Let's take a moment to talk about taxation

relax carry on

Eric Cartman wrote: »

https://www.oecd.org/tax/revenue-statistics-ireland.pdf


Irelands income and corporate taxes are much higher than the OECD average.
for 2018 we took in 22.9 billion in personal income tax alone plus another 12 billion in PRSI & USC (USC makes up 4 billion of this from : https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/plan-to-merge-usc-and-prsi-could-shrink-tax-revenue-by-1bn-plus-report-warns-1.4044322). If we halved income tax receipts (working that out to a higher threshold percentage etc.. isn't going to happen, there would be hours of work in calculating that so we're just going to half the take) and we're going to abolish USC

so thats 11.5 billion in income tax and 4 billion of USC evaporated , 15.5 billion in tax revenues gone back to the people who earned it.

now for savings :
also taking 2018 to make sure everything lines up, only talking about what we'd cut, by categories on the site :

Social Protection :
Working aged income supports -
JSA - 1.84 billion - abolish it completely saving 1.84 billion
One Parent family allowance - half saving 250 million
Working age employment supports - Community employment program - 353 million
Disability allowance - solve the fraud which we'll estimate at 25% - 400 million
Child benefit - convert to a tax credit which is factored for in the reduction - 2.1 billion
Rent supplement - 175 million
free travel - no more working aged non disabled - 87 million halved to save 43.5 million

Savings so far : 5.16 billion

Health :
Admin Sallaries- 30 million , based on that 4 health boards were made 1 we'll assume its overstaffed by 66% so we cut out 2/3rds - 20 million
We spend 10.7 billion on the HSE, it doesn't break it down too well but lets assume we can make a 10% saving and get a cool billion out - 1 billion

Savings so far : 6.18 billion

Justice :
456 million on 'justice and equality' most of the crap in there is nothing to do with justice - save 300 million

Savings so far : 6.48 billion

Agriculture
Policy and strategy - 370 million of which most of it is grants and hogwash - 300 million savings

Savings so far : 6.78 billion

Debt Servicing and EU payments :

2.58 billion to the EU - Half it saving 1.28 billion
1.41 billion in non voted expenditure - cut 1 billion of it

Savings so far : 9.06 billion

Transport :

Public service provision payment - 296 million - cut it all
Tourism Ireland - 15 million - cut it all let failte do it

Savings so far : 9.38 billion

Other :

Foreign affairs - 743 million of which 50 million is relevant to irelands economic growth - saving 693 million
Broadcasting - 253 million , I think thats all for RTE, cull it all.
culture, heratige and Gaeltacht - cut 50 million out of all those quangos
Housing - 1.98 billion , drop it to 1 billion
Finance - collection of taxes and duties - 425 mil, half it, 212.5 million

savings : 12.33 billion total.

so we could scrap USC completely and get most of the way to halfing our income tax take , making the working people of Ireland much happier, and making us a better nation.

You've basically listed a load of things you don't like with zero consideration for the impact of your "savings". Considering the themes of your posts over the years, your plan as outlined is not exactly surprising.

Marcusm

Give back 12bn, great idea. Not sure if you have seen the 2020 numbers but we were at a 20bn deficit! No more 12bn to give back (and yes I am being completely simplistic). If you want the tax reduction to generate further income in the country then you need to target it. The buoy of Irish taxpayers pay little tax and would not receive very much. Of those who do receive significant amounts (including me) they would be much more likely to spend it on imported goods (increased VAT possibly but no economic multiplier effect), savings (no multiplier effect), more housing or more expensive housing and other non-Irish things (holidays, foreign homes etc). It would not have effect you intent.

Now if you used the 12bn to issue a cheque to everyone in the country, a greater portion would be spent int he domestic economy.

sameoldname

Eric Cartman wrote: »

I knew eventually somebody would blame/bring up America.

Ronald Raegans america was its greatest time, deregulation and low taxation.

Ireland would do well to be more like america than Sweden anyway thats for sure. Not that it should be like either.

Jesus... The US over Sweden as a country to aspire to. That's frankly depressing but unsurprising. Luckily, most of the Irish population disagrees with you.

As for thinking highly of Reagan, one of the reasons your taxes are so high is because of deregulation and the money this country had to borrow due to the repercussions of it.

sameoldname

Marcusm wrote: »

Give back 12bn, great idea. Not sure if you have seen the 2020 numbers but we were at a 20bn deficit! No more 12bn to give back (and yes I am being completely simplistic). If you want the tax reduction to generate further income in the country then you need to target it. The buoy of Irish taxpayers pay little tax and would not receive very much. Of those who do receive significant amounts (including me) they would be much more likely to spend it on imported goods (increased VAT possibly but no economic multiplier effect), savings (no multiplier effect), more housing or more expensive housing and other non-Irish things (holidays, foreign homes etc). It would not have effect you intent.

Now if you used the 12bn to issue a cheque to everyone in the country, a greater portion would be spent int he domestic economy.

It's not about growing the economy, it's about rewarding himself and punishing others. Not necessarily in that order.

Eric Cartman

sameoldname wrote: »

It's not about growing the economy, it's about rewarding himself and punishing others. Not necessarily in that order.

keeping money I earned is not a reward, not looking after those who have never worked or those in foreign countries cradle to grave is not 'punishing others'

Your disdain for the plight of the workers for the undeserved benefit of those who do not contribute is insane.

sameoldname

Eric Cartman wrote: »

keeping money I earned is not a reward, not looking after those who have never worked or those in foreign countries cradle to grave is not 'punishing others'

Your disdain for the plight of the workers for the undeserved benefit of those who do not contribute is insane.

I hate to break this to you but I don't care about you and I don't care about them. I care about what is good for this country as a whole both economically and socially. If giving people money out of my taxes to sit on their arse for their entire lives is shown to be good for society as a whole then I am more than happy to do it. Even if it rubs me up the wrong way a lot of the time.

The Irish system may not be brilliant but it's pretty effective at keeping people out of total poverty and providing protection for all its citizens. Your proposed system is basically dystopian. I can only assume you're either arguing from a position of complete privilege or total ignorance, doesn't really matter which one.

Now, if you can show me where tax cuts to the better off in society will help the nation as a whole I'd be more than willing to entertain it but I'm not going to listen to some hateful individual moaning about his plight in having to pay taxes while suggesting that people should be made homeless and starve so he can have more.

Eric Cartman

sameoldname wrote: »

I hate to break this to you but I don't care about you and I don't care about them. I care about what is good for this country as a whole both economically and socially. If giving people money out of my taxes to sit on their arse for their entire lives is shown to be good for society as a whole then I am more than happy to do it. Even if it rubs me up the wrong way a lot of the time.

The Irish system may not be brilliant but it's pretty effective at keeping people out of total poverty and providing protection for all its citizens. Your proposed system is basically dystopian. I can only assume you're either arguing from a position of complete privilege or total ignorance, doesn't really matter which one.

Now, if you can show me where tax cuts to the better off in society will help the nation as a whole I'd be more than willing to entertain it but I'm not going to listen to some hateful individual moaning about his plight in having to pay taxes while suggesting that people should be made homeless and starve so he can have more.

where has anyone shown evidence that providing for that does good. I understand the good of a safety net like JSB for those who worked and have lost their job, but please show me where un-earned welfare has been proven to be better for society.

sameoldname

Eric Cartman wrote: »

where has anyone shown evidence that providing for that does good. I understand the good of a safety net like JSB for those who worked and have lost their job, but please show me where un-earned welfare has been proven to be better for society.

I never said it did, I said "if it is shown" not "it has been shown".

Eric Cartman

sameoldname wrote: »

I never said it did, I said "if it is shown" not "it has been shown".

ok so you're currently happy with the state wasting billions of euro without showing any benefit ?

sameoldname

Eric Cartman wrote: »

ok so you're currently happy with the state wasting billions of euro without showing any benefit ?

I'm not happy about it but it wouldn't be my main concern either. We spend 4 billion a year on servicing our debt load and yet before and no doubt after the pandemic the Irish people as a whole showed no interest in paying it down. I'd consider that far more of a waste seeing as the money goes straight out of the economy unlike social welfare. Why wasn't that in your list?

Mr Meanor

Eric Cartman wrote: »

where has anyone shown evidence that providing for that does good. I understand the good of a safety net like JSB for those who worked and have lost their job, but please show me where un-earned welfare has been proven to be better for society.

Have a good read of this from New Zealand regarding Tax, who is actually paying and who is consuming the Tax money
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2375926
It's from 2010, read the papers conclusions, noticed nobody shouting about it.

sameoldname

Mr Meanor wrote: »

Have a good read of this from New Zealand regarding Tax, who is actually paying and who is consuming the Tax money
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2375926
It's from 2010, read the papers conclusions, noticed nobody shouting about it.

For anyone who couldn't be bothered to read it:

Working age men pay more tax and consume less services than women because of higher wage rates and higher workplace participation rates.
Children and the elderly are net recipients of social services.
Most elderly people are women.

TLDR: Women have children and live longer.

What has that got to do with what he asked?

Eric Cartman

Mr Meanor wrote: »

Have a good read of this from New Zealand regarding Tax, who is actually paying and who is consuming the Tax money
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2375926
It's from 2010, read the papers conclusions, noticed nobody shouting about it.

The only thing im getting from that is a graph (which is obviously based on the lifecycle of people into retirement age as of 2010 is that women are pretty much net detractors from the economy for most of their lives.

However the report does correctly state that dropping fertility rates and increased workplace participation is changing that, id be interested to see a 2030 copy of that same report to see, as id imagine, if women have come up to pulling their economic weight as it were

ELM327

Eric Cartman wrote: »

I knew eventually somebody would blame/bring up America.

Ronald Raegans america was its greatest time, deregulation and low taxation.

Ireland would do well to be more like america than Sweden anyway thats for sure. Not that it should be like either.

Unfortunately we are the worst of both worlds. Sweden's ridiculous taxation with America's public services.


You probably know my opinions on the subject but for the avoidance of doubt, of course as a capitalist we should aspire to the US model.

Geuze

Eric Cartman wrote: »

https://www.oecd.org/tax/revenue-statistics-ireland.pdf


Irelands income and corporate taxes are much higher than the OECD average.

BE CAREFUL.

The graph does not lead to the statement made.

The chart shows the breakdown or decomposition of tax revenues.

It does not show the level of tax.

Income taxes (PIT) and corporate taxes (CIT) are a high share of tax revenue in Ireland due to the huge CIT revenues of recent years.

Although our main CIT rate is low at 12.5%, our CIT revenues are strong.

Eric Cartman

Geuze wrote: »

BE CAREFUL.

The graph does not lead to the statement made.

The chart shows the breakdown or decomposition of tax revenues.

It does not show the level of tax.

Income taxes (PIT) and corporate taxes (CIT) are a high share of tax revenue in Ireland due to the huge CIT revenues of recent years.

Although our main CIT rate is low at 12.5%, our CIT revenues are strong.

Take a look at the full document, Pit is about twice what Cit is to Ireland, my figures sre based on personal only

Geuze

sameoldname wrote: »

I care about what is good for this country as a whole both economically and socially. If giving people money out of my taxes to sit on their arse for their entire lives is shown to be good for society as a whole then I am more than happy to do it.

It is not good for the people themselves, and it is not good for society.

I think even the PBP would agree with that.

Indeed, a true socialist would never want people staying on long-term welfare.

Eric Cartman

Geuze wrote: »

It is not good for the people themselves, and it is not good for society.

I think even the PBP would agree with that.

Indeed, a true socialist would never want people staying on long-term welfare.

I tend to find its a large issue with many socialists perceptions. They seem to think socialism means they get to go study art and sit by a river painting pictures all day or they all get to be philosophers, and the hard work will be done by others, not that theyd be down a coal mine or making ironing boards in a factory 8-10 hours a day

sameoldname

Geuze wrote: »

It is not good for the people themselves, and it is not good for society.

I think even the PBP would agree with that.

Indeed, a true socialist would never want people staying on long-term welfare.

I don't care about ideological purity, I care about what works. If you can show me a real world example of how to deal with it that leads to a better and stable society then I'm all ears?

Some people will never work a job in their lives even if you pointed a gun in their face. You can take their dole off them and they'll find other ways of surviving but it won't be through gainful employment. Any system needs to take that into account. Even Renua would agree with that, for whatever that matters?

Eric Cartman

sameoldname wrote: »

I don't care about ideological purity, I care about what works. If you can show me a real world example of how to deal with it that leads to a better and stable society then I'm all ears?

Some people will never work a job in their lives even if you pointed a gun in their face. You can take their dole off them and they'll find other ways of surviving but it won't be through gainful employment. Any system needs to take that into account. Even Renua would agree with that, for whatever that matters?

And how you solve that is by taking a robust crime control model to law enforcement and locking those people up if they decide to go for criminality as their path

sameoldname

Eric Cartman wrote: »

And how you solve that is by taking a robust crime control model to law enforcement and locking those people up if they decide to go for criminality as their path

Any real world example?

paw patrol

sameoldname wrote: »

The deceased doesn't pay anything, the recipient may have to depending on the amount and relation to the deceased. This was covered a few pages back.

sameoldname wrote: »

But it isn't a tax on the deceased, it only gets taxed after it becomes someone else's money. There are methods of ensuring you pay zero taxes on passing on any assets after death eg; spreading it around among multiple people to stay within the tax free limits or even giving any amount to charity.

I can understand why you feel the way you feel but from a societal point of view, somebody passing on a large amount of money to another individual does practically nothing for the country.

you both are splitting hairs here and being purposely obtuse.

it is immoral to have somebody pay tax on income (and assets) then on death that money gets taxed again. There is no basis for this only greed.
sure there are methods to reduce or avoid the tax but there should be no need for this. If I work hard and have some luck I should upon death be able to give my kin (or chosen one) the best headstart with my money.
not fund some gibsh1te quango

Geuze

sameoldname wrote: »

I don't care about ideological purity, I care about what works. If you can show me a real world example of how to deal with it that leads to a better and stable society then I'm all ears?

Some people will never work a job in their lives even if you pointed a gun in their face. You can take their dole off them and they'll find other ways of surviving but it won't be through gainful employment. Any system needs to take that into account. Even Renua would agree with that, for whatever that matters?

Real world example = DK, SE

Generous short-term unemployment payments BUT low long-term unemployment rates, as people expected to engage with Active Labour Market Policies (ALMPs)

sameoldname

paw patrol wrote: »

you both are splitting hairs here and being purposely obtuse.

it is immoral to have somebody pay tax on income (and assets) then on death that money gets taxed again. There is no basis for this only greed.
sure there are methods to reduce or avoid the tax but there should be no need for this. If I work hard and have some luck I should upon death be able to give my kin (or chosen one) the best headstart with my money.
not fund some gibsh1te quango

How are the two of me being obtuse? Taxes on inheritance are the norm in the developed world. It can be just as easily argued that no taxes on inherited wealth is just as "immoral" if not more so.

Geuze

paw patrol wrote: »

it is immoral to have somebody pay tax on income (and assets) then on death that money gets taxed again. There is no basis for this only greed.
sure there are methods to reduce or avoid the tax but there should be no need for this. If I work hard and have some luck I should upon death be able to give my kin (or chosen one) the best headstart with my money.
not fund some gibsh1te quango

I must say, CAT seems to be the tax that provokes the strongest opinions.

Some people call for zero CAT.

Others call for a 100% CAT.

sameoldname

Geuze wrote: »

Real world example = DK, SE

Generous short-term unemployment payments BUT low long-term unemployment rates, as people expected to engage with Active Labour Market Policies (ALMPs)

Two of highest taxed countries on earth for good measure. I'd certainly favour that system over what Eric is suggesting because it seems to work and work for all.

blanch152

Geuze wrote: »

I must say, CAT seems to be the tax that provokes the strongest opinions.

Some people call for zero CAT.

Others call for a 100% CAT.

I don't understand it. CAT is a necessary tax for a society of equals. Otherwise, the elite can keep maintaining wealth from generation to generation and prevent others from acquiring it.

I much prefer taxation on unearned income and on wealth rather than taxes on earned income.

sameoldname

Geuze wrote: »

I must say, CAT seems to be the tax that provokes the strongest opinions.

Some people call for zero CAT.

Others call for a 100% CAT.

People view it as double taxation even though it isn't. I don't know anyone who favours 100% mind.

blanch152

Geuze wrote: »

Real world example = DK, SE

Generous short-term unemployment payments BUT low long-term unemployment rates, as people expected to engage with Active Labour Market Policies (ALMPs)

There are people in Ireland who believe that life-long entitlement to state handouts is a right.

ELM327

sameoldname wrote: »

Two of highest taxed countries on earth for good measure. I'd certainly favour that system over what Eric is suggesting because it seems to work and work for all.

Except those that fund it.