# Will the government raid people's pension funds again for COVID-19 and can anything be done to stop them?



## PaxmanK (14 Apr 2020)

So I was talking to a couple of friends about this in our new weekly hangouts meetups 
All the cool kids are doing it these days.  Since all of us are at or near middle aged, depending on your definition, we were quite chuffed with ourselves.  Mighty craic.

Anyway pension funds came up and the effect of COVID-19 on it.
One person (well more than one, but one in particular I am talking about here) in our group had a very strong opposition to locking money away into a pension fund where the government can take what they want out of it but he cant.  Its been done before, and we have all talked about it before.  Now it was a significant amount before when they raided it, but they made back that money from growth.  Would have made far more if it hadnt been raided to be fair.

I'll start a new paragraph because I am rambling on.
This person only recently started contributing to his pension again.  It took him a long time to get over the last government raid on his pension.
Now he is convinced that they can come in and take what they like and there is nothing he can do to stop it.  They can take 0.05% per year or they can take 10% per year.
Nothing to stop them.  So how can you protect your pension, which you spent many years saving and planning for but is now up for grabs?
This person has stopped contributions.  They are not the only one.  But how can you protect the fund now?  
This government have form on this.  They raided pension funds before.  Its part of the reason I would never vote FG again to be honest with you.


----------



## Jazz01 (14 Apr 2020)

Hmmm PaxmanK - must have been something over the w'end in relation to such as I too, having an online catch up with some friends, had a similair conversation. There is no reason why the powers to be, wouldn't / couldn't raid the "nest egg" , i.e the pension pot, again. 

Also, there is nothing stopping them from dipping into people's savings either - all for the "general good".


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote (14 Apr 2020)

PaxmanK said:


> This person only recently started contributing to his pension again. * It took him a long time to get over the last government raid on his pension.*



Really? The levy took (cumulatively) less than *3% *of his fund by value between 2011 and 2015.

The MCSI all-world index grew *75% *between mid-11 and mid-15.


----------



## Leper (14 Apr 2020)

Ask Eddie Hobbs - He's good at giving advice about "loaning" pension funds to the government.


----------



## PaxmanK (14 Apr 2020)

NoRegretsCoyote said:


> Really? The levy took (cumulatively) less than *3% *of his fund by value between 2011 and 2015.
> 
> The MCSI all-world index grew *75% *between mid-11 and mid-15.



So they took over 2.5% of people pension contributions then.

I hate that argument.  Its total nonsense and does not change the fact that they took money form a persons pension fund.
The fact that their pensions funds grew anyway has nothing at all to do with them TAKING money from them.
Thats like you taking a tenner from my bank account and telling me that it grew anyway so you were ok to take it.

If people seethe government raiding their pension funds AGAIN how to you think Joe public will see contributing to pensions in future.
Sure you can always tell him it will grow by more than they take, so its fine when they take it.  See what he thinks.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (14 Apr 2020)

PaxmanK said:


> where the government can take what they want out of it but he cant.



That is a great way of looking at it. 

Brendan


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote (14 Apr 2020)

PaxmanK said:


> I hate that argument.  Its total nonsense and does not change the fact that they took money form a persons pension fund.



Of course it's a spurious argument. I made it only in response to the dubious claim that the OP's friend had struggled to make up the difference.

It was simply a *TAX *and, sadly, a tax can be levied on anything at any time and there is nothing you can do about it.


----------



## Gordon Gekko (14 Apr 2020)

Right, that’s it. The Government took 2.5% of my pension fund during the greatest financial crisis that the world ever faced. I’m never gonna put another cent into my fund again. I’ll be drinking Lidl gin in retirement in a mobile home down in Courtown. That’ll teach them.


----------



## Sarenco (14 Apr 2020)

The pension levy pales into insignificance compared with the increases in direct taxation (income tax increases, introduction of USC), DIRT/exit tax and CGT rate.

Avoiding pensions due a fear of another pension levy seems daft to me.


----------



## dubman1 (14 Apr 2020)

The Government will do anything it gets no pushback against. 
For instance they announced the Covid 19 payment will be available to all illegal immigrants in the state (estimate more than 30,000).
Revenue confirm details will not be passed to the Department of Justice.

So expect, imo, PAYE and pensions to get lynched again to pay for everything.


----------



## mtk (14 Apr 2020)

dubman1 said:


> For instance they announced the Covid 19 payment will be available to all illegal immigrants in the state (estimate more than 30,000).
> Revenue confirm details will not be passed to the Department of Justice.


hard to believe. not sure how to react to this. what are we at as a country doing that ?


----------



## 24601 (14 Apr 2020)

dubman1 said:


> For instance they announced the Covid 19 payment will be available to all illegal immigrants in the state (estimate more than 30,000).
> Revenue confirm details will not be passed to the Department of Justice.



Can you provide a link to evidence of this?


----------



## Lisboa (14 Apr 2020)

PaxmanK said:


> This person only recently started contributing to his pension again.  It took him a long time to get over the last government raid on his pension.
> Now he is convinced that they can come in and take what they like and there is nothing he can do to stop it.  They can take 0.05% per year or they can take 10% per year.
> Nothing to stop them.  So how can you protect your pension, which you spent many years saving and planning for but is now up for grabs?
> This person has stopped contributions.  They are not the only one.  But how can you protect the fund now?
> This government have form on this.  They raided pension funds before.  Its part of the reason I would never vote FG again to be honest with you.



The pension levy tax was 0.75% but on the other hand tax relief on pension contributions is 20% , or 40% for high earners.


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote (14 Apr 2020)

Lisboa said:


> The pension levy tax was 0.75% but on the other hand tax relief on pension contributions is 20% , or 40% for high earners.



A good pension system should be what is known as EET: contributions Exempt, returns Exempt, and drawdowns Taxed. So you are only taxing once.

The 2011-15 levy on pension assets made Ireland's system (for a while) ETT. Making contributions taxable on the way in, during, and on the way out (TTT) would be madness as you would be taxing three times.


----------



## Lisboa (14 Apr 2020)

dubman1 said:


> For instance they announced the Covid 19 payment will be available to all illegal immigrants in the state (estimate more than 30,000).
> Revenue confirm details will not be passed to the Department of Justice.





24601 said:


> Can you provide a link to evidence of this?



I doubt they actually said that word for word, more a case of they don't have time to check every applicants background to see if they have an eligible visa. 

Not just illegal immigrants, but also foreign students who are only allowed to work 20 hours per week, likely on minimum wage or thereabouts, who, when working, would actually be earning less than the 350 a week which the Covid payment is now paying them.


----------



## PaxmanK (14 Apr 2020)

Ok, So the answer is that the government can raid your pension for as much as they like and it is locked away from you, but they have full access.

And people are pointing out something along the lines of "If I take money from your bank account that you have saved, it doesnt matter, because you'll be saving more anyway in the future to make it up, so you wont notice".

If they raid pensions again, people will only remember that they did it now twice on the bounce.  It doesnt matter how you justify what they are taking or if you consider a few thousand small or big.  The problem is that your money is locked away from you and they can take it as they please.
Thats just not good, no matter how you cut it.


----------



## JamieV (14 Apr 2020)

I came here to check this very topic.  Thanks for discussing it.


----------



## dubman1 (14 Apr 2020)

Lisboa said:


> I doubt they actually said that word for word, more a case of they don't have time to check every applicants background to see if they have an eligible visa.
> 
> Not just illegal immigrants, but also foreign students who are only allowed to work 20 hours per week, likely on minimum wage or thereabouts, who, when working, would actually be earning less than the 350 a week which the Covid payment is now paying them.


 
From the Department of An Taoiseach ,
*''Government agrees next phase of Ireland’s Covid-19 response*
Published: 9 March 2020 
.... to lead a joint national communications effort focused on employers and employees (including vulnerable workers, migrant workers and undocumented workers) ..''

and from a solicitors ,McGrath McGrane website below.


''''''
*Undocumented and Pandemic Unemployment Payment*
If you are undocumented but *do *have a PPS number and have lost your job as a result of Covid-19, you can get the new Pandemic Unemployment Payment.






						Gov.ie - COVID-19 Pandemic Unemployment Payment
					

A payment to support employees and self-employed people who are unemployed or who have their hours of work reduced during the COVID-19 (Coronavirus) pandemic.




					www.gov.ie
				



....''


and also from NASC website the following:

''''
*Pandemic Unemployment Payment and undocumented workers*
We have received confirmation that people who are currently undocumented will be considered eligible for pandemic unemployment payments provided that they have a PPSN. The information will not be shared with the Department of Justice.
Likewise, anyone who is undocumented and who believes that they have COVID-19 symptoms can engage with health services without concern about their immigration status.....''


----------



## JSnowWinterfell (14 Apr 2020)

As it stands the government has committed 9 billion of spending to Coivd-19 and have raised 6 billion on the markets. If needed they can use the European Stability Mechanism, are we not a bit a way from needing to raid the pensions? 









						Where will Ireland raise the billions to pay Covid-19 bills?
					

Availing of European rescue funds would send the wrong message




					www.irishtimes.com


----------



## galway_blow_in (14 Apr 2020)

dubman1 said:


> The Government will do anything it gets no pushback against.
> For instance they announced the Covid 19 payment will be available to all illegal immigrants in the state (estimate more than 30,000).
> Revenue confirm details will not be passed to the Department of Justice.
> 
> So expect, imo, PAYE and pensions to get lynched again to pay for everything.



They know what angry, s up the media and what doesn't


----------



## DeeKie (14 Apr 2020)

All I can say is thank goodness Sinn Fein didn’t get in.


----------



## jpd (14 Apr 2020)

Yet


----------



## fidelcastro (14 Apr 2020)

Lisboa said:


> The pension levy tax was 0.75% but on the other hand tax relief on pension contributions is 20% , or 40% for high earners.


I believe the 0.75% was in relation to the whole pension pot, the capital, and not the contributions.
Its like ignoring an 1% Annual Management Fund charge, on a very very modest 100,000Euro fund amounts to a 1000Euro per annum charge which is not insignificant.


----------



## MrEarl (14 Apr 2020)

Hello,

Personally, I think the financial impact of Covid-19 would have to get a hell of a lot worse, before this should even be getting a serious mention and even then, it should only be mentioned as part of a series of actions to raise funds, with the more wealthy being "taxed" notably more.

The state has aspirations of getting everyone into a private pension, over the years ahead. Just think about how much they'd undermine that aspiration, in fact that need, if the government dips into private pensions again, without it clearly being a near very least resort.


----------



## JamieV (15 Apr 2020)

MrEarl said:


> Hello,
> 
> Personally, I think the financial impact of Covid-19 would have to get a hell of a lot worse, before this should even be getting a serious mention and even then, it should only be mentioned as part of a series of actions to raise funds, with the more wealthy being "taxed" notably more.
> 
> The state has aspirations of getting everyone into a private pension, over the years ahead. Just think about how much they'd undermine that aspiration, in fact that need, if the government dips into private pensions again, without it clearly being a near very least resort.



I think they did the damage by dipping into pensions the last time.
They would never ever repair that damage if they did it again.  But it would not surprise me if they did.
If they do want to encourage people to put money in pensions then taking money from them every few years is certainly not going to do that.

In our case we THINK we may not be getting tax benefits from our AVCs in the long term.  We were happy enough to leave it though as would pay the same tax on the way out.  But the specter of our leaders going in and helping themselves to it has made us think long and hard about paring back on AVCs.  

I dare say if we were only thinking about starting a pension we definitely wouldnt go ahead with it now. We would be waiting to see if the hand does go into peoples pensions in the next couple of years first.


----------



## JamieV (15 Apr 2020)

fidelcastro said:


> I believe the 0.75% was in relation to the whole pension pot, the capital, and not the contributions.
> Its like ignoring an 1% Annual Management Fund charge, on a very very modest 100,000Euro fund amounts to a 1000Euro per annum charge which is not insignificant.



Yes, it sickens me to see people with vested interests trying to say that that is OK because it is not much money.

They wouldnt say that about 1% extra on their mortgages.


----------



## Gordon Gekko (15 Apr 2020)

JamieV said:


> Yes, it sickens me to see people with vested interests trying to say that that is OK because it is not much money.
> 
> They wouldnt say that about 1% extra on their mortgages.



You’re right. People should avoid pensions and end up with far less in retirement. That’ll teach the government for taking a small amount from people’s pension funds during the biggest financial crisis in the history of the State.


----------



## JamieV (15 Apr 2020)

Gordon Gekko said:


> You’re right. People should avoid pensions and end up with far less in retirement. That’ll teach the government for taking a small amount from people’s pension funds during the biggest financial crisis in the history of the State.



You are totally missing my point here.


----------



## 24601 (15 Apr 2020)

Lisboa said:


> I doubt they actually said that word for word, more a case of they don't have time to check every applicants background to see if they have an eligible visa.
> 
> Not just illegal immigrants, but also foreign students who are only allowed to work 20 hours per week, likely on minimum wage or thereabouts, who, when working, would actually be earning less than the 350 a week which the Covid payment is now paying them.



So it's a total non-issue, as I expected. They'd have to have a PPSN and have been working on that relevant date to have qualified for the payment. There's 20k so-called "undocumented" in Ireland. It's bizarre to think that there's a material level of them claiming the COVID payment. Nothing more than a dog whistle by the poster that originally raised it.


----------



## GSheehy (15 Apr 2020)

If this is a concern for anyone then they should seek out lower cost pension products, to offset the potential impact. 

A lower contribution cost here, the tweaking of an AMC there etc.

Maybe even increase the contribution to age related limit to claim max tax relief. 


Gerard.


----------



## Gordon Gekko (15 Apr 2020)

JamieV said:


> You are totally missing my point here.



No, I’m not. The nub of my argument is that avoiding pension products because of the pension levy is the height of stupidity.


----------



## JamieV (15 Apr 2020)

Gordon Gekko said:


> No, I’m not. The nub of my argument is that avoiding pension products because of the pension levy is the height of stupidity.



You're still not getting the point.  Going into pensions that people have saved money into as part of a retirement plan (for a second time in a few years at that) is going be a disincentive for anyone who may be considering putting money into their pension.  It is going to have a negative effect on pensions in the long term.  It doesnt matter how much they are told that their investment will gorw or to seek out lower fees (which they should be doing anyway).

They will see the hand come in and what people had saved for their retirement.  That is all 99% of normal people will see.  It is going to discourage people starting pensions.

Anyway they havent done it, YET, so may be a bit premature talking about the effects of it.


----------



## Itchy (15 Apr 2020)

JamieV said:


> You're still not getting the point.  Going into pensions that people have saved money into as part of a retirement plan (for a second time in a few years at that) is going be a disincentive for anyone who may be considering putting money into their pension.  It is going to have a negative effect on pensions in the long term.



From a public policy perspective and given the circumstances at the time it was introduced, it was arguably quite a shrewd policy. The degree of "disincentive" was proportional to the size of ones income and the apparent negative effects were actually positive for the state in that they taxed the otherwise tax relieved income.  I cant understand why people found it objectionable that they were RECEIVING tax relief of 40.25% of their income rather than 41%? 

Also the widespread discouragement of people starting pensions is a total red herring. Auto-enrolment is proposed because of widespread pension apathy. The introduction of 0.75% charge is not going to exercise the apathetic. AE would outweigh the introduction of such a charge by orders of magnitude.

I think these "stealth" wealth taxes are going to be a significant feature of our lives going forward. Particularly given the desire to avoid austerity over the next decade.


----------



## Codogly (16 Apr 2020)

Does it really matter whether its pension levy or property tax or DIRT or wealth tax ...?
At the end of the day " why did Robinhood steal from the rich ( well middle income Ireland ) because the poor have f%$£ all."
Your right its absolutely wrong to steal money from pension funds , but this is a fact of life ; you spend your life working hard to build up savings to provide for your housing and retirement needs and then when you finally get their you spend you time worrying how to hold on to it.
I would suggest that middle income Ireland (always the target) will start to evolve ...moving their hard earned money around into various pots to avoid government targeting ... afterall its what super wealthy Ireland does ...!


----------



## JamieV (16 Apr 2020)

If they do swoop on pensions now then auto enrollment is dead as a dodo.
Fool me once ....


----------



## elacsaplau (16 Apr 2020)

Itchy said:


> I cant understand why people found it objectionable that they were RECEIVING tax relief of 40.25% of their income rather than 41%?



Actually, what you can't understand is how the pension levy worked if that's what you believe is a fair summary of it!


----------



## Itchy (16 Apr 2020)

I understand the charge was on the whole fund. However once the money was in it couldn’t be extracted. The only recourse was to not make that years contribution thus cutting off ones nose etc.


----------



## galway_blow_in (16 Apr 2020)

DeeKie said:


> All I can say is thank goodness Sinn Fein didn’t get in.



SF would happily dip into deposit accounts if they saw fit


----------



## Andrew Murphy (16 Apr 2020)

With all the money printing and other goings-on lately I have been having a lot of déjà vu moments and think the government dipping into your pensions is probably the least of your worries. 

The issue many people are not discussing here and elsewhere is the effect of inflation caused by reckless monetary policies and rampant money creation, here and across the water.

I am not an economist so cannot argue the theoretical issues, but I can speak with a certain amount of experience as to the negative effects of hyper-inflation having grown up, worked and lived in Zimbabwe for the bulk of my earlier life. Amongst other things I lost my pension contributions to inflation during the financial crash brought about by Mugabe's money printing press in the late 90's and naughties. My mother's pension, built up over her working life, was likewise wiped out just before retirement. Those on fixed pensions became destitute overnight.

It wasn't all doom and gloom of course as there were a small number who benefitted (*) but overall it was not a pretty picture.

Anyone claiming it will not happen here ought to at least consider how they might cope later in life without a pension and develop alternative
wealth store strategies before it is too late. Not doing so means a life without retirement. Forewarned is forearmed as the well worn saying goes.

My two cents worth.

(*) Anecdotally I learned of several people on fixed rate mortgages who benefitted as their debts were essentially written off after a couple of years of rampant inflation.


----------



## fidelcastro (25 Apr 2020)

Itchy said:


> I understand the charge was on the whole fund. However once the money was in it couldn’t be extracted. The only recourse was to not make that years contribution thus cutting off ones nose etc.


I'm sorry. Stopping one's AVC for those particular years didn't stop a O.75% charge to the capital already invested viz the complete pension pot built up. 
The effect of the levy was not a reduction of relief from 41% to 40.25% as expressed in your earlier post. 
There was no relationship to ones income. If I earned zero income for those years, my pension was deducted 0.75% of the total sum.


----------



## Itchy (26 Apr 2020)

fidelcastro said:


> I'm sorry. Stopping one's AVC for those particular years didn't stop a O.75% charge to the capital already invested viz the complete pension pot built up.
> The effect of the levy was not a reduction of relief from 41% to 40.25% as expressed in your earlier post.
> There was no relationship to ones income. If I earned zero income for those years, my pension was deducted 0.75% of the total sum.



Yeah absolutely. I mean you had your fund and when the tax was introduced you only had the option to contribute or not. The current fund was getting hit regardless.


----------



## jpd (26 Apr 2020)

Anyone who had a mortgage in the 1970s got it written off by inflation over the next 10-15 years as salaries inflated and the mortgage stayed the same.

Inflation does not hurt everyone equally - unfortunately, those who benefited from the inflation in the 1970s are now retired and inflation is the last thing they want


----------



## PMU (26 Apr 2020)

jpd said:


> Anyone who had a mortgage in the 1970s got it written off by inflation over the next 10-15 years as salaries inflated and the mortgage stayed the same.  Inflation does not hurt everyone equally - unfortunately, those who benefited from the inflation in the 1970s are now retired and inflation is the last thing they want



Incorrect.  Bankers may be dumb but that aren't stupid. There is no such thing, in finance anyway, as a free lunch. Mortgage rates increased in line with inflation.  

1975    11.25%
1976     12.5%
1977     13.95%
1978     14.15%
1979     14.15%
1980     14.15%
1981      16.25%
1982      16.25%

Inflation hurt everybody.  According to the CSO, the % change in the CPI from Jan 1970 to Dec 1979 was 236.1%.  So a basket of goods and services that cost €1,000 in Jan 1970 would have cost €3,361.06 in Dec 1979. https://www.cso.ie/en/interactivezone/visualisationtools/cpiinflationcalculator/, i.e. a CAGR of approx. 11%.  Real (i.e. inflation adjusted nd converted to euro) earnings went from 301.67 in 1970 to 444.11 in 1980. https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/ep/p-hes/hes2015/aiw/, i.e. a CAGR of approx. 4%.  

After unemployment, which went from 5.7% in 1973 to 16.3% in 1988, and ill health; inflation is the last thing any rational person wants.


----------



## owenmcg (26 Apr 2020)

Well said PMU, too much uniformed fake news being distribued as fact.


----------



## jpd (26 Apr 2020)

Mortgages rates were increased - I remember buying our first house in 1976 and later that year our mortgage increased by quite a lot. However, we then got annual salary increases in line with inflation so that by late 80s, the mortgage loan was no longer over two times our salary but more or less equal. By the 2000s it was a fraction of our salary.

Inflation is a great bonus for anyone one with a large debt, as the real value of the debt diminishes over time as long as they are in a job were wages and salaries are increased in line with inflation.


----------



## fidelcastro (26 Apr 2020)

jpd said:


> Mortgages rates were increased - I remember buying our first house in 1976 and later that year our mortgage increased by quite a lot. However, we then got annual salary increases in line with inflation so that by late 80s, the mortgage loan was no longer over two times our salary but more or less equal. By the 2000s it was a fraction of our salary.
> 
> Inflation is a great bonus for anyone one with a large debt, as the real value of the debt diminishes over time as long as they are in a job were wages and salaries are increased in line with inflation.


Depends on what line of business you were in.  With international competition companies don't have luxury of salary increases merited for a small domestic economy.
In the 70s irish companies trading internationally paying inflation busting wage increases went bust in their droves, hence the country remained an economic backwater, characterised by mass underemployment of its citizens and stagnation.

So for a small open economy very dependent on trading internationally, maintenance of your costs through minimum inflationary pressures is a must, not only a worry for older retired people who worked in the 1970s!!!!


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote (26 Apr 2020)

jpd said:


> Inflation is a great bonus for anyone one with a large debt, as the real value of the debt diminishes over time as long as they are in a job were wages and salaries are increased in line with inflation.



This depends utterly on the nominal interest rate. Even if wages increase with inflation the real burden of the debt can increase if interest rates go sky-high.


----------



## Allpartied (1 May 2020)

PaxmanK said:


> Ok, So the answer is that the government can raid your pension for as much as they like and it is locked away from you, but they have full access.
> 
> And people are pointing out something along the lines of "If I take money from your bank account that you have saved, it doesnt matter, because you'll be saving more anyway in the future to make it up, so you wont notice".
> 
> ...



If people are seriously exercised by this, they can stop contributing to their pension scheme and put their money in a deposit account, or an equity savings account.
Of course, this will mean paying 20% or, more likely 40% tax on the income before they start saving it.
Pension schemes are controlled by legislation because they come with massive tax incentives and huge benefits for those wealthy enough to avail of them.
Stop whinging because a tiny percentage was recovered to deal with a national emergency.


----------



## Sunny (1 May 2020)

Allpartied said:


> If people are seriously exercised by this, they can stop contributing to their pension scheme and put their money in a deposit account, or an equity savings account.
> Of course, this will mean paying 20% or, more likely 40% tax on the income before they start saving it.
> Pension schemes are controlled by legislation because they come with massive tax incentives and huge benefits for those wealthy enough to avail of them.
> Stop whinging because a tiny percentage was recovered to deal with a national emergency.



I presume using your logic that you will also tell people to stop whinging when the Government looks to recover a tiny percentage from social welfare payments or from low paid workers who can earn a significant amount of money tax free. It's a national emergency after all.


----------



## inflation (1 May 2020)

or directly from their savings


----------



## Allpartied (1 May 2020)

Sunny said:


> I presume using your logic that you will also tell people to stop whinging when the Government looks to recover a tiny percentage from social welfare payments or from low paid workers who can earn a significant amount of money tax free. It's a national emergency after all.



They did.  Child Benefit was reduced, the Standard Bereavement benefit was removed, the Christmas bonus was removed, a substantial number of other benefits for low paid workers were removed or reduced. In total, Lenihan reduced the Social Welfare budget by 4.1% in his emergency budget, substantially more than he took from much wealthier pension savers.   Public Sector pay was cut by 20% or more, including low paid workers.  The USC was levied on all income, including those on minimum wage.


----------



## Itchy (1 May 2020)

Sunny said:


> I presume using your logic that you will also tell people to stop whinging when the Government looks to recover a tiny percentage from social welfare payments or from low paid workers who can earn a significant amount of money tax free. It's a national emergency after all.


So your argument is that those who don’t earn enough to pay tax are the equivalent to those who earn enough that they are comfortable to defer that income until retirement? They both don’t pay tax so should be treated the same?

Everyone pays DIRT on savings. Unless your >65


----------



## Sunny (1 May 2020)

Allpartied said:


> They did.  Child Benefit was reduced, the Standard Bereavement benefit was removed, the Christmas bonus was removed, a substantial number of other benefits for low paid workers were removed or reduced. In total, Lenihan reduced the Social Welfare budget by 4.1% in his emergency budget, substantially more than he took from much wealthier pension savers.   Public Sector pay was cut by 20% or more, including low paid workers.  The USC was levied on all income, including those on minimum wage.



And nobody whinged. Yep, I remember how everyone just accepted it was for the common good.


----------



## Sunny (1 May 2020)

Itchy said:


> So your argument is that those who don’t earn enough to pay tax are the equivalent to those who earn enough that they are comfortable to defer that income until retirement? They both don’t pay tax so should be treated the same?
> 
> Everyone pays DIRT on savings. Unless your >65



Everyone earns enough to pay tax. Even if it is 0.2%. Like almost every other Country. We just choose not to tax them. Which is fine but don't expect people who work hard and contribute into a pension to just sit back and watch as the Government decide to dip their fingers into it. And the excuse? Well you get tax relief.We get tax relief to encourage us to save a pension because they keep telling us we have a pension crisis. If the Government want to take pension money, let them change the tax reliefs.  They have talked about it for long enough. They cant even raise the pension age though because apparently if is unfair.  Thinking they can just help themselves to private pensions or savings whenever they want is the type of thinking that despot economies would have. It goes back to this SF belief that anyone who earns over 60k is a millionaire.


----------



## Allpartied (1 May 2020)

Sunny said:


> Everyone earns enough to pay tax. Even if it is 0.2%. Like almost every other Country. We just choose not to tax them. Which is fine but don't expect people who work hard and contribute into a pension to just sit back and watch as the Government decide to dip their fingers into it. And the excuse? Well you get tax relief.We get tax relief to encourage us to save a pension because they keep telling us we have a pension crisis. If the Government want to take pension money, let them change the tax reliefs.  They have talked about it for long enough. They cant even raise the pension age though because apparently if is unfair.  Thinking they can just help themselves to private pensions or savings whenever they want is the type of thinking that despot economies would have. It goes back to this SF belief that anyone who earns over 60k is a millionaire.



Everyone does pay tax. Because of VAT and other consumption taxes, the poorest pay much more tax, as a percentage of their income, than the richest.  And they can't avoid it, they have to buy food, or heating, or clothes, or transport.  People who can save money or invest it in pensions, can avoid this tax, but people who need to spend their entire income to make ends meet, are punished to pay for the privileges of the wealthy.


----------



## odyssey06 (1 May 2020)

Allpartied said:


> Everyone does pay tax. Because of VAT and other consumption taxes, the poorest pay much more tax, as a percentage of their income, than the richest.  And they can't avoid it, they have to buy food, or heating, or clothes, or transport.  People who can save money or invest it in pensions, can avoid this tax, but people who need to spend their entire income to make ends meet, are punished to pay for the privileges of the wealthy.



You'll have to show us some figures there on net transfer of taxes and social supports to justify any of the above, they don't actually pay much more tax, or much tax at all, and what tax they do pay is drowned out by the levels of social supports.

You haven't accounted for a lot of things, such as, there's no VAT on food, free travel passes, heating allowances etc etc

Or that people such as PAYE workers are paying income tax on the earnings as they go about accumulating savings and pensions.
And what happens when your so-called rich (is everyone with savings or pensions rich?) come to the time to spend those savings or pension annuities?
How do they avoid consumption taxes then, I'd like to know?


----------



## Baby boomer (1 May 2020)

Allpartied said:


> Everyone does pay tax. Because of VAT and other consumption taxes, the poorest pay much more tax, as a percentage of their income, than the richest.


Bit of a fallacy there.  It's a line often trotted out by the "poverati" advocates but stop and think a moment.

Suppose I earn €100.  And the government takes, say, 40% in direct taxes.  So I'm left with €60. I spend it and another €10 goes in VAT.   That's a tax rate of 50% in total.  The government takes 50% of the money I earn.  

Now suppose I get a welfare payment of €100.  I spend it and the government gets about €15 back in VAT.  That's NOT an effective tax rate of 15% because I was given the entire sum of money free gratis in the first place.  Even post VAT I've still got a net €85 from the government.  That's actually a NEGATIVE tax rate.  The government is paying me, not vice versa!  

You can take the thought experiment a bit further.  Suppose the Government instead gives me €86 and I only pay €1 in VAT.  Still a net transfer of €85 to me but the "tax rate" now shrinks to about 1%.  Or suppose the government gives me €170 and takes back €85 in VAT.  The "tax rate" now rises to 50% but I'm still getting a net transfer of €85.   This just shows that it's nonsensical to calculate a tax rate in this manner.  

The only way to do it consistently is to calculate your gross income BEFORE transfer payments and AFTER transfer payments.  If the after figure exceeds the before figure you are not a net taxpayer - you are a net tax recipient.


----------



## Allpartied (5 May 2020)

Baby boomer said:


> Bit of a fallacy there.  It's a line often trotted out by the "poverati" advocates but stop and think a moment.
> 
> Suppose I earn €100.  And the government takes, say, 40% in direct taxes.  So I'm left with €60. I spend it and another €10 goes in VAT.   That's a tax rate of 50% in total.  The government takes 50% of the money I earn.
> 
> ...



I think you misunderstand income and tax.  This idea that there is a wealth creating group and a wealth devouring group is typical of the right wing nonsence that pervades this debate. 

If unemployed people, or disabled people, or people with mental health problems, or the rest of the "poverati", as you called them, got nothing, you would soon be complaining and so would thousands of wealthy people who depend on their expenditure.  Go to countries where large swathes of people are left to fend for themselves.  What they do is exactly that, they fight for their bit of the pie and if they can't get it through an equitable method of income redistribution, they will take it where they can. 
So the payments are not gifts but efforts to manage the income created in the country and fairly distribute it, at least to ensure people don't end up starving on the streets. The incomes that people receive from Social welfare payments, many of which are supplements to insufficent wages, are incomes, and they VAT spend is tax.


----------



## Baby boomer (5 May 2020)

Allpartied said:


> I think you misunderstand income and tax.  This idea that there is a wealth creating group and a wealth devouring group is typical of the right wing nonsence that pervades this debate.


I don't misunderstand it.  Tax is money a taxpayer gives the Government.  Well, more correctly I suppose, it's money the Government takes from the taxpayer.  It's not like there's much choice in the matter!  But, essentially, it's a transfer FROM the taxpayer TO the government.  Not the other way around. 

When the net transfer is FROM government TO the recipient, it's farcical to call it a tax.  Unless you want to label it as a sort of "negative" tax.  



Allpartied said:


> If unemployed people, or disabled people, or people with mental health problems, or the rest of the "poverati", as you called them, got nothing, you would soon be complaining and so would thousands of wealthy people who depend on their expenditure.


The expression "poverati" refers to the cohort of NGOs and "Social Justice" outfits, usually funded by the taxpayer, who've made a very nice career indeed out of advocating higher taxes and greater government spending.

Now, I don't think anyone is saying welfare recipients should get nothing, but there is a reasonable case to be made that our rates are a bit too generous and too easy to qualify for.



Allpartied said:


> So the payments are not gifts but efforts to manage the income created in the country and fairly distribute it, at least to ensure people don't end up starving on the streets. The incomes that people receive from Social welfare payments, many of which are supplements to insufficent wages, are incomes, and they VAT spend is tax.


I could accept it is income if it's earned through paying into the social insurance system.  But otherwise it's a gift from the taxpayer, via the government, even if it is a necessary gift to ensure a basic (actually fairly generous) standard of life.


----------



## Allpartied (13 May 2020)

Baby boomer said:


> I don't misunderstand it.  Tax is money a taxpayer gives the Government.  Well, more correctly I suppose, it's money the Government takes from the taxpayer.  It's not like there's much choice in the matter!  But, essentially, it's a transfer FROM the taxpayer TO the government.  Not the other way around.
> 
> When the net transfer is FROM government TO the recipient, it's farcical to call it a tax.  Unless you want to label it as a sort of "negative" tax.
> 
> ...



Tax is not money given to the government.  It is a method of capital destruction to ensure equitable distribution of wealth. You do not have any moral right to your pre-tax income.  That's why we throw tax dodgers in jail. Just because the market, in it's blind magnificence, throws you a wad of cash, that doesn't mean you deserve that income.  You live in a society and you depend on that society.  So the political system takes some of that money and distributes it to make everyone's life better. 
Pre-tax incomes, of which the pension savings are a part, deserve no protection, they deserve no respect.


----------



## odyssey06 (13 May 2020)

Allpartied said:


> Tax is not money given to the government.  It is a method of capital destruction to ensure equitable distribution of wealth. You do not have any moral right to your pre-tax income.  That's why we throw tax dodgers in jail. Just because the market, in it's blind magnificence, throws you a wad of cash, that doesn't mean you deserve that income.  You live in a society and you depend on that society.  So the political system takes some of that money and distributes it to make everyone's life better.
> Pre-tax incomes, of which the pension savings are a part, deserve no protection, they deserve no respect.



Gulags. Thats where every state with this bankrupt anti human morality ends up.


----------



## Baby boomer (13 May 2020)

Allpartied said:


> Tax is not money given to the government.  It is a method of capital destruction to ensure equitable distribution of wealth. You do not have any moral right to your pre-tax income.  That's why we throw tax dodgers in jail. Just because the market, in it's blind magnificence, throws you a wad of cash, that doesn't mean you deserve that income.  You live in a society and you depend on that society.  So the political system takes some of that money and distributes it to make everyone's life better.
> Pre-tax incomes, of which the pension savings are a part, deserve no protection, they deserve no respect.


I haven't seen the likes of this for about 40 years!  Since then, the Berlin Wall has come down, the Soviet Union has imploded and extreme Communism has been discredited. As a matter of interest, is there any current politician or party that reflects your views?


----------



## Gordon Gekko (14 May 2020)

Baby boomer said:


> I haven't seen the likes of this for about 40 years!  Since then, the Berlin Wall has come down, the Soviet Union has imploded and extreme Communism has been discredited. As a matter of interest, is there any current politician or party that reflects your views?



Kim Jong Un?


----------



## joe sod (14 May 2020)

And remember the corona virus originated from a socialist country, the Peoples Republic of China, probably from a dodgy food market. Remember there were a lot of dodgy and black market food being sold in eastern Europe in the 1980s because people were hungry and food was scarce. Long live the German Democrat Republic, sure we are starting to develop a stasi and informing on neighbours now.


----------



## Allpartied (17 May 2020)

Baby boomer said:


> I haven't seen the likes of this for about 40 years!  Since then, the Berlin Wall has come down, the Soviet Union has imploded and extreme Communism has been discredited. As a matter of interest, is there any current politician or party that reflects your views?


This policy was implemented by the Irish govt after the financial crises. So that's less than 40 years ago.
As far as I know Ireland has never had an extreme communist govt, though I live in hope. The party that carried out this Soviet, North Korean, East German policy of expropriation was Fine Gael, lead by that monster of Stalinist economics, Enda Kenny and implemented by his ruthless comrade in arms, Michael Noonan.


----------



## Allpartied (17 May 2020)

odyssey06 said:


> Gulags. Thats where every state with this bankrupt anti human morality ends up.


That's right, fair taxation and equitable redistribution of wealth leads to gulags. 
You can't move for them in Norway, Sweden, Denmark, gulag as far as the eye can see.


----------



## odyssey06 (18 May 2020)

Allpartied said:


> That's right, fair taxation and equitable redistribution of wealth leads to gulags.
> You can't move for them in Norway, Sweden, Denmark, gulag as far as the eye can see.



Wow. Huge bait and switch there.
Have any of those governments declared that people have no moral right to their earnings?
And declare that pre-tax earnings deserve no protection or respect?
That is the philosophy I challenged. 

And, in the context of this thread, has any Irish political party likely to be in government made such a declaration?
How do the governments noted above plan to fund their coronavirus costs? Have they raided pensions funds to fund their coronavirus expenditure?


----------



## Allpartied (18 May 2020)

odyssey06 said:


> Wow. Huge bait and switch there.
> Have any of those governments declared that people have no moral right to their earnings?
> And declare that pre-tax earnings deserve no protection or respect?
> That is the philosophy I challenged.
> ...



I may have been blunt, but this is the law in every liberal, capitalist, socially advanced democracy.  You have no right to your pre-tax earnings.  If you did you could withold your tax and demand it is respected.  I don't advise it though, because you will find yourself up before the beak in jig time.

Pension savings are pre-tax holdings and subject to tax laws.  If the tax law changes then you pay up or go to jail.

As for bait and switch, you were the one who said this normal practice across social democracies would end up in the gulags.


----------



## Baby boomer (18 May 2020)

Allpartied said:


> I may have been blunt, but this is the law in every liberal, capitalist, socially advanced democracy.  You have no right to your pre-tax earnings.  If you did you could withold your tax and demand it is respected.  I don't advise it though, because you will find yourself up before the beak in jig time.
> 
> Pension savings are pre-tax holdings and subject to tax laws.  If the tax law changes then you pay up or go to jail.


You're changing the goalposts now that you're losing the argument!  Originally you said:* "Pre-tax incomes, of which the pension savings are a part, deserve no protection, they deserve no respect"*

That's a completely different (and far more extreme) proposition than saying: *"You have no right to your pre-tax earnings."*

Let's be clear.  We can accept there's no *absolute* right to keep *all* of your pre-tax earnings.  (The most extreme of libertarians might disagree, but that's very much a minority view.) But in a democratic constitutional country there is a right not to subjected to arbitrary, discriminatory or unfairly administered taxation.  That means that you have certain rights and protections in relation to your pre-tax earnings.  The exact contours of those rights depend on the Constitution, the law and the interpretation of the Courts.

You seem to hanker after a society where those rights and protections are at the whim of some type of revolutionary people's commissar who can make up the rules as he goes along.  All in the interest of "the people" of course!


----------



## Allpartied (18 May 2020)

Baby boomer said:


> You're changing the goalposts now that you're losing the argument!  Originally you said:* "Pre-tax incomes, of which the pension savings are a part, deserve no protection, they deserve no respect"*
> 
> That's a completely different (and far more extreme) proposition than saying: *"You have no right to your pre-tax earnings."*
> 
> ...



Maybe you can point me to the part of the Irish Constitution that protects your salary.  Or indeed any law passed that gives you that protection. 

Taxes are administered by law, whether they are fair is neither here nor there.  Dail Eireann could pass a law tomorrow, increasing your tax liability by 10% or 20% or 30%.  There is not a thing you could do about it, except pay up.


----------



## Purple (18 May 2020)

Allpartied said:


> Maybe you can point me to the part of the Irish Constitution that protects your salary.  Or indeed any law passed that gives you that protection.
> 
> Taxes are administered by law, whether they are fair is neither here nor there.  Dail Eireann could pass a law tomorrow, increasing your tax liability by 10% or 20% or 30%.  There is not a thing you could do about it, except pay up.


Unless it's a water tax of course; that would be unfair.


----------



## Allpartied (18 May 2020)

Purple said:


> Unless it's a water tax of course; that would be unfair.


If you want to start a grassroots political campaign to overturn any proposal to levy a small tax against rich pensioners, go ahead.

That's democracy, and it's open to all.


----------



## Purple (18 May 2020)

Allpartied said:


> That's right, fair taxation and equitable redistribution of wealth leads to gulags.


 Who was talking about fair and equitable redistribution of wealth? I'm all for that but we can't afford to cut taxes on rich people. 



Allpartied said:


> You can't move for them in Norway, Sweden, Denmark, gulag as far as the eye can see.


 Are you suggesting that Norway, Sweden and Denmark  have fairer taxation systems? If so I agree completely; they have much higher rates of income tax on low and middle income earners and a much broader tax base which includes things like water charges and property tax.


----------



## Purple (18 May 2020)

Allpartied said:


> If you want to start a grassroots political campaign to overturn any proposal to levy a small tax against rich pensioners, go ahead.
> 
> That's democracy, and it's open to all.


I'm all in favour of taxing rich pensioners. I'd get rid of their medical cards, free travel and other such perks as well as getting them to pay the same rates of income tax and social insurance that those under 65 pay. I'd also have left the retirement age at 68, while increasing the retirement age for all State employees to 68. I'm a bit of a socialist though, so I don't like to see rich old people exploiting vulnerable young people. 
I can't see it happen though; old people are too myopic and selfish and have a boundless sense of entitlement.


----------



## jpd (19 May 2020)

and they vote


----------



## Allpartied (19 May 2020)

Purple said:


> I'm all in favour of taxing rich pensioners. I'd get rid of their medical cards, free travel and other such perks as well as getting them to pay the same rates of income tax and social insurance that those under 65 pay. I'd also have left the retirement age at 68, while increasing the retirement age for all State employees to 68. I'm a bit of a socialist though, so I don't like to see rich old people exploiting vulnerable young people.
> I can't see it happen though; old people are too myopic and selfish and have a boundless sense of entitlement.




People don't mind taxation if it delivers a benefit to them, but it also has to be seen to deliver a benefit to them.

I'm all in favour of universality, as it gives everyone a stake in the social contract.
Here, quite a lot people don't get anything back, because of the means tested limits on most benefits. This builds, understandable, frustration and makes them easy meat for the right wingers, who blame the " others", less affluent people, migrants, those with mental health problesm, minority groups.  

It's not a question of wealthy people getting freebies, it's a question of justice. 

Equitable, socialist distribution of wealth works for all, including the middle classes who, currently, get very little in Ireland.  Those Nordic countries extend the benefits of education, healthcare, childcare, public transport, public spaces to everyone. Yes the price is quite high in taxation, but it's more just and, generally, more successful in reducing inequality. 

So, tax the pensioners, tax the pensions, tax the rich, tax the corporations, tax the multi-millionairs, but keep the free travel, keep the medical cards, introduce free child care, remove the college fees and create a national health service.


----------



## Purple (19 May 2020)

Allpartied said:


> People don't mind taxation if it delivers a benefit to them, but it also has to be seen to deliver a benefit to them.
> 
> I'm all in favour of universality, as it gives everyone a stake in the social contract.
> Here, quite a lot people don't get anything back, because of the means tested limits on most benefits. This builds, understandable, frustration and makes them easy meat for the right wingers, who blame the " others", less affluent people, migrants, those with mental health problesm, minority groups.
> ...


The middle classes (middle income households) in this country contribute very little in comparison to their Scandinavian and Nordic counterparts. 
I started paying income tax the first day I started working summers at 14. I went onto the highest tax band as a 3rd year apprentice (due to working over 60 hours a week). Now people on low incomes don't pay any tax and middle income households pay very little tax. The problem is that people think they are part of a squeezed middle but any squeezing going on certainly isn't from the very low taxes they pay. 

It is totally nuts that the State takes €180 a month from me and then gives it back to me, less their administration costs, in the form of Children's allowance. 
Why should the cleaner where I work tax taxes to fund the €300,000 it costs to put the child of a Hospital Consultant through medical school so that the ungrateful little brat can then immigrate? 

Universality is fundamentally unfair.


----------



## Itchy (20 May 2020)

Purple said:


> Why should the cleaner where I work tax taxes to fund the €300,000 it costs to put the child of a Hospital Consultant through medical school



But you’ve already said they don’t?



Purple said:


> Now people on low incomes don't pay any tax and middle income households pay very little tax. The problem is that people think they are part of a squeezed middle but any squeezing going on certainly isn't from the very low taxes they pay.





Purple said:


> Universality is fundamentally unfair.



Depends. Very few universal benefits but I agree with your sentiment about child benefit. However it’s the cost of the program in general that’s the problem. It’s a political choice to have universality but it’s not a given that in the absence of it, the cost decreases.

Universality is a tool to level society in many different areas. Paradoxically, the “unfairness” of universal child benefit, is not actually unfair in that the costs are paid according to your proportional tax contribution. If the size of the program is too large by design that’s a spending issue rather than a universality issue I.e. regardless of the cost of the program, it will still be paid in the same proportion by everyone.


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote (20 May 2020)

Purple said:


> Now people on low incomes don't pay any tax and *middle income households pay very little tax.*



Yes they do. Average full-time wages in Ireland are €49k which puts these earners well inside the boundaries of the higher rate.

40% of all tax units (single people or married couples) declare an income of over €35k where most will have exposure to the higher rate.


----------



## Purple (20 May 2020)

A married couple with two children on a combined income of €80,000 will pay about €16500 in total payroll taxes and social insurance (€11,000 in income tax with the balance in USC and PRSI). They will receive €3,360 in children's allowance for a net contribution of a little over €13,000. That's to pay for their children's education, health services etc.

Do you really think that a net tax contribution of 16.5% on an income of €80,000 is high?.
Their counterparts in Sweden will pay 32% of their income in taxes and social insurance.

A single person on €200,000 a year in Ireland pays 47.5% of their total income in taxes or almost three times as much as a percentage as the marries couple with two children. I don't think that's fair.


----------



## Purple (20 May 2020)

Itchy said:


> Depends. Very few universal benefits but I agree with your sentiment about child benefit. However it’s the cost of the program in general that’s the problem. It’s a political choice to have universality but it’s not a given that in the absence of it, the cost decreases.


 Tax it at the marginal rate. That way people on low incomes get more. Maybe increase it a little then tax it. 



Itchy said:


> Universality is a tool to level society in many different areas. Paradoxically, the “unfairness” of universal child benefit, is not actually unfair in that the costs are paid according to your proportional tax contribution. If the size of the program is too large by design that’s a spending issue rather than a universality issue I.e. regardless of the cost of the program, it will still be paid in the same proportion by everyone.


 Taxing people then giving them their money back is wasteful. All it does is create a totally unnecessary bureaucracy and cost for the State and takes resources from where they would be better spent.


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote (20 May 2020)

Purple said:


> A married couple with two children on a combined income of €80,000 will pay about €16500 in total payroll taxes and social insurance (€11,000 in income tax with the balance in USC and PRSI). They will receive €3,360 in children's allowance for a net contribution of a little over €13,000. That's to pay for their children's education, health services etc.



We can all pick arbitrary examples to suit our argument. 

Here is an OECD chart on average tax and social security contributions made by a single worker at average earnings. Ireland is bang on average for the developed world.










Purple said:


> Do you really think that a net tax contribution of 16.5% on an income of €80,000 is high?.
> Their counterparts in Sweden will pay 32% of their income in taxes and social insurance.



Sweden has higher income taxes but better public services. That's a policy choice.

Indirect taxes in Ireland are also in comparative terms quite high.


----------



## Purple (20 May 2020)

NoRegretsCoyote said:


> We can all pick arbitrary examples to suit our argument.
> 
> Here is an OECD chart on average tax and social security contributions made by a single worker at average earnings. Ireland is bang on average for the developed world.


Single people in Ireland pay a higher proportion of their income in tax but married people with children, the ones who think they are the squeezed middle, who want free childcare and more handouts, pay bugger all. By the way I've 4 children so I'm part of that group.


NoRegretsCoyote said:


> Sweden has higher income taxes but better public services. That's a policy choice.


 Yes, and they fund it with a much broader and fairer taxation system which doesn't rely on taxing a small group disproportionately. Our tax system is based as much on begrudgery as sound social planning. Sweden spends less than us on healthcare and significantly more on overall social spending. The real difference is that their spending offers value for money.



NoRegretsCoyote said:


> Indirect taxes in Ireland are also in comparative terms quite high.


How so? No property tax worth talking about, no water charges, 37% of working people not paying any income tax and probably well over 70% not paying any income tax when social transfers are taken into account.


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote (20 May 2020)

@Purple indirect taxes are not income taxes. They are taxes like VAT, VRT and excise. Ireland has (almost) the most expensive alcohol and cigarettes in the EU. The standard VAT rate of 23% is at the high end too.

Poor people pay very little income tax in Ireland but they pay a fair amount of indirect tax, especially as they tend to smoke and drink more as share of income.


----------



## Purple (20 May 2020)

NoRegretsCoyote said:


> @Purple indirect taxes are not income taxes. They are taxes like VAT, VRT and excise. Ireland has (almost) the most expensive alcohol and cigarettes in the EU. The standard VAT rate of 23% is at the high end too.
> 
> Poor people pay very little income tax in Ireland but they pay a fair amount of indirect tax, especially as they tend to smoke and drink more as share of income.


Yea, the smoking and drinking argument iss nonsense; if you can't afford to smoke or drink then don't smoke or drink. High taxes on discretionary items are not the same as a broad tax base. High taxes on petrol and cars does impact poor people more but that must be counterbalanced by our very high rates of long term welfare payments.
The VAT rate on food is zero and 13.5% on most other essentials.


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote (20 May 2020)

@Purple 

You'r switching from positive to normative and back again. You think poor people shouldn't drink or smoke because they can't afford to. The fact is that (on average) they do, and they pay plenty indirect taxes as a result.


----------



## Purple (20 May 2020)

NoRegretsCoyote said:


> @Purple
> 
> You'r switching from positive to normative and back again. You think poor people shouldn't drink or smoke because they can't afford to. The fact is that (on average) they do, and they pay plenty indirect taxes as a result.


I think people who can't afford discretionary items shouldn't buy those items. That includes cars and houses. 

I also think that people on high incomes shouldn't get social welfare payments. 

But let's get back on topic; will the government raid personal pension funds again? Do remember that the last time they raided them they used the money to bail out the pension funds (bondholders) and put the money back into the same people's bank accounts so it wasn't that much of a net take, as it were.


----------



## inflation (20 May 2020)

Purple said:


> But let's get back on topic; will the government raid personal pension funds again? Do remember that the last time they raided them they used the money to bail out the pension funds (bondholders) and put the money back into the same people's bank accounts so it wasn't that much of a net take, as it were.


Not so sure about that, at the time it was stated it was finding the VAT reduction for the hospitality sector.


----------

