# Some taxing questions...



## endowed (18 Aug 2004)

Folks

  I was wondering say I was earning e150 a week from grinds, but I wanted to save it in the bank as i would like to be seen to saving in case i try to buy a house... not likelty but you never know.

  Is it okay to put this straight into the bank as it aint taxed or coming from an employer as such, or should i put it into some other saving scheme to try to cover my tracks.

   thanks paddy


----------



## rainyday (18 Aug 2004)

*Re: savin money not from my job*

HI Paddyc - You won't get advice here about how to evade tax. Pay your taxes.


----------



## ajapale (18 Aug 2004)

*Re: savin money not from my job*

Hi Paddy,

Speak to an accountant and get him/her to explain your tax liabilities and how best to manage them.

ajapale


----------



## waitAminute (18 Aug 2004)

*glass houses and stones*

now now rainy, lets not cast stones.

and he/she is not asking how to evade tax, merely where to stash his money.

grinds, b&B, nixers, boincers, bar staff, surfin while getting paid to work, etc, are all prevalent and we are not here to police them.

wat


----------



## Guest (18 Aug 2004)

*savin money not from my job*

Seems to me that the intention to (continue to) evade tax on this money is pretty evident in this case and Rainyday is fully justified in mentioning this regardless of the fact that small scale tax evasion may not be that uncommon elsewhere...


----------



## cerberus (18 Aug 2004)

*not necessarily*

if the money is put into Prem Bonds or the Lotto any wins are Tax Free, if into any deposit account then DIRT is deducted which satisfies the tax obligations.

The original "sin" of not declaring and paying tax initially on the income is a different subject.

0]


----------



## Unreg (19 Aug 2004)

*.*

well the obvious thing to do would just be to spend the money on groceries or beer and reduce the amount you take out of the banklink machines each week by a corresponding amount. Regular lodgements into a bank account *may* generate suspicion.

But morally, you should pay your tax like everyone else.


----------



## taxdoubter (19 Aug 2004)

*morals?*

hang on a second: who said it was moral to have taxes?
taxes are wrung out of your income by the threat of force - nowhere have you ever entered into a clear contractual agreement about what you should pay for state "services" (let alone use)... in effect you are coerced into compliance because we've allowed centralised states to self perpetuate at the expense of our income... for taxes to have moral validity there needs to be a voluntary social contract - that is you should have the option to opt out without having to immigrate... come on; this is first and foremost our money... the dude who posed the original question should hang onto his cash, and buy gold coins if he wants to save and keep the trail out of the banking system which act as snitches for the state...


----------



## Guest (19 Aug 2004)

*morals?*

You're correct. Morality is irrelevant in this context. If you don't like the current system the vote for somebody who will change it to your liking. Or emigrate. In the meantime work within the generally accepted system of face the consequences.


----------



## rainyday (19 Aug 2004)

*Re: morals?*

Our current tax system is implicitly endorsed at each election by the vast majority of people who vote for FF/FG/Lab/PD.

The 'opt-out' option is absolutely impractical - Are you going to make that decision at birth to ensure that no tax monies are spent on your post natal care? Or at age 4 to ensure no tax monies are spent on your education? How are you ever going to leave your house without using the road funed with tax money? Are you going to ensure that the builders who build your house weren't educated with state funds or on FAS schemes? Are we going to just step over your body if/when you collapse with illness?

Please advise how you can live your life without drawing on our tax money?


----------



## taxdoubter (19 Aug 2004)

*morals?*

the fundamental issue is that taxes are levied via coercive force and interferes with an individual's right to pursue their own prosperity. That means paying and buying the services they need and want in a free market, not being lumped into a centralised statist effort which is more interested in its own perpetuation.
Subsidiary issue: the right to cast your vote ethically isn't an implicit acceptance of the existence of a tax in the first place.
So called "practicalities" may be difficult to change but why carry on living with an immoral system?


----------



## ajapale (19 Aug 2004)

*"Great Debates" or "Letting Off Steam"*

Perhaps the mods should consider moving this thread to "Great Debates" or "Letting Off Steam" since the original question has been answered. (or at least chop off the last few posts on the rights and wrongs of taxation!)
ajapale


----------



## ninsaga (19 Aug 2004)

*Re: "Great Debates" or "Letting Off Steam&quo*

I'm not advocating that You do avoid paying taxes...... but what's to say that You havn't been extremely lucky week on week by winning a few shillings at the bookies and banking the winnings!

Do keep in mind that if You do pay a visit to the Revenue (which I have stated in prev posts), they are in my experience extremely helpful.

ninsaga


----------



## Protocol (20 Aug 2004)

*morals*

My father has been giving grinds for 20+ years. Makes 125-150 per week.

Gives it all to the mother, she spends it on the housekeeping.

So the answer is just spend it, and withdraw less of your salary.


----------



## Joe Nonety (20 Aug 2004)

*:*

You could invest it in Prize bonds which you can just purchase by filling out an application form and going to the Post Office. At the end you'll have a lump sum with no paper trail, and as proof of regular saving you could just point to various ATM withdrawals and say from time to time you just withdraw money to buy them and have been doing so for 5 years.


----------



## Guest (20 Aug 2004)

*:*

You need to provide your PPS/RSI number to buy Prize Bonds these days so there is a potential paper trail back to Revenue.


----------



## Bertie (20 Aug 2004)

*STOP*

This site should not allow contributors to help others to evade tax.  

Rainyday says as much - but then others break with this and tell the original poster exactly how to break the law. 

These posts should be reomved/ edited. 

Bertie


----------



## ah jesus (21 Aug 2004)

*ah This post will be deleted if not edited immediately*

This is not helping people evade tax.
The guy had a question and some answered it.
If he has chosen not to declare then he makes the decision and runs the risk.

and anyway, why we were screwed the people in charge like haughey were evading wholescale

and another thing, I paid paye tax on my income and my nixers, have just been made redundant and I get €138 (because my wife works part time) for 1 year and 1/4  max and then on to means testing. (which is embarassing)

Im mid 50's, cant get a job (too old even for B&Q) and I satnd in a queue every month where generally I am the ONLY Irish person.

I went to casualty cause now I cant afford a doctor and the same thing.

some fxxxxing thanks I've got for doing eveything honest and by the book.

There was a time when PAY RELATED meant that I would get 75% of my salary for 9-12 months but that was done away with.

The people in this board make me sick, they have never known hard times and sit up there adjudicating on every one else.

Their day will come and see how they like it.


----------



## rainyday (21 Aug 2004)

*Re: ah This post will be deleted if not edited immediately*



> the fundamental issue is that taxes are levied via coercive force and interferes with an individual's right to pursue their own prosperity. That means paying and buying the services they need and want in a free market, not being lumped into a centralised statist effort which is more interested in its own perpetuation.


Hi Taxdoubter - For the majority of people, taxes are levied/collected by a co-operative, community force not a coercive force. I'd be really interested to your proposed approach to practical application of your theories - how should we set up hospitals, schools, roads on a pure need/want free market basis.



> These posts should be reomved/ edited.


Hi Bertie - The most effective counter-arguement to these proposals which offend you & I is simply to state the reasons why you disagree, rather than deleting the point.

Hi AJ - Sorry to hear of your difficult situation. Just for the record, I did spend a period of time on the dole in the past, though I didn't face the agism that you are probably facing or have the family commitments that you have.


> and anyway, why we were screwed the people in charge like haughey were evading wholescale


Haughey was simply reflecting the ethos of the country at the time. As we've seen, many small traders were evading taxes via bogus non-resident accounts and many tradespersons, teachers etc were failing to declare their nixers. Many PAYE workers were on special 'allowances' as a tax dodge. Haughey had the neck to do it on a larger scale.

As a general point, part of the reason why there are no funds available to pay you improved social welfare is because people like the original poster aren't paying their fair share of tax.


----------



## jister (24 Aug 2004)

*Evadin Tax*

If everybody paid all tax that they should pay then tax rates would be lower (ideal world of course)

However, if I am a blocklayer (which I am not, but for the sake of debate) and I run everything through the books etc., how am I supposed to compete with the guy that draws social welfare and does cash jobs laying blocks all the way?

The customer will pay the cheapest rate and rarely asks for receipts etc. and if cash is cheapest then cash is king.

The best we can hope for is that people at least pay some tax, so in the case of the guy here giving grinds, he is paying tax on his regular income, which I think is fair enough.


----------



## tax (25 Aug 2004)

*tax*

all tax should be on expenditure and a wealth tax introduced - declared every year
you can either spend (and pay tax) or hoard  (and pay tax)

The wealth declaration should include everything down to cars

and make revenue same as the US revenue


----------



## oilean (25 Aug 2004)

*Wealth tax?*

all tax should be on expenditure and a wealth tax introduced - declared every year
you can either spend (and pay tax) or hoard (and pay tax)

I would half agree with this statement, tax should be on expenditure rather than income
Then everyone pays tax on their lifestyle and how they want to live it

I do not agree with the wealth tax issue and have never heard any valid arguement to back up taxing someone who trys to provide for themself and their family by saving or investing

Stu


----------



## jister (25 Aug 2004)

*paying tax.*

Another way to look at it: If I get €100 for a cash job and declare tax on it I must pay 13.5% VAT + Tax on the income part of it, so the govenment gets say €20 from the transaction.

Instead if I go to the pub and blow the €100 on drink then the government gets 21% VAT + Excise duty. I don't know what the excise is exactly but the government would be getting a bigger slice!


----------



## taxdoubter (28 Aug 2004)

*Tax Morality*

Apologies for my slow response to the moral sides of the original question and further issues raised by Rainyday, believe it or not I've been putting together my tax forms to get them in before Aug 31!. And that's the first point I must make; I pay my taxes. My contention though is that taxation is actually immoral as I've pointed out in earlier posts.
To deal with Rainyday's first statement that taxes are levied by a cooperative community force: no way. If you don't pay your taxes, look at what happens to you: the authorities come down like a ton of bricks. And it's that fear that they rely on for people to pay their taxes - to me that's cooercion. When I left secondary school (and yes those taxpayers then, including the fella that played by the book but who now is scratching his head at how unfairly the system treated him, financed part of my education) and started work, I never entered into any agreement through discussion let alone written that the government is allowed to take a certain percentage of my pay. The employer immediately deducted it from my wage and that was it - I couldn't touch it or hand it over willingly. That's not cooperative.
It's a bit like the storekeeper taking your money before you get into the store without any prior arrangement.
Then, the storekeeper tells you what to buy with your money he's taken off you. This is what the falsity of the provision of public services is all about. Bureacrats and politicians have an interest in perpetuating this status quo as it empowers them, their egos and their salaries. However, individual and corporate entrepreneurs could provide all of the public services we assume now that the state must provide.
An immediate example is the education system. We already have private schools and lots of people choose to PAY more and send their kids to them.
We have an emerging private road solution in the form of toll roads. People choose to PAY more and take the M50 toll bridge (it's an inefficient solution at the moment, but it's a start).
To be honest, with a bit of thought almost all of the so-called public services could be provided in the best possible way by allowing free market solutions. The pricing signals of these solutions would dictate those that work, survive and thrive, resulting in the BEST possible provision for the public.
The only areas I would concede you may need some form of central bureacracy is in the provision of national defense (but I'm not 100% convinced of this - look at how the Americans employed a vast range of private contractors in the war in Iraq. Couldn't they do the same to protect their borders? and even possibly improve their intelligence services) and in foreign policy (and once again, foreign policy should keep its nose out of private enterpreneurial solutions).
In our "modern" world, we sometimes find ourselves in thrall to the edifice of what's already constructed around us - in that regard we are no more modern than medieval serfs - and we submit to the direct and indirect coercion of systems that are not optimal for our right livelihoods. A choice-derived pricing-signal is morally incontestable, leads to our ultimate prosperity and thwarts political hypocrisy.


----------



## rainyday (28 Aug 2004)

*Re: Tax Morality*

Hi Taxdoubter - Nice theories, but lets get down to specifics. If you remove the tax system, you remove all public schools & public hospitals. 

So what are you going to do when the unemployed guy with borderline learning difficulties and no income/savings gets hit by your Merc & breaks both his legs. Do we just step over him on the street?


----------



## purple (4 Sep 2004)

*tax*

This has turned into one of the weirdest threads I have ever read here. What started out as a question on how to evade tax (and yes I’m with rainyday on that one) has turned into an abstract theoretical discussion about the rights of the state to levy taxes and whether the assumption of a general social contract constricts or even breaches the rights of the individual to free choice.
It all sound very well thought out by taxdoubter but I think you are starting from a false premise.
The state is the vehicle through which we can build a society which can guarantee that we are all treated in an  equitable and just way (in general terms). All of our mainstream politicians subscribe to this principle, be they right of left of center, they just disagree upon what the best way to implement it is.   
This system has been endorsed by the vast majority of the people of this country in every election since the foundation of the state so if you believe in democracy then you have implicitly accepted the system of state imposed taxes.  



> The people in this board make me sick, they have never known hard times and sit up there adjudicating on every one else.


 Not that you’d be making sweeping generalisations or anything. I hate people who do that!



> the fundamental issue is that taxes are levied via coercive force and interferes with an individual's right to pursue their own prosperity


 The threat of coercive force interferes with the right of the individual to rob his neighbours car or kill him and take his house, thereby interfering with his right to persue his own prosperity. Do you think this threat of coercive force is wrong as well? ‘cause it would be no more damaging to society than what you are proposing.







> Haughey was simply reflecting the ethos of the country at the time. As we've seen, many small traders were evading taxes via bogus non-resident accounts and many tradespersons, teachers etc were failing to declare their nixers. Many PAYE workers were on special 'allowances' as a tax dodge. Haughey had the neck to do it on a larger scale.


Rainyday-I never thought you would take such a balanced view of the man, I take back all the nasty high moral ground things I’ve said about you (OK I take them back for this thread only; I’m just not big enough to do any more  ).


----------

