Time to tax wealth - Covid cost Solution

Jinglejangle69

LeinsterDub wrote: »

It's not for me to define but if I you want me to pluck a number I shall as those with wealth of over a million excluding the family home or farm land they are working themselves

You should have been more asparational in life.

Ah well easier to blame someone else for your failure.

Shefwedfan

Remy Broad Cave wrote: »

The ones with the money, doh!

For a start the 'top 8' richest billionaires own as much combined wealth as "half the human race". 8 people == 50% of earth's population in wealth.

The other 2,200 global billionaires are worth nearly $10Trillion (up significantly from previous year).
The population of a very small town.

Each single trillion in 100$ bills is 67,866 miles when stacked, if a couple of thousand Billionares stacked their totals, it would reach the moon (and back), and still have change left over to buy out many a small/medium country.

Any of the 8 knocking around ireland?

Or even the 2200?

Jinglejangle69

Remy Broad Cave wrote: »

The ones with the money, doh!

For a start the 'top 8' richest billionaires own as much combined wealth as "half the human race". 8 people == 50% of earth's population in wealth.

The other 2,200 global billionaires are worth nearly $10Trillion (up significantly from previous year).
The population of a very small town.

Each single trillion in 100$ bills is 67,866 miles when stacked, if a couple of thousand Billionares stacked their totals, it would reach the moon (and back), and still have change left over to buy out many a small/medium country.

And?

It makes the world go around.

What are you typing on boards from?

A device invented and made by someome wealthy.

You should give it back if you're so outraged.

But you won't. Because you're a hypocrite.

4068ac1elhodqr

Shefwedfan wrote: »

Any of the 8 knocking around ireland?
Or even the 2200?

Who knows, with all the private jets and ability to buy passports, could/can be anywhere they want to be at any time.

Anyone that's worth 1 Billion in USD is one of the 2,200 that own as much wealth 4,000,000,000 people combined.

The mega rich might be better to describe anyone over say just 10 million.
Once you've got a couple of spare million to play anyway with the rest is just lucky trinklets.

The biggest issue is IHT (inheritance tax, avoided by the super wealthy using clever accounting, trust funds etc).

LeinsterDub

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

You should have been more asparational in life.

Ah well easier to blame someone else for your failure.

What failures? Do you have a million in wealth?

LeinsterDub

Shefwedfan wrote: »

So how many of them do we have? I’m just trying to work out what this will raise in money terms

We'd raise a fairer society. More money than we'd raise off trying to get blood from the poor. I'd imagine

4068ac1elhodqr

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

And?

And?

8 people == 50% of earth's population in wealth.

Maybe these lucky few (often wealth generated on the back of inherited tax-avoided wealth and privilege) should take even more, why not say 90% of the earth's wealth due to their elevated status, they're worth it.
The 8 dudes should all have statues made of them too (in every town) and be addressed as "sir richy rich, mega bucks", and a song too, like an anthem or something. Oh an a national holiday, that'd be sweet.

Shefwedfan

LeinsterDub wrote: »

We'd raise a fairer society. More money than we'd raise off trying to get blood from the poor. I'd imagine

Really?

We have a society at the moment that rewards the waster and screws the worker, you think that’s fair?

Shefwedfan

Remy Broad Cave wrote: »

And?

8 people == 50% of earth's population in wealth.

Maybe these lucky few (often wealth generated on the back of inherited tax-avoided wealth and privilege) should take even more, why not say 90% of the earth's wealth due to their elevated status, they're worth it.
The 8 dudes should all have statues made of them too (in every town) and be addressed as "sir richy rich, mega bucks", and a song too, like an anthem or something. Oh an a national holiday, that'd be sweet.

Unless they live in Ireland they are fairly useless in helping us

Jinglejangle69

Remy Broad Cave wrote: »

And?

8 people == 50% of earth's population in wealth.

Maybe these lucky few (often wealth generated on the back of inherited tax-avoided wealth and privilege) should take even more, why not say 90% of the earth's wealth due to their elevated status, they're worth it.
The 8 dudes should all have statues made of them too (in every town) and be addressed as "sir richy rich, mega bucks", and a song too, like an anthem or something. Oh an a national holiday, that'd be sweet.

Don't buy a phone or laptop so.

LeinsterDub

Shefwedfan wrote: »

Really?

We have a society at the moment that rewards the waster and screws the worker, you think that’s fair?

If only there was a third way

Geuze

LeinsterDub wrote: »

How many? Let's quanitify this problem shall we , how many people do you think never paid income tax or to put it an otherway never worked?

Ireland leads Europe in the number of people/households with VLWI, very low work intensity.

Geuze

Shefwedfan wrote: »

So how many of them do we have? I’m just trying to work out what this will raise in money terms

https://www.esri.ie/publications/scenarios-and-distributional-implications-of-a-household-wealth-tax-in-ireland-2

https://www.esri.ie/system/files/media/file-uploads/2018-08/OPEA167.pdf

Geuze

saabsaab wrote: »

We could bring in a once off tax on savings/shares/bonds above a certain level say 10k, say 10-15%? This would cover much of the covid expense and do less damage that a squeeze on spending.


They say that Irish savings/bonds are 200-300B. Could cover it.
Before anyone asks and it isn't relevant to the overall situation but it would hit me too.

A 10% tax on assets above 10k??

Nobody would ever agree to that.

Even the biggest supporters of wealth taxes would not agree.

LeinsterDub

Geuze wrote: »

Ireland leads Europe in the number of people/households with VLWI, very low work intensity.

I've never heard of this measure before. What is it

Junkyard Tom

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

A device invented and made by someome wealthy.

Nearly everything that ended up coming together in a Smartphone was either developed, or rapidly advanced, by means of public funding/research/activity.

you're a hypocrite.

You're clueless.

smurgen

I'd say we could broaden the tax base at the bottom of the min wage was increased. Then I'd have a vacant property tax also. Then I'd tax the net wealth of individuals that would be worked into along with income taxes like how they do in Luxembourg and Switzerland.

Geuze

LeinsterDub wrote: »

I've never heard hear of this measure before. What is it

It is the third way of measuring social exclusion, used by Eurostat.

Yes, the CSO don't really push it much.



https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Glossary:Persons_living_in_households_with_low_work_intensity


http://economic-incentives.blogspot.com/2017/11/very-low-work-intensity-by-household.html

antix80

Not replying to anyone but if I had modest wealth, say 2 million... And i got wind of a wealth tax but with exemptions for a principal private residence.. I'd sink my cash into my ppr. It would be my best egg. It would be my entertainment, A energy rated, and it would appreciate in value as other people with modest wealth would be looking for somewhere to sink their spare cash out of the clutches of revenue.
If I had more wealth and found there was an exemption for agricultural land, as there is in the UK, I'd invest in some of that.
And if I'd still more, I'd look at safe places for my funds that would benefit me yet remain free of tax.
Failing all of that.. I'd emigrate.

I just work too hard and pay too much income tax to have someone try to cream off my savings. I don't have kids but if I did and I worked hard for them, I wouldn't expect the government to take my money and give it to a druggie, immigrant, or single mum.

Geuze

antix80 wrote: »

Not replying to anyone but if I had modest wealth, say 2 million... And i got wind of a wealth tax but with exemptions for a principal private residence.. I'd sink my cash into my ppr. It would be my best egg. It would be my entertainment, A energy rated, and it would appreciate in value as other people with modest wealth would be looking for somewhere to sink their spare cash out of the clutches of revenue.
If I had more wealth and found there was an exemption for agricultural land, as there is in the UK, I'd invest in some of that.
And if I'd still more, I'd look at safe places for my funds that would benefit me yet remain free of tax.
Failing all of that.. I'd emigrate.

Yes, and these behavioural responses are some of the challenges in designing wealth taxes.

Junkyard Tom

Geuze wrote: »

Yes, and these behavioural responses are some of the challenges in designing wealth taxes.

It's a bit of a case of trying to shut the stable door after the cake has been eaten. Better to prevent wealth being squeezed up from the wider population to the 1% in the first place.

antix80

Geuze wrote: »

Yes, and these behavioural responses are some of the challenges in designing wealth taxes.

Do wealth taxes even exist? I read 3 European counties have them and looked up spain.. It seems the calculation of wealth tax is linked to income! So it's really an income tax, based on previous year's income!

And here's the thing.. It was introduced as a temporary measure, hung around a decade at least, went away, came back... Think its gone again. But if you think it's targeted at the ultra rich, well... It's just a tax for the insatiable government to play with, bribe people with, plug holes etc, massage unemployment numbers.

I'm not interested in more taxes.

Rodin

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

Property charges are a tax on wealth.

Look how that is accepted...

Sinn Féin reduce it by 20% in certain areas.

All egged on to be scrapped by the jealous socialists who hate wealth.

Ironic ay.

Property tax is a disgrace.
Owning a home is no reflection of how much money someone has or their income.

Rents in Dublin are higher than many people's mortgage payments.

antix80

Rodin wrote: »

Property tax is a disgrace.
Owning a home is no reflection of how much money someone has or their income.

It's not meant to be

If you have a property worth more than your income, you don't deserve it. And you should be taxed until you downsize and learn your place.

Plenty of people doing a long commute and laying silly commuting costs who would buy such a property if it came to market.

Sorry for the disjointed message.. Just trying to demonstrate why wealth taxes are bs.

Geuze

antix80 wrote: »

Do wealth taxes even exist? I read 3 European counties have them and looked up spain.. It seems the calculation of wealth tax is linked to income! So it's really an income tax, based on previous year's income!

There aren't many left, yes, as some countries have scrapped them.

Swiss case:

https://voxeu.org/article/wealth-taxation-swiss-experience


"Only three OECD nations still levy a wealth tax that covers real estate as well as financial wealth: Norway, Spain, and Switzerland."

https://voxeu.org/vox-talks/wealth-taxes

Geuze

Rodin wrote: »

Property tax is a disgrace.

Property taxes are the best of all taxes.

The best type is a Site Value Tax.

All of this is well established for the last 50-100 years.

Geuze

antix80 wrote: »

Do wealth taxes even exist? I read 3 European counties have them and looked up spain.. It seems the calculation of wealth tax is linked to income! So it's really an income tax, based on previous year's income!

https://www.rankia.com/blog/impuestos/2290610-tramos-impuesto-patrimonio-tipo-impositivo

The Spanish patrimono wealth tax seems to be based on net wealth?

Rodin

Geuze wrote: »

Property taxes are the best of all taxes.

The best type is a Site Value Tax.

All of this is well established for the last 50-100 years.

I don't agree in the slightest.
Why should someone pay a property tax ?

They paid income tax on their earnings.
They paid DIRT on their savings
They paid stamp duty on purchase.

Another tax isn't needed. And should the house go up in value that doesn't mean the purchaser has more money in their pocket.

I don't agree with it at all. And renters get away scot free.
This country would do better to look at its spending and stop looking to raid people's pockets. We pay enough tax.

Geuze

Rodin wrote: »

I don't agree in the slightest.
Why should someone pay a property tax ?

They paid income tax on their earnings.
They paid DIRT on their savings
They paid stamp duty on purchase.

Another tax isn't needed. And should the house go up in value that doesn't mean the purchaser has more money in their pocket.

I don't agree with it at all. And renters get away scot free.
This country would do better to look at its spending and stop looking to raid people's pockets. We pay enough tax.

Decades of research by economists and social scientists agree that property taxes are sensible.

This is why dozens and dozens of countries have property taxes.

They are typically used to finance local governments.

Think about it - you are suggesting that a century of decision-making by dozens and dozens of countries and their Governments are all wrong.

I suggest that if dozens of countries have introduced property taxes, and not, say, taxes on bananas, then there must be a rationale for that.

And there is.

There are many advantages to property taxes over other taxes.

Rodin

Geuze wrote: »

Decades of research by economists and social scientists agree that property taxes are sensible.

This is why dozens and dozens of countries have property taxes.

They are typically used to finance local governments.

Think about it - you are suggesting that a century of decision-making by dozens and dozens of countries and their Governments are all wrong.

I suggest that if dozens of countries have introduced property taxes, and not, say, taxes on bananas, then there must be a rationale for that.

And there is.

There are many advantages to property taxes over other taxes.

Well I think it's unfair. So there ya go.
Do those dozens of countries also have universal social charge and a low cut-off for high tax band? Is their social welfare as generous as it is here?

Too many taxes in this country.
Could start with cutting Christmas bonus. That's half the property tax gone right there.

Geuze

Rodin wrote: »

I don't agree in the slightest.
Why should someone pay a property tax ?

See section 2 here:

https://www.esri.ie/system/files?file=media/file-uploads/2015-07/EC011.pdf

Geuze

Rodin wrote: »

Do those dozens of countries also have universal social charge and a low cut-off for high tax band?

The top MTR starts at a low point in Ireland, yes.

Staring at approx 1x average earnings, approx 35-36k, is a very early starting point.

The solution is more rates/bands.

Rodin

Geuze wrote: »

See section 2 here:

https://www.esri.ie/system/files?file=media/file-uploads/2015-07/EC011.pdf

Awfully long winded
I'd cut the Christmas bonus and wouldnt be any social welfare increases for 5 years.
Wouldn't need the property tax then.
All a matter of personal philosophy...

Geuze

Rodin wrote: »

W
Too many taxes in this country.
Could start with cutting Christmas bonus. That's half the property tax gone right there.

The number of individual taxes is never really discussed in the research.

I suspect you mean the overall amount of tax?

Please note of course that overall taxes are not high in Ireland.

This is well established.

I often use the anecdote of my parents:

They pay 8-9% direct income taxes on 50k approx, and get:

two med cards
two FTP
free TV licence
35 pm off the elec

We have a very progressive income tax system, with low or zero taxes on many earners, yet the top MTR kicks in at 36k approx.

Crazy.

Geuze

Rodin wrote: »

I'd cut the Christmas bonus and wouldnt be any social welfare increases for 5 years.
...

Not politically possible.

Rodin

Geuze wrote: »

Not politically possible.

Christmas bonus was scrapped in the last recession.
Should go again. €265 million it cost last year. Scandalous.

And local authorities need more efficiencies. Not more cash. Shocking waste goes on in local authorities.

The old 5 men to dig a hole scenario is rampant.

Many households in the country right now are learning to cut costs because their income is insecure.
The country needs to do the same.

Only my opinion of course.

markodaly

KaneToad wrote: »

Of course inequality is exacerbated by inheritance. The rich stay rich. They access the better schools, the better universities, the better jobs. The cycle continues. The ability to become a successful entrepreneur is greatly assisted by having an interest free wad to get you going.

A quick glance at Ireland's successful business men:

JP McManus - began his career in family construction business.

Denis O'Brien - son of millionaire, personal assistant to Tony Ryan for a while

Michael O'Leary - son of millionaire, invited personally to work with Tony Ryan because he went to (expensive) boarding school with Ryan's kids

John Magnier - son of a millionaire land owner, had to leave education in (expensive) Glenstal abbey at 15 to manage family estate on death of father.

All of the above are very successful business men who undoubtedly work hard and smart. But we can't ignore the advantages that assisted them to get where there are.

One curiosity though, is Sean Quinn. Although recent events suggest that he had other assistance to get him to where he is.

As I said, its a nice narrative and all, but there is no evidence that society as a whole will get more equal if you go in hard on inheritance taxes.
As an example, Sweden has abolished inheritance taxes about 16 years ago.

markodaly

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Nearly everything that ended up coming together in a Smartphone was either developed, or rapidly advanced, by means of public funding/research/activity.



You're clueless.

That is like an advertisement for more military spending to be honest with you.

Junkyard Tom

markodaly wrote: »

That is like an advertisement for more military spending to be honest with you.

Check out where most of MIT's funding comes from and some of the technological advances that have come out of there.

declanflynn

Instead of trying to find a way of increasing our tax take we should look at how our taxes are spent(wasted)

lawred2

Rodin wrote: »

Christmas bonus was scrapped in the last recession.
Should go again. €265 million it cost last year. Scandalous.

And local authorities need more efficiencies. Not more cash. Shocking waste goes on in local authorities.

The old 5 men to dig a hole scenario is rampant.

Many households in the country right now are learning to cut costs because their income is insecure.
The country needs to do the same.

Only my opinion of course.

Realistically that entire Christmas bonus makes its way back into the economy. Very little if none of that is getting saved. Handy boon for retailers at Christmas time.

Idbatterim

lawred2 wrote: »

Realistically that entire Christmas bonus makes its way back into the economy. Very little if none of that is getting saved. Handy boon for retailers at Christmas time.

A joke of an argument, a joke! Let's increase it to two billion if so. Its getscwasted on ****e, alcohol, bookies, junk food, drugs etc. But sure ite only nearly 300,000,000 with a country with all areas as as well funded as here, who needs a few hundred million...

Christmas must come as a surprise to these people every year

Idbatterim

Rodin wrote: »

Well I think it's unfair. So there ya go.
Do those dozens of countries also have universal social charge and a low cut-off for high tax band? Is their social welfare as generous as it is here?

Too many taxes in this country.
Could start with cutting Christmas bonus. That's half the property tax gone right there.

I totally agree, but the rip offarginal rate exists, because basically there are no water charges, proper lpt etc. Basically if you arebt a worker, you shouldn't pay anything...

Idbatterim

Rodin wrote: »

Well I think it's unfair. So there ya go.
Do those dozens of countries also have universal social charge and a low cut-off for high tax band? Is their social welfare as generous as it is here?

Too many taxes in this country.
Could start with cutting Christmas bonus. That's half the property tax gone right there.

I totally agree, but the rip offarginal rate exists, because basically there are no water charges, proper lpt etc. Basically if you arebt a worker, you shouldn't pay anything...

lawred2

Idbatterim wrote: »

A joke of an argument, a joke! Let's increase it to two billion if so. Its getscwasted on ****e, alcohol, bookies, junk food, drugs etc. But sure ite only nearly 300,000,000 with a country with all areas as as well funded as here, who needs a few hundred million...

Christmas must come as a surprise to these people every year

Who's an angry boy.

Listen, I wouldn't pay it myself, but it does get recirculated around the economy.

Shefwedfan

LeinsterDub wrote: »

If only there was a third way

So what’s the 3rd way?

Shefwedfan

lawred2 wrote: »

Realistically that entire Christmas bonus makes its way back into the economy. Very little if none of that is getting saved. Handy boon for retailers at Christmas time.

So we had over 300 million of tax which goes into shops which are in the main owned by UK/European companies and the profit floods out to European regions

How is that good for the economy instead of let’s say giving 300 millions to builders, to build houses and buy materials in ireland? That’s a better investment

lawred2

Shefwedfan wrote: »

So we had over 300 million of tax which goes into shops which are in the main owned by UK/European companies and the profit floods out to European regions

How is that good for the economy instead of let’s say giving 300 millions to builders, to build houses and buy materials in ireland? That’s a better investment

Of course investing in infrastructure would be better.

Was there something I posted which claimed otherwise?

markodaly

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Check out where most of MIT's funding comes from and some of the technological advances that have come out of there.

Do you approve of military funding?

Shefwedfan

lawred2 wrote: »

Of course investing in infrastructure would be better.

Was there something I posted which claimed otherwise?

No but you seem to think spending 300 million on a Christmas piss up is good value for money.....personally I dont