ESRI says we need more "progressive" taxes lol

Fred Cryton

Mules wrote: »

In most welfare states people on low incomes pay a fair whack of tax because the idea is that public services are for all and you can't have some people not contributing at.
Social welfare is taxed and isn't open ended so people on low incomes won't just transfer to social welfare to avoid tax.

This is the nub of the issue. The Irish are an infantile race. They expect "someone else" to pay.

fliball123

RulesOfNature wrote: »

Yep. My peers who graduated in 2020/21 are leaving for Portugal, USA, Australia and even the UK. Engineers, computer scientists, top notch intellectuals. There's f*ck all incentive to stay here. I'm headed to Berlin myself in 3 months, and taking all my money with me.

Yeah its going to even more serious as the younger crew cant get a property and I cant blame them for running and the older crew who have a property are being taxed into oblivion for working and the government dont seem to have the understanding of the new way of working for a lot of jobs that use computers are now mobile and we don't need to live here to actually do work for a company who is based here. So literally multinationals can gain from the corporation tax and the worker can be based in Spain who will benefit from the income tax.

Fred Cryton

Fred Cryton wrote: »

This is the nub of the issue. The Irish are an infantile race. They expect "someone else" to pay.

If there is ever an example of someone not worth listening to it is someone who is Irish who uses the term "The Irish" in a derogatory manner.

The Irish are paying for some people Irish people on social welfare. The high taxed Irish are paying the bulk of Income tax.

Also low paid workers pay VAT, which is a fairly high revenue take, and excise taxes.

fliball123

fliball123 wrote: »

So literally multinationals can gain from the corporation tax and the worker can be based in Spain who will benefit from the income tax.

Not really, not long term as a permanent employee. That said Amazon and the others might set up companies across Europe for lower wages, if corporation tax is lowered.

Ubbquittious

sunshine2018 wrote: »

Property tax has got to be the most unfair tax - I’ve already paid tax on the money I used to buy the house
Just because the value of my house had gone up due to supply and demand it does not mean I am earning any more money. Nothing ‘progressive ‘ about it ! Your private principal residence should be exempt from property tax

I concur

Geuze

Mules wrote: »

In many EU countries with public healthcare systems everyone has to pay a small amount of insurance towards it every year. People don't get things for free and there isnt the sense of entitlement that some people have here.

Yes, in France, GP fee is 25.

Most people have public insurance that covers 70% of cost.

So everybody, even low earners pay 7.50.

fliball123

Deleted User wrote: »

Tax is socialism at work. You pay your 20% or whatever, along with everyone else, and that money goes into a pot to pay for everything. Whether you use it or not, you contribute towards the funding for it.

How can you be deeply anti-socialist while championing the payment of taxes at the same time? Its like saying you're a devout vegetarian but eat sausages and rashers at the weekend. It just doesn't make sense.


You have not answered the questions either. If you are such a deep anti-socialist, do you refuse to use the infrastructure, policies and services provided through socialism? Or are you just saying "anti-socialist" because it sounds good in your head?

You cant call it socialism when you have to pay again for a lot of the services your tax goes to pay to allow others get them for free. I would be off the opinion you pay your taxes and a % follows the person who pays it and the rest can go for the greater good. I dont see why people should be paying for others to have certain services and not be able to afford this service themselves. Services like GPs

Geuze

tjhook wrote: »

Pensions is an interesting topic. There is a divide between private and public sector, but it's not as simple as it appears.

There are rumblings that tax relief on pension contributions will be removed/reduced in the coming years. Of course this only would only affect the private sector.

Why?

All workers get tax relief on pension conts, including public servants.

B2021M

Ubbquittious wrote: »

I concur

Do you think people should have to pay capital gains tax when they make profit on money they have already earned and paid tax on?

Geuze

tjhook wrote: »

On the other extreme, newer entrants to the public sector receive a pension based on average earnings over their career. That's a less beneficial arrangement - especially when you consider the deductions they have towards those pensions. And their final pension will be inclusive of the state contributory pension (not on top of it). So for a public sector employee on modest pay, their pension might be little more than the state contributory pension, and they won't receive the state contributary pension on top of it. And that's after having a pension deduction from their paycheque throughout their whole career.

You are correct that if a PS has a low salary, say 26k, then they will get the State Pension, and zero work pension.

However, they will get a pension lump-sum.

Their pension contributions are lower, due to getting less benefits.

Also, the PRD/ASC now starts at 32/34k, so they would pay zero ASC.

Geuze

tjhook wrote: »

Pensions is an interesting topic. There is a divide between private and public sector, but it's not as simple as it appears.

And I could be mistaken, but I think I heard that the public sector pension deduction continues to be taken from their pension after they've retired?

No, the PRD/ASC is not applied to pensions in payment.

You may be thinking of the PSPR.

yes there

LillySV wrote: »

Rates are worse now for public sector than they were in 2008... go learn abit before ya open your mouth ... and the boys you need to go for are the self employed and business people in the country ... can claim everything against their business ... pay feck all back ... as evidenced last year when social protection eventually linked the 350 payment to those who had earned over 300 a week... lots of self employed people’s pup rates went down and they were furious ...as they all claim they are only earning 7-8k max ... while living in mansions and driving 2021 q7s and x5s

There is an element of truth to this but why should they be penalised. They are using the system so fair play, they should be introducing mechanims for us who pay the most into the system to get some relief out of it.


I have a few friends who are self employed. Me and one of them were discussing tax paid last year and he couldnt believe the tax i paid. I was no better of than them guys and I earned 1/3 more. Now i dont begrudge the guys anything, im all for it and i would be doing the same in their shoes. But it would be nice if the government decided to do some things for us who contribute the most instead of introducing policies that take and waste more of our money.

I believe in contributing to society, i gained from low fees in school and college out of it. I had a medical card and those things. But if they plan on taking anymore money via increased income tax it will force me and people like me out of the country.

People who say those who earn more should pay more. In my mind those people are cretins who likely are the same people crying about inequality. Everyone should pay, in proportion and fairly. That means people who earn more pay more anyway. It should be people who earn ess should start paying. After all its people like me who are enabling you to get these supports.

tjhook

tjhook wrote: »

I'm pretty sure the plan is to do both. If you force everybody into paying for a pension, then you don't need to incentivise it with tax reliefs.

That sounds like political suicide. Hard pressed Renters and mortgage payers will take a hit to their take home pay. No tax relief would make it worse.

Our leaders are being dishonest with us. They suggest the answer to the pensions problem is to have everybody contribute to a private pension. But how would that reduce the cost to the state? It wouldn't, by itself. The way it would work is that the state would cut off (or reduce) the state contributory pension for those with their own pensions. They're not telling us that though.

Edit: Did you know that to build up a pension fund large enough to provide a pension equivalent to the state pension, you'd need over €300,000?

Yes. I did know something like that. You might be right in thinking they want to reduce the state pension for private sector workers by forcing a private pension, the returns on which night be even worse than you say in the future.

So in the future having saved 300k in pensions (without relief) somebody just gets the equivalent of the state pension from that. Meanwhile public sector pensions are rolling in it income wise and retiring earlier. none of this will be popular.

I still don’t get the need for the reduction in tax relief.

fliball123

Cheerful S wrote: »

There a big variation regards incomes between people. Someone on 142,000 a year, still take home net pay 80,0000 even when taxed at 42 percent. That's still a lot of income to finance a very comfortable luxury lifestyle.. Everybody pretty much works the same hours on average and everybody gives up there time to earn. I think its a bit unfair to go after workers earning 20,000 a year and ask them to pay more tax. Disposable Income for livelihood needs to be recognized here. Things don't change when society accepts class differences.

Obviously everyone working should pay taxes but it needs to be fair based on your employment wage. There a massive problem in this country lower earners enter the 42 percent tax bracket when the go past a certain threshold in income. The government does not take into account that low earners work extra hours to have slightly more pay. Since income already low, that tax on overtime will be felt much more.

Save billions if a full audit of everything was carried out. Was looking at some of the waste.

There a section with 51 million spend "Supporting the Taoiseach work and government". What does he do over 365 days that would cost 51 million a year?

But why should they be taxed more. If someone is earning that amount it means they have either educated themselves to get to this high standard, or progressed via hard work over time or they have made some kind of financial risk to be earning this. Most people earning this kind of money and working have made some kind of sacrifice to get there. Even if it was handed to them say a company they would of had to pay CGT/CAT on it being handed over by daddy. Then of course daddy would of had to have ran the race and jumped the hurdles trying to get himself and junior into that position. No bother with Junior paying a bit more in that scenario but someone who is a in a job paying that much should not be punished for being successful.

Why do we want to punish this person who is already paying a whack and will not see much in reutrn for this money. Why cant we say hey you on 20k why dont you get up off your hole and earn more and contribute more..See how that works. Anyone working hard in this country is being penalized for doing so ..Progressive tax system more like punitive tax system.

fliball123

Ludwig Wittgenstein wrote: »

The only ones looking to “cause trouble” between the native population and asylum seekers are those peddling false narratives that the “Place will be a 2nd/3rd world country in 50 years.” Straight out of the populist playbook.

Not true while there are no direct flights to Dublin from most countries who have supposed refugees there is an onus on the refugee to seek solace and asylum in the first safe country. Yet they still get here to Dublin, they should be put back on the plain to the first safe country they came from. Why do they do this why Ireland as they see our champagne welfare system. Houses for all manta.

fliball123

fvp4 wrote: »

For pensions we should force people to have private pensions, including the public sector. Too late now maybe.

But nothing wrong with universal benefits. Health is a universal benefit.

Which we pay for via taxation and then again through private health insurance and then again when you have to access it.

fliball123

tjhook wrote: »

Pensions is an interesting topic. There is a divide between private and public sector, but it's not as simple as it appears.

There are rumblings that tax relief on pension contributions will be removed/reduced in the coming years. Of course this only would only affect the private sector. It will be difficult to apply it to the public sector because roles such as TDs, judges, gardai build up their pension with relatively few years service. To recognise the value of these pensions and tax notional contributions would be very expensive for the individuals involved. Turkeys don't vote for Christmas. The private sector will have to revolt if they are to be treated fairly.

On the other extreme, newer entrants to the public sector receive a pension based on average earnings over their career. That's a less beneficial arrangement - especially when you consider the deductions they have towards those pensions. And their final pension will be inclusive of the state contributory pension (not on top of it). So for a public sector employee on modest pay, their pension might be little more than the state contributory pension, and they won't receive the state contributary pension on top of it. And that's after having a pension deduction from their paycheque throughout their whole career. And I could be mistaken, but I think I heard that the public sector pension deduction continues to be taken from their pension after they've retired?

I wouldn't mind a fresh look being taken at pension costs/reliefs. But it would have to be fair, applied to both private and public sectors alike. And at the same time, maybe rebalance those public sector pensions that are over-generous and those that are unfairly low.

Why would anyone start to save in a private pension now when its at the mercy of the government who can raid it like they did after the last bust. As a country we are more in debt, borrowing as much and have a lot more outgoings than the previous cash. You would be stupid to start a private pension now as anyone who has cash in one will soon see that its one of the low hanging fruit the government like to cherry pick before facing reality.

RandomViewer

[Deleted User] wrote: »

If there is ever an example of someone not worth listening to it is someone who is Irish who uses the term "The Irish" in a derogatory manner.

The Irish are paying for some people Irish people on social welfare. The high taxed Irish are paying the bulk of Income tax.

Also low paid workers pay VAT, which is a fairly high revenue take, and excise taxes.

Fred had his 78th birthday yesterday, think this thread was a present to himself and he hasn't mentioned Feta cheese yet

fliball123

fvp4 wrote: »

Not really, not long term as a permanent employee. That said Amazon and the others might set up companies across Europe for lower wages, if corporation tax is lowered.

They can its going on. Look my wife works in Pharma and she gets guys from IT and other areas all across the world to do work that should really in theory have been done from someone based in Ireland as the project they are working on is for Ireland. Being a multinational means you dont need to be there. She was told she didnt need to be based here either and could work out of any of the other offices based all over the world. Being a multinational gives their employees that benefit as well as the global resources to relocate and she could work on projects based out of Ireland. So it is happening.

FunLover18

fliball123 wrote: »

But why should they be taxed more. If someone is earning that amount it means they have either educated themselves to get to this high standard, or progressed via hard work over time or they have made some kind of financial risk to be earning this. Most people earning this kind of money and working have made some kind of sacrifice to get there. Even if it was handed to them say a company they would of had to pay CGT/CAT on it being handed over by daddy. Then of course daddy would of had to have ran the race and jumped the hurdles trying to get himself and junior into that position. No bother with Junior paying a bit more in that scenario but someone who is a in a job paying that much should not be punished for being successful.

Why do we want to punish this person who is already paying a whack and will not see much in reutrn for this money. Why cant we say hey you on 20k why dont you get up off your hole and earn more and contribute more..See how that works. Anyone working hard in this country is being penalized for doing so ..Progressive tax system more like punitive tax system.

The implication here is that people working on 20k salaries are undeducated and lazy.

fliball123

FunLover18 wrote: »

The implication here is that people working on 20k salaries are undeducated and lazy.

Some are some are not, but they sure as hell pay feck all tax and contribute very little yet it will be asked of the guy in the other scenario to bend over and pay more why is this, should we not be asking others to earn more/pay more . We all use the same services.

Mad_maxx

Fred Cryton wrote: »

This is the nub of the issue. The Irish are an infantile race. They expect "someone else" to pay.

We are a very immature electorate alright

suicide_circus

There is indeed a two tier health service in Ireland. One tier pays for treatment, the other does not.

Mad_maxx

fliball123 wrote: »

But why should they be taxed more. If someone is earning that amount it means they have either educated themselves to get to this high standard, or progressed via hard work over time or they have made some kind of financial risk to be earning this. Most people earning this kind of money and working have made some kind of sacrifice to get there. Even if it was handed to them say a company they would of had to pay CGT/CAT on it being handed over by daddy. Then of course daddy would of had to have ran the race and jumped the hurdles trying to get himself and junior into that position. No bother with Junior paying a bit more in that scenario but someone who is a in a job paying that much should not be punished for being successful.

Why do we want to punish this person who is already paying a whack and will not see much in reutrn for this money. Why cant we say hey you on 20k why dont you get up off your hole and earn more and contribute more..See how that works. Anyone working hard in this country is being penalized for doing so ..Progressive tax system more like punitive tax system.

"Progressive" is an ideologically loaded term

Regarding how some believe if you earn more, you should pay proportionately more " and can simply afford it ", it's a deeply entitled attitude

It's a belief that it is the role and responsibility of one group to carry another group, therefore setting up a giver and taker dynamic, it's deeply divisive and bestows milker status on higher earners

Everyone should contribute something, it fosters a sense of civic duty and that is something severely lacking in this country

Ludwig Wittgenstein

Mad_maxx wrote: »

"Progressive" is an ideologically loaded term

Regarding how some believe if you earn more, you should pay proportionately more " and can simply afford it ", it's a deeply entitled attitude

It's a belief that it is the role and responsibility of one group to carry another group, therefore setting up a giver and taker dynamic, it's deeply divisive and bestows milker status on higher earners

Everyone should contribute something, it fosters a sense of civic duty and that is something severely lacking in this country

Progressive is not an ideologically loaded term. It is an economic concept where those with greater means contribute more than those who don’t. To suggest otherwise is ignorance, plain and simple.

Conversely, there is a real sense of “deep entitlement” from the wealthy who believe they are entitled to a far greater level of resources and security than the average worker. Something as arbitrary as a correlation between one’s talents and interests and the demands of the market should not determine whether one is entitled to the basic necessities of life, i.e. food, housing, healthcare etc.

Arguing that there is a lack of civic duty whilst denigrating those who are worse off as simply “takers” is laughable.

Antares35

Ludwig Wittgenstein wrote: »

It is an economic concept where those with greater means contribute more than those who don’t.

They already do.

Ludwig Wittgenstein

Antares35 wrote: »

They already do.

Cool. And?

B2021M

Mad_maxx wrote: »

"Progressive" is an ideologically loaded term

Regarding how some believe if you earn more, you should pay proportionately more " and can simply afford it ", it's a deeply entitled attitude

It's a belief that it is the role and responsibility of one group to carry another group, therefore setting up a giver and taker dynamic, it's deeply divisive and bestows milker status on higher earners

Everyone should contribute something, it fosters a sense of civic duty and that is something severely lacking in this country

Yes and in the next breath we'll be told everyone is equal. When it comes to taxes though apparently some should pay proportionally more than others.

Ludwig Wittgenstein

Ludwig Wittgenstein wrote: »

Cool. And?

The marginal rate is too high on moderate earners.

We should get more progressive on the top 1-10% and reduce the burden there. There’s an argument for more taxes on the lower paid as well, because most European countries spread the burden more but VAT and excise disproportionately affect the poor, so it might even out.

Mad_maxx

Ludwig Wittgenstein wrote: »

Progressive is not an ideologically loaded term. It is an economic concept where those with greater means contribute more than those who don’t. To suggest otherwise is ignorance, plain and simple.

Conversely, there is a real sense of “deep entitlement” from the wealthy who believe they are entitled to a far greater level of resources and security than the average worker. Something as arbitrary as a correlation between one’s talents and interests and the demands of the market should not determine whether one is entitled to the basic necessities of life, i.e. food, housing, healthcare etc.

Arguing that there is a lack of civic duty whilst denigrating those who are worse off as simply “takers” is laughable.

I suspect the " wealthy " you are referring to are those who make up the 1% ?

I was not referring to that demographic , that group is indeed entitled , they feel entitled to the ear of political leaders and get it too usually

those at the top and the bottom have the ear of politicians in Ireland , its the hated middle class who are taken for granted