ESRI says we need more "progressive" taxes lol

fliball123

RandomViewer wrote: »

So you want people on €20-30k to take a bigger hit ?

They should pay more.

Anyone one on lower wage or on a pension or unmarried with a kid or two are able to access services those who earn more cant.

FIS
Medical Card
Free Travel
Household welfare package
Living alone allowance
Fuel Allowance
Telephone allowance
One parent family payment
Working family payment
Rent supplement
Social housing

What is happening is people working and earning a half decent living are being taxed to the point where welfare is actively competing with work.

Those on the lower wage see what those on the dole are getting and say why should I bother. Those on the middle income wage see those on the lower wage paying feck all tax and say why should I do that OT when I lose over half of it. Those on the higher wage will see the lefties talking loudest and will simply leave

Fred Cryton

Deleted User wrote: »

Unfortunately those who profess that lower incomes should pay more tax are not living in the real world. They don't earn enough as a whole to make the kind of appreciable difference to tax take to allow any significant reduction to middle and higher earners. If you do tax them at significantly higher rates, you have one of two consequences - all that money is no longer spent in the economy forcing the loss of more lower paid jobs both simultaneously increasing social welfare and related services bills and reducing tax take, driving pressure to increase tax on middle earners again, or you disincentivise working lower paid jobs as the gap between social welfare and net income reduces further at low incomes. This then drives up wages in low paid sector either reducing the competitiveness of these areas resulting in job losses, or increases the cost base with this cost passed on to the consumer - largely lower and middle income earners, effectively reducing net income through inflation

We're talking about everyone earning between €20k and €50k here. That's a lot of people, around 1 million people. If we got an extra €2k out of all of them, that would be €2bn. Reduce welfare rates appropriately to ensure welfare doesn't become disincentive to work.

BluePlanet

WrenBoy wrote: »

Hopefully on topic but I see today RTE are pushing Gov to introduce a tax on streaming services, to force people back to watching them I guess. Or the genius business move of charging people for not using your service.
https://extra.ie/2021/05/21/entertainment/movies-tv/rte-netflix-tax

That would be infuriating if they did.
Reminds me of something from the past when the internet was getting big, certain parties wanted a Tax on every email sent, in order to compensate the Postal Service loosing out on that revenue.

lawred2

Furze99 wrote: »

Never mind pay freezes - pay reductions. New contracts for all, new entrants and old employees - all paid the same scales at lower rates.

Time for taxes on other assets too - a realistic property tax and charges by usage for public water & sewage with no exemptions for those on welfare. Increase in corporation tax.. lots of way to address this.

Meh..

Public sector salaries get spent in private sector businesses...

A nurse earning 40k - 60k isn't your enemy ffs

Fred Cryton

Fred Cryton wrote: »

We're talking about everyone earning between €20k and €50k here. That's a lot of people, around 1 million people. If we got an extra €2k out of all of them, that would be €2bn. Reduce welfare rates appropriately to ensure welfare doesn't become disincentive to work.

Thats an incredibly regressive system you are proposing there.

Thats 2 billion that can no longer be spent on goods and services as this million people spend nearly all their income. - 400 million lost in VAT. how many job losses? All so those earning more can save more money.

And to disclose:household income is over 100k, with mortgage and kids and not a huge amount of disposable income following outgoings and pension provision

RandomViewer

fliball123 wrote: »

They should pay more.

Anyone one on lower wage or on a pension or unmarried with a kid or two are able to access services those who earn more cant.

FIS
Medical Card
Free Travel
Household welfare package
Living alone allowance
Fuel Allowance
Telephone allowance
One parent family payment
Working family payment
Rent supplement
Social housing

What is happening is people working and earning a half decent living are being taxed to the point where welfare is actively competing with work.

Those on the lower wage see what those on the dole are getting and say why should I bother. Those on the middle income wage see those on the lower wage paying feck all tax and say why should I do that OT when I lose over half of it. Those on the higher wage will see the lefties talking loudest and will simply leave

Anyone in fulltime employment don't qualify for any of that and it shouldn't be up to the state to make up private wages, I lose about 30% in tax which I consider dead money funding TDs drug habit

fliball123

lawred2 wrote: »

Meh..

Public sector salaries get spent in private sector businesses...

A nurse earning 40k - 60k isn't your enemy ffs

I beg to differ you cant just take one person you have to look at the Public sector as a whole in 2019 before a recruitment drive and 3 payrises (2 more to come) we were paying over 18 billion for it and that does not take pensions into account. Any increase to their wage now has a knock on cost for both current and existing public sector pensioners. The whole spend on PS needs to be tackled with a chainsaw before one more penny is paid in tax in this country.

As I pointed out in 2019 we were paying 27% more for PS pay than what the private sector are paid and in comparison to the UK their PS are paid .3% less. The tail is wagging the dog in this country.

fliball123

RandomViewer wrote: »

Anyone in fulltime employment don't qualify for any of that and it shouldn't be up to the state to make up private wages, I lose about 30% in tax which I consider dead money funding TDs drug habit

They qualify for FIS

lawred2

fliball123 wrote: »

I beg to differ you cant just take one person you have to look at the Public sector as a whole in 2019 before a recruitment drive and 3 payrises (2 more to come) we were paying over 18 billion for it and that does not take pensions into account. Any increase to their wage now has a knock on cost for both current and existing public sector pensioners. The whole spend on PS needs to be tackled with a chainsaw before one more penny is paid in tax in this country.

As I pointed out in 2019 we were paying 27% more for PS pay than what the private sector are paid and in comparison to the UK their PS are paid .3% less. The tail is wagging the dog in this country.

27% more for what services exactly?

My wife earns the exact same as her counterpart in the HSE for the delivery of the same service!

fliball123

lawred2 wrote: »

27% more for what services exactly?

My wife earns the exact same as her counterpart in the HSE for the delivery of the same service!

Their weekly pay is 27% more than what people are paid in the private sector. When an overall comparison is made.

https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/er/elcq/earningsandlabourcostsq42018finalq12019preliminaryestimates/

As detaiied here and like I say this is before the current round of payrises as well as another 2/3 years of pay increments.


Weekly wage ps = 964
Weekly wage private sector = 714

B2021M

B2021M wrote: »

Im not talking about everything being privatised but spending on it needs to be reduced.

I agree that it would be almost impossible to do much about it now but it shouldnt have evolved in this way in the first place.

I'll ignore the cheap insult in your final sentence!

The post you replied to said:

Who builds the roads, the water mains, the police, the education systems?

You said that most of these can be privatised, and funded by the consumer. I picked three* of these and asked you how much of an increase in cost and how great the public outcry would be if they were privatised.
Now you're saying that you agree its almost impossible to do this, contradicting your first statement.
Are we to take it that you're now withdrawing your first post about privatisation and the end user paying for it?

I meant no insult with my last line, I will edit the post and remove it if you wish. The fact that you've contradicted yourself in the space of a few minutes would lend credence, however, to the concept that you have not thought it through.



*I deliberately left out the Guards from these three. The thoughts of a private, for profit police force should make anybody quake with fear. Have a look at the prison/judicial/policing system across the pond in the states. The concept of civil forfeiture alone is astonishingly frightening

Antares35

RandomViewer wrote: »

If you can't save 50K a year taking home after tax €100k you really are an idiot with money

The original point was about a household income of 100k. That's two people earning 100k between them and paying tax, USC and PRSI. Do you know how much that leaves them with? And you think they should be out buying houses for cash lol

B2021M

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The post you replied to said:

You said that most of these can be privatised, and funded by the consumer. I picked three* of these and asked you how much of an increase in cost and how great the public outcry would be if they were privatised.
Now you're saying that you agree its almost impossible to do this, contradicting your first statement.
Are we to take it that you're now withdrawing your first post about privatisation and the end user paying for it?

I meant no insult with my last line, I will edit the post and remove it if you wish. The fact that you've contradicted yourself in the space of a few minutes would lend credence, however, to the concept that you have not thought it through.



*I deliberately left out the Guards from these three. The thoughts of a private, for profit police force should make anybody quake with fear. Have a look at the prison/judicial/policing system across the pond in the states. The concept of civil forfeiture alone is astonishingly frightening

My main point was that the public sector is too big and costs too much. Many services could be funded by private capital with proper oversight. People would then pay less overall tax and use that money to purchase services they need or want.

DubInMeath

DubInMeath wrote: »

You realise to a lot of people who start threads like this and sh1te on about ps pay etc, you and the rest of us are the scrote class.

According to your definition, perhaps. LOL at you acting as if there's an objective definition.

lawred2

fliball123 wrote: »

Their weekly pay is 27% more than what people are paid in the private sector. When an overall comparison is made.

https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/er/elcq/earningsandlabourcostsq42018finalq12019preliminaryestimates/

As detaiied here and like I say this is before the current round of payrises as well as another 2/3 years of pay increments.


Weekly wage ps = 964
Weekly wage private sector = 714

I don't know how valid a blunt comparison of averages across the public and private sector is... takes no account of the skills or services rendered for those salaries.

starkid

starkid wrote: »

i earn 20-30k.

In other countries people on lower incomes pay more tax. If you want a true social democracy thats the price to be paid. should somebody like me pay more tax? yes i probably should.

I'm not sure how much more tax you think a person ( and i know alot of people whos wives job is the kids while the dad earns the money so essentially a one income household for the time being) earning the same as a couple on 20-30k can pay. If its a couple jointly earning 20-30k no its not ideal, however numerous state supports are available (which personally i have no issue with)

In the scandinavian countries that smoked salmon socialists love to talk about, those people do pay tax, much more than they do here. Because everybody pays, and everybody recieves.

A single Norwegian person earning 25K/yr pays c.€1,500/yr less than their Irish equivalent.

A single Danish person earning 25K pays c.€2,500 more than their Irish equivalent.

A single Swedish person earning 25K pays c.€500 more than their Irish equivalent.

A single Finnish person earning 25K/yr pays c.€1,000/yr more than their Irish
equivalent.


Ireland pays about €500 below the average of all five countries.



FACT CHECK: UNTRUE

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

A single Norwegian person earning 25K/yr pays c.€1,500/yr less than their Irish equivalent.

A single Danish person earning 25K pays c.€2,500 more than their Irish equivalent.

A single Swedish person earning 25K pays c.€500 more than their Irish equivalent.

A single Finnish person earning 25K/yr pays c.€1,000/yr more than their Irish
equivalent.


Ireland pays about €500 below the average of all five countries.



FACT CHECK: UNTRUE

Just have huge oil reserves, bro.

cgcsb

If we had access to affordable, high quality housing, healthcare and public transport I'd be fine with more taxes, water charges, fat tax etc. to be honest. At the moment we have relatively high taxation and eff all to show for it.

fliball123

lawred2 wrote: »

I don't know how valid a blunt comparison of averages across the public and private sector is... takes no account of the skills or services rendered for those salaries.

OK so will we play by your rules? Then you will have no bother with a cut to what we pay for our public sector pay bill for the amount gained during the 2 rounds of bench marking where that blunt comparison was made twice. Either they cant be compared and we will take back what was paid out in benchmarking or they can be and the 27% pay differential needs to be sorted out.

Mad_maxx

AlfaZen wrote: »

I think we should be looking at a Marginal Flat Tax in order to widen the Tax base and have a fairer system.

Minimum wage is €10.20 per hour which is about €20k per year give or take.

So everyone gets up to €20k a year tax free. All remaining income is taxed at a single flat rate e.g. somewhere between 20% and 25%.

With this approach everyone contributes equally, there is less admin required and it does not penalise overtime as the current system does.

Politicians don't like flat tax ideas as it makes it more difficult for them to appear to be doing sectoral favours

Mad_maxx

Allinall wrote: »

No.

I think that someone earning €250,000 p.a. should pay a higher percentage of their income in tax that someone earning €25,000.

They can afford it more.

That's a moral - philosophical judgement

TCM

Fred Cryton wrote:

Firstly let's please stop using the word "progressive" in relation to taxes. What we're really talking about is robbing the middle class blind in order to pay for bloated welfare payments and bloated public sector salaries and pensions.

The sooner people who work in the public service start paying tax the better.

Remember it was the private sector that destroyed the country just a few years ago.

But don't let the facts get in the way of a good rant.

Mad_maxx

BluePlanet wrote: »

How much of the public sector tax haul is absorbed in wages and pensions?

Depends on which department, its 80% in education

fliball123

TCM wrote: »

The sooner people who work in the public service start paying tax the better.

Remember it was the private sector that destroyed the country just a few years ago.

But don't let the facts get in the way of a good rant.

Really lets look at that, what body was supposed to be looking at the banks ? oh the financial regulator what sector do they work in.

Who signed over the billions for Anglo and the other banks- ? oh the government which sector do they work in??

After the crash we were 200billion in debt about 40 billion was the banking clusterphuck fallout where did the other 160Billion come from???

crossman47

fliball123 wrote: »

Their weekly pay is 27% more than what people are paid in the private sector. When an overall comparison is made.

https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/er/elcq/earningsandlabourcostsq42018finalq12019preliminaryestimates/

As detaiied here and like I say this is before the current round of payrises as well as another 2/3 years of pay increments.


Weekly wage ps = 964
Weekly wage private sector = 714

The original apples and oranges comparison. Its not like for like.

fliball123

fliball123 wrote: »

OK so will we play by your rules? Then you will have no bother with a cut to what we pay for our public sector pay bill for the amount gained during the 2 rounds of bench marking where that blunt comparison was made twice. Either they cant be compared and we will take back what was paid out in benchmarking or they can be and the 27% pay differential needs to be sorted out.

crossman47 wrote: »

The original apples and oranges comparison. Its not like for like.

Then I refer you to my previous post on the matter

lawred2

fliball123 wrote: »

OK so will we play by your rules? Then you will have no bother with a cut to what we pay for our public sector pay bill for the amount gained during the 2 rounds of bench marking where that blunt comparison was made twice. Either they cant be compared and we will take back what was paid out in benchmarking or they can be and the 27% pay differential needs to be sorted out.

I don't agree with blunt comparisons whatever direction they work in

I just don't necessarily agree with the contention that private sector employees earn 27% less than their counterparts for the same services in this country.

And I have a rock solid example to hand to prove that. Same services. One public one private. Exact same salary.

I'm not sure what "rule" than means I'm playing by.

Btw I'm a private sector software engineer before you start pigeon holing me with your ideologies.

crossman47

fliball123 wrote: »

Then I refer you to my previous post on the matter

Thats the one I replied to - a totally misleading use of blunt averages.

BluePlanet

crossman47 wrote: »

Thats the one I replied to - a totally misleading use of blunt averages.

Then why was that blunt averages comparison OK when it came to benchmarking?

TCM

Ninthlife wrote:

Is there a different tax rate for those outside the private sector?

Ye, sure those working in the public sector don't pay any tax at all.