to measure it. Of all the things to discourage, proeuctive labour is the easiest to tax, but is bad for the economy at large to discourage.Rents are set based on supply and demand. The idea that removing property taxes is a move that benefits renters is an extremely illogical leap.
If there is no property tax to pay, then rents should be adjusted accordingly.0 -
I dont think people are against USC because it is inequitable, it more because of the broken promises associated with that tax. It was an emergency measure that was to be removed once the austerity crisis had abated.
After all it was a tax measure allegedly designed to get the country out of the mess that was austerity. Yet we have FG now claiming that the austerity period is gone, although many from personal experience would argue differently. If austerity is gone why hasn't this tax been dropped, or an equivalent adjustment made to income taxes so that the USC can remain. But it seems the government wants its bread buttered on both sides in neither scrapping the USC or making adjustments to income tax rates removing that extra burden imposed as a 'emergency' measure during austerity.
If the austerity measures are still required then obviously FG are lying, we have yet to escape austerity.
As always you reap what you sow. If you deceive people they are unlikely to trust you or believe whatever excuse you give, even if that excuse is perfectly valid, to go back on your word.
The truth is governments are like kids with sweet money. Give a child a couple of euro to go buy sweets and they are perfectly content. Give a child €5 to go buy sweets and most will spend the lot even though they couldn't possibly eat that many sweets at once.
But the question remains where has the austerity money been spent? It would be a safe assumption to assume that most if not all of it has gone towards servicing the horrendous debts this country has now built up. If that is true, and knowing that we would be servicing those debts for decades, why did the government lie about it being an 'emergency' and temporary tax?
We have corporation tax that nobody has a clue how to budget for, with the possibility of the other shoe dropping any day. The increasingly likelihood of a hard Brexit, and now the Covid-19 virus. Whether or not austerity is gone is an irrelevance. Just one of the above not going our way we will be quickly back too austerity.
For me this SF idea of scraping one tax to just compensate by lumping it on another is nothing other than semantics. Especially based on a budget that is double the projected fiscal space available.
I can see where there may be an argument for reviewing the LPT, as the imputed benefits of a house are basically the same, whereas the tax can vary greatly, but to scrap the USC, a tax that has little or no loopholes and replace it with an increase in one, income tax, that is rife with loopholes is economic insanity.0 -
We have corporation tax that nobody has a clue how to budget for, with the possibility of the other shoe dropping any day. The increasingly likelihood of a hard Brexit, and now the Covid-19 virus. Whether or not austerity is gone is an irrelevance. Just one of the above not going our way we will be quickly back too austerity.
For me this SF idea of scraping one tax to just compensate by lumping it on another is nothing other than semantics. Especially based on a budget that is double the projected fiscal space available.
I can see where there may be an argument for reviewing the LPT, as the imputed benefits of a house are basically the same, whereas the tax can vary greatly, but to scrap the USC, a tax that has little or no loopholes and replace it with an increase in one, income tax, that is rife with loopholes is economic insanity.
Well FF were promising to scrap LPT the then changed their minds and 'reform' it. in other words let local councillors at it resulting in no increases
FG were more honest about it, but said more or less the same thing that LPT should be set by local councillors but the money would be spent locally
SF have openly admitted to scrapping and replacing the lost revenue through a second home tax and other measures
The reality is if FF or FG form a government that the LPT collected will quickly be insufficient to fund the costs of local services.
It doesnt matter who you pick the LPT is as good as gone, or will be totally insufficient as a tax to fund local services.
I do wonder if the SF proposals for income tax will work as effectively as they suggest.
Any business owner with half a brain will simply award themselves a modest income, and at the end of year pay a dividend on profits to share holders.
They will only pay 20% tax on dividends.
Of course there's a whole load of people that cant avoid the new rate on income tax if the SF proposal was put in place. So it might just raise the revenue they expect.
In principal I am totally for a 3rd tax band. What I do not understand is why SF did not take the opportunity to adjust the existing two bands.
If you had the low band set so that income tax would be paid from say 12k at 10% to an upper threshold of 25k, then have the next band upper threshold set at say 25% up to 50k, then a 40% rate beyond that it would have been a fairer tax, one that helped the least well off, and a system where future government could tweak the system to benefit the low, middle or higher incomes individually.
You would also be widening the tax base as very low income worker who pay nothing at the moment would still be contributing something, but at an affordable level. But the problem there would be an inevitable rise in the minimum wage, which might not be as bad as it sounds if it also meant less reliance on state benefits.
With a two band system you always hurt the middle income earner if you want to take more tax from the higher income earners, and if you increase the upper threshold of the lower band to benefit the lower paid you benefit everyone diluting the intended effect. A three band system make a lot of sense if the threshold are set at reasonable levels0 -
Well FF were promising to scrap LPT the then changed their minds and 'reform' it. in other words let local councillors at it resulting in no increases
FG were more honest about it, but said more or less the same thing that LPT should be set by local councillors but the money would be spent locally
SF have openly admitted to scrapping and replacing the lost revenue through a second home tax and other measures
The reality is if FF or FG form a government that the LPT collected will quickly be insufficient to fund the costs of local services.
It doesnt matter who you pick the LPT is as good as gone, or will be totally insufficient as a tax to fund local services.
I do wonder if the SF proposals for income tax will work as effectively as they suggest.
Any business owner with half a brain will simply award themselves a modest income, and at the end of year pay a dividend on profits to share holders.
They will only pay 20% tax on dividends.
Of course there's a whole load of people that cant avoid the new rate on income tax if the SF proposal was put in place. So it might just raise the revenue they expect.
In principal I am totally for a 3rd tax band. What I do not understand is why SF did not take the opportunity to adjust the existing two bands.
If you had the low band set so that income tax would be paid from say 12k at 10% to an upper threshold of 25k, then have the next band upper threshold set at say 25% up to 50k, then a 40% rate beyond that it would have been a fairer tax, one that helped the least well off, and a system where future government could tweak the system to benefit the low, middle or higher incomes individually.
You would also be widening the tax base as very low income worker who pay nothing at the moment would still be contributing something, but at an affordable level. But the problem there would be an inevitable rise in the minimum wage, which might not be as bad as it sounds if it also meant less reliance on state benefits.
With a two band system you always hurt the middle income earner if you want to take more tax from the higher income earners, and if you increase the upper threshold of the lower band to benefit the lower paid you benefit everyone diluting the intended effect. A three band system make a lot of sense if the threshold are set at reasonable levels
Your understanding of the taxation of dividends is completely wrong0 -
Robert McGrath wrote: »Your understanding of the taxation of dividends is completely wrong
Well enlighten me, and I am not being sarcastic.
My understanding is that any profits can be dispersed to shareholders through dividend which are taxed at 20%. If there are no profits then obviously there can be no dividends.
What did I get wrong.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 19465
Well enlighten me, and I am not being sarcastic.
My understanding is that any profits can be dispersed to shareholders through dividend which are taxed at 20%. If there are no profits then obviously there can be no dividends.
What did I get wrong.The dividend withholding tax is applied at a standard rate of 20% for dividend payments and other distributions made by companies registered in Ireland. Most Irish companies will pay dividends twice a year and the withholding tax will apply at source on the gross dividend.
Irish individual shareholders will be levied the tax on the gross dividend at the marginal rate, but they are entitled to a credit for the withholding tax and a refund if the withheld amount exceeding their tax liability. However, there are also exceptions when it comes to the Irish withholding tax on dividends.
The legislation stipulates a lower or 0% withholding tax for distribution of dividends if Irish double taxation agreements are enforced, and the dividend tax will not apply if the distribution is made to a holding company where the majority shareholder is an Irish tax resident company.
I think you are confusing a withholding tax paid by the company to the revenue which is taken from the gross dividend. The resulting dividend is subject to income tax by the recipient, who can claim relief for the withholding tax. The same procedure applies to rents paid to a non-resident landlord.
The 20% withholding tax is not the end of the tax liable on the dividend.0 -
Sam Russell wrote: »I think you are confusing a withholding tax paid by the company to the revenue which is taken from the gross dividend. The resulting dividend is subject to income tax by the recipient, who can claim relief for the withholding tax. The same procedure applies to rents paid to a non-resident landlord.
The 20% withholding tax is not the end of the tax liable on the dividend.
Sorry but I'm going to have to ask you to put that in language that an economics ignoramus could understand.
Its not that I'm stupid, perfectly happy to explain anything related to astro-physics or the standard model of particle physics to you if you wish, but often the nuances of a specific subject are totally lost on those that have not studied that particular subject in detail.0 -
Sorry but I'm going to have to ask you to put that in language that an economics ignoramus could understand.
Its not that I'm stupid, perfectly happy to explain anything related to astro-physics or the standard model of particle physics to you if you wish, but often the nuances of a specific subject are totally lost on those that have not studied that particular subject in detail.
You have shares. You’re due a dividend of 10k from them. Company keeps 20% as withholding tax.
The 10k is added to your income for tax purposes. You already earn 100k from other sources. Your marginal rate is 40% because you earn over the threshold. You therefore owe 4K income tax on dividends. However given that the company withheld 2k already on your behalf, you pay revenue 2k directly. Therefore you still pay 40% in total.
If you only had 20k other income, your marginal rate would be 20%, and you wouldn’t pay any further income tax on the dividend.0 -
You have shares. You’re due a dividend of 10k from them. Company keeps 20% as withholding tax.
The 10k is added to your income for tax purposes. You already earn 100k from other sources. Your marginal rate is 40% because you earn over the threshold. You therefore owe 4K income tax on dividends. However given that the company withheld 2k already on your behalf, you pay revenue 2k directly. Therefore you still pay 40% in total.
If you only had 20k other income, your marginal rate would be 20%, and you wouldn’t pay any further income tax on the dividend.
Thanks for that, perfect explanation.
So still a tax avoidance withing limits, but not near as big as I portrayed.
I genuinely misunderstood how it worked, but thank you for the explanation.0 -
Advertisement
-
Advertisement