Average V Median wage Ireland?

PintOfView

Eric Cartman wrote: »

50k isn't fantastic money and most professionals living in Cork City or Leinster would either be on that or expect to exceed that in their lifetimes , that tax regime makes finding quality professionals harder. If you set it to 100k you would have a lot more professional positions filled to make up the shortfall and a lot more people spending money in the economy rather than shoring it up in pension funds and other mechanisms to avoid paying tax on it now.

You're saying that if we increased the threshold to 100k we would have a lot more 'professionals' to pay tax, and they would make up the shortfall in tax revenue?
However, if they weren't earning over 100k they wouldn't be paying the higher rate of tax, so how would that make up the shortfall?
And what types of jobs, and how many, would you see are there for the additional professionals?

PintOfView

Geuze wrote: »

It is possible to re-design the PIT system, so that the top MTR does not start so low, while at the same time collecting more revenue.

Do you mean by putting up the threshold, and then increase the top rate of tax?

stefanovich

PintOfView wrote: »

You're saying that if we increased the threshold to 100k we would have a lot more 'professionals' to pay tax, and they would make up the shortfall in tax revenue?
However, if they weren't earning over 100k they wouldn't be paying the higher rate of tax, so how would that make up the shortfall?
And what types of jobs, and how many, would you see are there for the additional professionals?

Milton Friedman on "progressive" taxation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drVgpTfJYMQ

Sleepy

No matter whether you're using Median or Average, the figures are rather meaningless at a national level. Ireland is not one single economy: it's the aggregation of many smaller ones from that of the high income / high cost of living of the leafy suburbs of South Dublin to the low income / low cost of living of Donegal and all the shades between.

Your "average" couple of a teacher and a garda living in rural Mayo will likely have a far higher level of disposable income than that of a "high earning" household of a project manager and a software salesman living in Dun Laoghaoire.

Eric Cartman

Sleepy wrote: »

No matter whether you're using Median or Average, the figures are rather meaningless at a national level. Ireland is not one single economy: it's the aggregation of many smaller ones from that of the high income / high cost of living of the leafy suburbs of South Dublin to the low income / low cost of living of Donegal and all the shades between.

Your "average" couple of a teacher and a garda living in rural Mayo will likely have a far higher level of disposable income than that of a "high earning" household of a project manager and a software salesman living in Dun Laoghaoire.

absolutely this.

dual civil servant income households in rural Ireland are the most content, have the most buying power, are the most secure in the country. But the gross household income would barely have a single person in Dublin living comfortably. Especially since the chances of having thrown up a home on family land and owing a bank nothing by the time you're 40 is high.

Benedict

Geuze wrote: »

I have searched for this over the years.

It is on my mind to ask the CSO.

This data is in the Eurostat SES for Ireland, so why don't the CSO have it.

The only place I've found median earnings is here:

https://www.cso.ie/en/statistics/earnings/structuralearnings/

This is the first report:

https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/ep/p-eaads/earningsanalysisusingadministrativedatasources2018/


It provides earnings by decile and by sector.

Loads of data, but I don't see a PT/FT split.

Geuze, you sound like you really do know what you're talking about and even you can't find the median figure for full-time workers - and you've spent years searching apparently.


This is quite a revelation and throws light on why it is so easy for policy-makers to blur the distinction between average and median for full time workers.


We know that it is virtually impossible for average and median (in this context) to be the same but not having a definitive median figure for full time workers makes it difficult to advance a compelling argument against using the average while the median is what is required.

Not impossible, but difficult.

ELM327

People need to get away from "salary" as a concept and instead look at earnings.
A lot of medium to high earners are in MNC and in Finance, tech and pharma. These companies generally have great shares bonuses and ESPP.

For most of my team, they would get 25-75% of their salary on the top each year in stocks (especially those that are in the company 3-5 years) , either RSU or PSU, and others would have ESPP too.

The cso figures would detail in old fashioned terms income as per p60. All bonuses etc would be included... It'd be gross income/earnings.

PintOfView

stefanovich wrote: »

Milton Friedman on "progressive" taxation.

Thanks, very interesting.
(I might leave it at that as it's probably drifting off the current topic)

Geuze

Benedict wrote: »

Geuze, you sound like you really do know what you're talking about and even you can't find the median figure for full-time workers - and you've spent years searching apparently.

I also look at Eurostat SES:
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/labour-market/earnings/database


Here I have a figure for median FT earnings, but it is from 2014:

41,829

that is in the sector: Industry, construction and services (except public administration, defense, compulsory social security)

That seems to be my best figure: 41,829 in 2014 for median annual earnings of FT workers.

Note: Ireland is blank for 2018.

Geuze

I am playing around with the Eurostat Data Explorer, and I see this:

EARN_SES_MONTHLY

Monthly earnings from the SES 2018

Sectors are [B-S_X_O] Industry, construction and services (except public administration, defense, compulsory social security)

All workers = 3,021 = 36,252 pa

FT workers = 3,249 = 38,988


I mentioned this yesterday, something is odd here, median earnings seem to be falling......between 2014 and 2018???..................??????

beggars_bush

Are those on the dole included in median earnings?

Laura2021

Eric Cartman wrote: »

50k isn't fantastic money and most professionals living in Cork City or Leinster would either be on that or expect to exceed that in their lifetimes ,





There are alot of people no where near 50k, I would say it's a good salary depending on the job of course long hours pressure environment taking work home with you then no it's not. when you break it down after tax its 3,066 a month.
€766.5

Compared to someone on 70k
€981 a week

Geuze

beggars_bush wrote: »

Are those on the dole included in median earnings?

No.

Earnings is from working.

Incomes are not the same as earnings, as I have said over and over.

Income data is in the SILC.

Peregrinus

It seems to me that the dataset that would be most useful in identifying median earnings is tax returns (from individuals) and PAYE returns (from employers). That gives you extremely detailed information for virtually every adult in the country, you can separate earned income from unearned income, etc. But, obviously, confidentiality and rules about what is or is not proper use of tax information is a big deal, so I don't know to what extent that dataset is actually used for purposes like this. Plus, it wouldn't, I think, distinguish full-time workers from part-time workers.

Benedict

Peregrinus wrote: »

It seems to me that the dataset that would be most useful in identifying median earnings is tax returns (from individuals) and PAYE returns (from employers). That gives you extremely detailed information for virtually every adult in the country, you can separate earned income from unearned income, etc. But, obviously, confidentiality and rules about what is or is not proper use of tax information is a big deal, so I don't know to what extent that dataset is actually used for purposes like this. Plus, it wouldn't, I think, distinguish full-time workers from part-time workers.

When Leo (or someone in a similar position) stands up and announces that the "average wage for an FT worker is almost 49k", I feel sure that the vast majority think this means MOST FT workers (ftw) are earning that amount at least.


And that simply is not true!



We discover what MOST ftw are getting by referring to the median - and if this thread has shown anything it has shown that the median figure for ftw is not available - even from CSO.



But it sure as hell isn't 49k pa!

mariaalice

Ireland is a wealthy country of that there is no doubt, its more visceral than that though individual and couple don't feel wealthy. The statistics may say as a couple with an income from employment of over 100k between them are in the top 10% of PAYE works but as I said they do not feel well off.

Benedict

Benedict wrote: »

When Leo (or someone in a similar position) stands up and announces that the "average wage for an FT worker is almost 49k", I feel sure that the vast majority think this means MOST FT workers (ftw) are earning that amount at least.


...............

Only a thick would think that the least folk earn is the average.

Eric Cartman

Laura2021 wrote: »

There are alot of people no where near 50k, I would say it's a good salary depending on the job of course long hours pressure environment taking work home with you then no it's not. when you break it down after tax its 3,066 a month.
€766.5

Compared to someone on 70k
€981 a week

There are a lot on under 50k, it doesn't mean 50k is high and should incur the higher bracket tax though. Even by your own figures somebody on 70k vs 50 is only 200 a week better off , somebody on 70k a year should be coming home with 1100 + a week

Wanderer78

mariaalice wrote: »

Ireland is a wealthy country of that there is no doubt, its more visceral than that though individual and couple don't feel wealthy. The statistics may say as a couple with an income from employment of over 100k between them are in the top 10% of PAYE works but as I said they do not feel well off.

ireland certainly has become wealthier over the last few decades, but similar to other developed countries, this wealth is becoming more concentrated, thats not good for all of us, including these wealthier individuals. we keep repeating the same mistakes, particularly in relation to property and land, we continue to encourage and facilitate policies to maintain ever growing property and land prices, we cant keep doing this!

stefanovich

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

Out of interest would you have any factual evidence to back this assertion? Ireland has one of the most progressive taxation systems in world it seems.

I posted a video earlier which I doubt anyone watched. It's Milton Friedman talking about "progressive" taxation.

Like everything it seems, it's a bit of a scam where the middle pay for everything.

You need to look at the effective tax people pay. The middle class paye earner has no way of avoiding tax. The very wealthy take advantage of tax loop holes - get their income from investments / property etc.

He asks the question - if you abolish all tax loopholes and have a flat tax across the board - what rate would you need to keep the tax take at the same level as this so called progressive system.

Turns out - at the time in the US at least - that that number was 17% if I remember correctly.

It would be very interesting to do the same calculation for Ireland.

At the moment low income earners pay little tax if any.
The middle pay a lot.
The very rich pay little.

It is sold as some kind of fair taxation when in reality it is pitting the low against the middle for the benefit of the very rich.


Self employed are a strange category - I know of many who massively underreport their income.

Peregrinus

Benedict wrote: »

When Leo (or someone in a similar position) stands up and announces that the "average wage for an FT worker is almost 49k", I feel sure that the vast majority think this means MOST FT workers (ftw) are earning that amount at least.

I doubt that. At worst, most people might think that half of FT workers earn more than that amount, and half earn less. That's what most people think "average" usually means. In fact, that's the figure you think Varadkar should have given, isn't it?

Cyrus

stefanovich wrote: »

I posted a video earlier which I doubt anyone watched. It's Milton Friedman talking about "progressive" taxation.

Like everything it seems, it's a bit of a scam where the middle pay for everything.

You need to look at the effective tax people pay. The middle class paye earner has no way of avoiding tax. The very wealthy take advantage of tax loop holes - get their income from investments / property etc.

He asks the question - if you abolish all tax loopholes and have a flat tax across the board - what rate would you need to keep the tax take at the same level as this so called progressive system.

Turns out - at the time in the US at least - that that number was 17% if I remember correctly.

It would be very interesting to do the same calculation for Ireland.

At the moment low income earners pay little tax if any.
The middle pay a lot.
The very rich pay little.

It is sold as some kind of fair taxation when in reality it is pitting the low against the middle for the benefit of the very rich.


Self employed are a strange category - I know of many who massively underreport their income.

i remember re nua ran on an economic platform advocating a flat tax, they got no traction.

in reality it makes a lot of sense and removes the disincentive for progression that exists at the crossover between between the low and high rate.

stefanovich

stefanovich wrote: »

I posted a video earlier which I doubt anyone watched. It's Milton Friedman talking about "progressive" taxation.

Like everything it seems, it's a bit of a scam where the middle pay for everything.

You need to look at the effective tax people pay. The middle class paye earner has no way of avoiding tax. The very wealthy take advantage of tax loop holes - get their income from investments / property etc.

He asks the question - if you abolish all tax loopholes and have a flat tax across the board - what rate would you need to keep the tax take at the same level as this so called progressive system.

Turns out - at the time in the US at least - that that number was 17% if I remember correctly.

It would be very interesting to do the same calculation for Ireland.

At the moment low income earners pay little tax if any.
The middle pay a lot.
The very rich pay little.

It is sold as some kind of fair taxation when in reality it is pitting the low against the middle for the benefit of the very rich.


Self employed are a strange category - I know of many who massively underreport their income.

Wealth transfer under a progressive system.

LOW <---- MIDDLE

---

> HIGH

Oh - and it also operates as a way of increasing your tax burden over time by default. Your wages increase along with inflation but the tax bands don't change.
Your buying power by default is dropping.

stefanovich

Cyrus wrote: »

i remember re nua ran on an economic platform advocating a flat tax, they got no traction.

in reality it makes a lot of sense and removes the disincentive for progression that exists at the crossover between between the low and high rate.

Also the lack of complexity makes everyone's like easier. Might put accountants and revenue workers out of a job. Maybe they could do something useful instead.

Wanderer78

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

Out of interest would you have any factual evidence to back this assertion? Ireland has one of the most progressive taxation systems in world it seems.

havent properly used this site yet, but...

https://wid.world/country/ireland/

Cyrus wrote: »

i remember re nua ran on an economic platform advocating a flat tax, they got no traction.

in reality it makes a lot of sense and removes the disincentive for progression that exists at the crossover between between the low and high rate.

flat taxes have been tried in other countries, they largely failed in trying to deal with rising inequality, those that could afford to avoid it, did, economist Michael Hudson has done work on this

stefanovich

Wanderer78 wrote: »

havent properly used this site yet, but...

https://wid.world/country/ireland/



flat taxes have been tried in other countries, they largely failed in trying to deal with rising inequality, those that could afford to avoid it, did, economist Michael Hudson has done work on this

Ah - look at Russia. They INCREASED their tax take with flat taxation. Removes the incentive to move money out of the country and use loopholes.

Wanderer78

stefanovich wrote: »

Ah - look at Russia. They INCREASED their tax take with flat taxation. Removes the incentive to move money out of the country and use loopholes.

...and im sure its worked wonders with reducing inequality within its borders....

stefanovich

Wanderer78 wrote: »

...and im sure its worked wonders with reducing inequality within its borders....

How much money you take in and what you spend it on are different things right?

If you increase your tax take and you have a good government then won't everyone benefit if it is used equitably?

Wanderer78

stefanovich wrote: »

How much money you take in and what you spend it on are different things right?

If you increase your tax take and you have a good government then won't everyone benefit if it is used equitably?

its everything, increasing the size of the pie doesnt necessarily mean everyone's bit gets bigger, if you dont try share out those individual bits more, everyones securities become undermined, including the wealthy, the uk and the us are perfect examples of this