Cut the dole to cut higher tax rates

Delboy said:
They had a golden opportunity to do that during the crash....reform the whole PS/CS, pay structures, jobs for life etc. They didn't do it then- it will never be done
Click to expand...

There were many golden opportunities during the crash that both goverments didnt act on :rolleyes:
 
TheBigShort said:
What I oppose is the concept being pushed here that tax increases and welfare cuts be imposed solely for the purposes of providing tax cuts to higher earners.
Click to expand...

I believe that some rebalancing of the tax system is essential. We can only go so far with a situation where something like 570,000 pay nothing at all in income taxes, while anyone earning more than an average industrial wage is hit with a 50%+ marginal rate. Nothing I say here will convince you otherwise and nor will anything you say convince me otherwise. So I don't particularly mind if you disagree with the concept of rebalancing.
 
ashambles said:
Probably not, SF/AAA and maybe main stream parties in Ireland are wedded to the idea of income taxation as a mix of punishment and charity, rather than an intelligent way of redistributing income that benefits all citizens.
Click to expand...
Very well put.
 
TheBigShort said:
We can only go so far with a situation where something like 570,000 pay nothing at all in income taxes
Click to expand...

You gotta love this country...we bring in a tax but call it a charge and then we name that charge the UNIVERSAL Social Charge and yet over half a million people don't have to pay it!
 
T McGibney said:
Nothing I say here will convince you otherwise
Click to expand...

But in general, I am in agreement with you!
Its the structure of our tax system, applied to low incomes, that has so many out of the tax net.
Someone on €17000 pays 20% on all of that income but applying personal credits to the tax liability, it results in a zero return.
But someone who earns €100,000 also gets personal tax credits. And applying those credits to the first €17,000 (taxed at 20%) of the high earners income also returns a zero liability on that first €17,000 of income.
So the proposal here is lets punish the low earner via higher taxes because they dont pay any, even though a higher earner doesn't pay tax on the equivalent level of income (USC aside).

With regard to USC I have proposed that the 1% rate be applied to all earners.

All im looking for is a concrete proposal to support the views held here.
None are forthcoming so far, so what does that say about the view held in favour of the proposal?
 
TheBigShort said:
what does that say about the view held in favour of the proposal?
Click to expand...
That most people can't be bothered attempting to argue against this type of 'logic':
TheBigShort said:
Someone on €17000 pays 20% on all of that income but applying personal credits to the tax liability, it results in a zero return.
But someone who earns €100,000 also gets personal tax credits. And applying those credits to the first €17,000 (taxed at 20%) of the high earners income also returns a zero liability on that first €17,000 of income.
So the proposal here is lets punish the low earner via higher taxes because they dont pay any, even though a higher earner doesn't pay tax on the equivalent level of income (USC aside).
Click to expand...
 
TheBigShort said:
So the proposal here is lets punish the low earner via higher taxes because they dont pay any, even though a higher earner doesn't pay tax on the equivalent level of income (USC aside).
Click to expand...
What I oppose is the concept being pushed here that tax increases and welfare cuts be imposed solely for the purposes of providing tax cuts to higher earners.
Click to expand...

You keep using perjorative language to misrepresent others' observations on this topic.

All im looking for is a concrete proposal to support the views held here.
None are forthcoming so far, so what does that say about the view held in favour of the proposal?
Click to expand...

Why should I or others bother to make constructive suggestions when we know in our hearts that you'll similarly misrepresent anything we say?

(It's easy to be a big boy around here if you don't put your name to what you write.)
 
Last edited:
orka said:
That most people can't be bothered attempting to argue against this type of 'logic':
Click to expand...

Actually there was quite a few prepared to discuss the issue when it was all around the headline stats.
But since I've requested some actual facts, figures they have gone quiet. Which is a pity because ive even tried to help their case by pointing out the 1% USC charge could be a measure to use.
Perhaps thats not a good idea?
 
T McGibney said:
Why should I or others bother to make constructive suggestions when we know in our hearts that you'll similarly misrepresent anything we say?
Click to expand...

Its called a different perspective, useful for discussion forums.
Im not intending to offend or antagonise anyone any more than they antagonize me.
Im simply on one side of the debate. If that offends or antagonizes anyone you can be sure remarks such as low earners or welfare recipients getting a free ride antagonizes me.
 
Last edited:
TheBigShort said:
Its called a different perspective, useful for discussion forums.
Im not intending to offend or antagonise anyone any more than they antagonize me.
Im simply on one side of the debate. If that offends or antagonizes anyone you can be sure remarks such as low earners or welfare recipients getting a free ride antagonizes me.
Click to expand...
Misrepresentation is the antithesis of discussion. You're still at it.
 
TheBigShort said:
Did you even read the Indo article that is at the centre of this discussion?

"Its not fair that low earners get a free ride on the backs of the top 20pc".
Click to expand...
I'm not here to defend the Indo. You've repeatedly sought to misrepresent what I have said and sought to defend it as "a different perspective, useful for discussion forums."

As if.
 
T McGibney said:
I'm not here to defend the Indo. You've repeatedly sought to misrepresent what I have said and sought to defend it as "a different perspective, useful for discussion forums."

As if.
Click to expand...

I have no intention to misrepresent what you said, apologies if I did.

This topic is a misrepresentation of how low earners are apparently on a free ride on the backs of the top 20%. I make no apologies for calling this to be nonsense and challenge the propagators to back up their agenda with concrete details.
 
TheBigShort said:
So the proposal here is lets punish the low earner via higher taxes because they dont pay any, even though a higher earner doesn't pay tax on the equivalent level of income (USC aside).
Click to expand...
No, the proposal here is to have a fair taxation system rather than an unfair one which punishes hard work.
 
TheBigShort said:
This topic is a misrepresentation of how low earners are apparently on a free ride on the backs of the top 20%. I make no apologies for calling this to be nonsense and challenge the propagators to back up their agenda with concrete details.
Click to expand...
Threads evolve. The piece in the Indo was perhaps provocatively titled but it got the thread started and the discussion in the thread since then has been around fairness, international comparisons, rebalancing, other considerations, what changes could be made etc. I don’t think there has been a mention of ‘free ride’ by anyone since then (except by you – at least 12 times!). In hindsight, a better thread title might be ‘is our tax system unfair to high earners’? That’s what pretty much what we’ve been discussing. But people might not have engaged as much with such a vanilla starting point. Your constant harping back to the thread title and initial post is tiresome TBH. You did it on the other mega thread too (“but he saaaaaaaiiiiiiddddd… look – I can quote verbatim – it was said in post 1 therefore that is the entirety of what everyone is discussing”). Tiresome and ultimately a thread killer. Worth repeating – threads evolve.
 
Not quite Purple ,

The heading started bluntly {Cut the Dole to reduce higher Tax rates.}

No doubt it would work , but as thread evolved it seems to mise , that all agree that Dole is good , less taxes is good , whats not good are those who leg-lift the system and abuse welfare.

There seems to be a huge amount of knowledge of who these leg-lifters are , so for those with info , report these "£$££$$ ,s now.
 
orka said:
Threads evolve.
Click to expand...

Sure do.

orka said:
The piece in the Indo was perhaps provocatively titled
Click to expand...

I detect an evolving viewpoint?

orka said:
the discussion in the thread since then has been around fairness, international comparisons, rebalancing, other considerations, what changes could be made etc.
Click to expand...

Yes, I have proposed that the 1% USC rate be applied to all income earners without exception. I did this, in my opinion, in the interest of fairness. It has overall little impact, but at least it is one measure.
You proposed a cap on PRSI. I agreed with that in principle, but queried where the tax shortfall would be found. I suggested corporation tax, rather than hitting lower paid as I could not see how such a shortfall could be applied to low earners.

So im not actually interested in barracking or antagonizing. Im interested in how a fairer system can be found and applied.
 
Gerry Canning said:
Not quite Purple ,

The heading started bluntly {Cut the Dole to reduce higher Tax rates.}

No doubt it would work , but as thread evolved it seems to mise , that all agree that Dole is good , less taxes is good , whats not good are those who leg-lift the system and abuse welfare.
Click to expand...
I was referring to what is being said in this thread, not what the title says.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top