# rip-off/how much tax do we pay?



## casiopea (1 Sep 2005)

ClubMan said:
			
		

> For those that do think that it's a rip-off what do expect to be done and by whom? Price caps on mixed grills imposed by the Government and supervised by some statutory agency? ..... High price and not value for money - maybe. Rip-off - no.



Ive read all the Eddie Hobbs threads with interest.  I think people are getting too caught up in the definition of rip-off and the mixed grill example.  I agree, the price of a first class train ticket and a mixed grill is not an example of a rip-off.  But that is not what this series is about.  The rip-off, is the difference in your pay check from the top to the bottom, ie the tax your paying.  And in fairness to Eddie, I think he's been quite clear about that.  



> what do expect to be done and by whom?



There are things the consumer can do other than moaning.  But, in my opinion, not much. Yes, we can shop around for better value.  Yes, we can send nappies to Michael Martin.  You can even do what I did and move to a country with a lower taxation (I pay 18% which is a stark difference to 42%)  but at the end of the day this problem has to be addressed by the Irish Government.  

At the very least Eddie has more people thinking and talking about this.

cas


----------



## ClubMan (1 Sep 2005)

*Re: Semantics - different definitions and interpretations*



			
				casiopea said:
			
		

> You can even do what I did and move to a country with a lower taxation (I pay 18% which is a stark difference to 42%) but at the end of the day this problem has to be addressed by the Irish Government.


Myself and my wife are paying 17% tax and _PRSI_/health levy on our joint income. Are you sure that you would not be better off in _Ireland_? This is the sort of misrepresentation of the facts that annoys me when the issue of "rip-off Ireland" is discussed. The fact that our top tax rate is 42% does not mean that people are paying 42% of their gross income due to the fact that we have a standard rate band, tax credits, allowances etc. Don't get me wrong I'd love to pay even less tax and have better services provided by the Government/state but to claim that the tax burden is necessarily onerous just because our top tax rate is 42% does not stand up in my opinion and experience.



			
				ronan_d_john said:
			
		

> Taking the definitions above regarding rip-offs, this is an article I've seen which I think illustrates that we are living in a "Ripoff Ireland", even under the definitions of ripoff sponsored by clubman and brendan.
> 
> Summary of Overcharging in Ireland


That's a very interesting article and supports my assertion that there are indeed real rip-offs in operation and that using a scatter gun approach and blaming all of our ills on a a nebulous and largely meaningless concept/catchphrase such as "rip-off Ireland" deflects from identifying these real rip-offs and taking steps to rectify them.



			
				podgerodge said:
			
		

> I agree, nothing should be done by anyone other than the consumer voting with his/her feet. There is no other solution other than that which you suggest.


Actually I don't think that this is a complete solution for real rip-offs which would involve, for example, regulation and oversight by statutory and consumer bodies where applicable but it is certainly a good start for consumers to shop around and exercise their own discretion when choosing whether or not to make purchases etc. The problem is that many supposed "rip-offs" fall into the category of people seeing somethat they want, buying it regardless of price/value and then complaining after the fact that they were ripped off when they were obviously not.


----------



## casiopea (1 Sep 2005)

*Re: Semantics - different definitions and interpretations*



			
				ClubMan said:
			
		

> Are you sure that you would not be better off in _Ireland_? This is the sort of misrepresentation of the facts that annoys me when the issue of "rip-off Ireland" is discussed.



Hi Clubman,
Yes, Im sure and Im qualified to make that comparison. Ive lived in both Ireland and switzerland. Ive paid tax both countries.  Im not as up to dates on all tax terms as you are, but simply,  in ireland between Gross and Net income I was paying 42% in Switzerland its 18%.  Im talking about the total amount taken from both pay checks.  This is not misrepresentation....its fact.  



			
				ClubMan said:
			
		

> The fact that our top tax rate is 42% does not mean that people are paying 42% of their gross income due to the fact that we have a standard rate band, tax credits, allowances etc.



I started working 10 years ago at the age of 22 in the IT industry.  I started on a graduate salary.  After my first pay rise (approximately at the end of the first year) I was in the top tax band of 42% (it was a little bit higher then even).  Yes we do have tax bands, credits, allowances, but still at 23 I was paying tax at the top tax rate.


----------



## ubiquitous (1 Sep 2005)

*Re: Different definitions and interpretations of "rip-off"*

Casiopea, Just because you are in the 42% tax band doesn't mean that you are paying 42% of your income in tax. 

A mythical single worker earning €30,000 on PAYE in 2004 (around the average industrial wage), with standard personal & employee credits) would have paid €3,880 in tax that year, or 12.9% of their income. A similar worker earning €40,000 that year would have paid €8,080, or 20.2% of their income. This ignores the various other tax credits and exemptions (not to mention incentives such as SSIAs) that are available to workers in this country.


----------



## ClubMan (1 Sep 2005)

*Re: Semantics - different definitions and interpretations*



			
				casiopea said:
			
		

> Yes, Im sure and Im qualified to make that comparison. Ive lived in both Ireland and switzerland. Ive paid tax both countries. Im not as up to dates on all tax terms as you are, but simply, in ireland between Gross and Net income I was paying 42% in Switzerland its 18%. Im talking about the total amount taken from both pay checks. This is not misrepresentation....its fact.


I am talking about the bottom line too and although I am on 42%/_PRSI_ class A1 and my wife is on 20%/_PRSI _class A0 the total deductions in respect of tax and _PRSI_/health levy come to 17% in our case for 2004 (I haven't calculated them for this year). Obviously different people have different individual circumstances but in this case it would seem that we are better off than you in terms of statutory payroll deductions regardless of how the tax bands in the different countries compare.


> I started working 10 years ago at the age of 22 in the IT industry. I started on a graduate salary. After my first pay rise (approximately at the end of the first year) I was in the top tax band of 42% (it was a little bit higher then even). Yes we do have tax bands, credits, allowances, but still at 23 I was paying tax at the top tax rate.


Yes - but you were not paying 42% on all of your income. You have to look at the "net tax" (i.e. gross tax, including standard rate and high rate tax, less credits and allowances) to get a better comparative figure. Just saying that the high rate is 42% and people enter it on a particular salary means nothing in itself. 

As I said in the other thread it would be interesting if others posted a similar analysis of their situation as I did to see how much they actually pay in direct taxes/deductions and to clarify the fact that the headline numbers (e.g. 42%) don't mean an awful lot when you crunch the numbers.


----------



## CCOVICH (1 Sep 2005)

*Re: Different definitions and interpretations of "rip-off"*

My effective tax rate is 33%.  This takes into account reliefs such as VHI, Travel Pass and Pension, but also the associated costs.  So, it's actually probably lower than 33%.  No-one will have and effective tax rate of 42% as long as we are all entitled to the standard rate up to some point, right?


----------



## ubiquitous (1 Sep 2005)

*Re: Different definitions and interpretations of "rip-off"*

21.9% in tax (excluding prsi) combined for myself and my spouse (both on the marginal rate of 42%) in 2004.


----------



## ClubMan (1 Sep 2005)

*Re: Different definitions and interpretations of "rip-off"*



			
				CCOVICH said:
			
		

> No-one will have and effective tax rate of 42% as long as we are all entitled to the standard rate up to some point, right?


Yes - not to mention tax free or standard rated tax credits. [broken link removed] is useful for estimating one's annual "net" tax/_PRSI_ bill and might be an eye opener for those who automatically assume that they pay over the odds on tax. Especially when, judging by some of the queries here on _AAM _and elsewhere, many people don't seem to even know what they are earning gross/net, paying in deductions, entitled to in terms of reliefs etc. Obviously how that tax is eventually spent is also relevant but I'm just dealing with the bottom line here.


----------



## casiopea (1 Sep 2005)

*Re: Different definitions and interpretations of "rip-off"*

I do appreciate that being in the 42% tax band does not mean 42% of my income (in ireland) gets deducted in tax.
I also appreciate that I really need to compare my P60 and my swiss P60 equivalent to establish real savings.  It would be an interesting exercise.  I know Im making substantial savings here.

As I said my example was "simply put".  I didnt include mortgage relief and childcare benefits (I dont have children but for the sake of argument) or relief on charitable donations in either country, for the sake of simplicity.  They all also exist here.

Im not Ireland bashing.  I was simply trying to answer ClubMans earlier question of "what should be done and by who".  

Like I said, there is only so much as a consumer we can do.  This is up to the Irish Government to address.


----------



## ClubMan (1 Sep 2005)

*Re: Different definitions and interpretations of "rip-off"*



			
				casiopea said:
			
		

> I do appreciate that being in the 42% tax band does not mean 42% of my income (in ireland) gets deducted in tax.
> I also appreciate that I really need to compare my P60 and my swiss P60 equivalent to establish real savings. It would be an interesting exercise. I know Im making substantial savings here.


Maybe you could present the figures at some point so that we could gauge the savings (on statutory payroll deductions such as tax and social insurance first of all) when you get a chance?



> As I said my example was "simply put". I didnt include mortgage relief and childcare benefits (I dont have children but for the sake of argument) or relief on charitable donations in either country, for the sake of simplicity. They all also exist here.


A second step would be to consider indirect taxes and reliefs. A third step might be to consider the state services to which people are entitled via the taxes and social insurance that they pay. Obviously the more that gets included and the more disparate the nature of the systems in different countries/societies the more difficult it is to make valid comparisons.



> Im not Ireland bashing. I was simply trying to answer ClubMans earlier question of "what should be done and by who".


Fair enough - I was just trying to verify that your claim that you are better off in tax terms in correct. If/when you post the details mentioned above we can judge this objectively.



> Like I said, there is only so much as a consumer we can do.  This is up to the Irish Government to address.


Address what? You seem to assume a priori that there is some problem to be addressed here. Can you state what specifically you believe that it is? If it is one of high taxation (in particular with respect to _Switzerland_) then I don't think that that case has been proven.


----------



## sherib (1 Sep 2005)

*Re: Different definitions and interpretations of "rip-off"*

Tax is always an emotive issue but what gets to me is the inequality of the distribution of the tax burden. If it was OK to have top tax rates for PAYE workers (on relatively low incomes) up to 70%+ when times were bad, why is it now OK to tax the highest earners the same as low or middle income earners? 

Among the reasons why prices are high is because there are so many people with sizeable net incomes to whom such prices are not a burden. And I'm not referring to dinners in Shanahan's or Thorntons. The cost of food, energy, transport, clothing, phone services, health insurance and all the other basics are not discretionary and eat up a significantly greater proportion of a low to middle income worker's net income.

It is quite disgraceful to read in another forum that a single parent is only €10 a week better off by working full time rather than fall back on state support. Trying to be helpful, posters have indicated the multiplicity of state supports that _may_ be available to this person including a Doctor only Medical Card. She would still have to pay up to ~€80/month for prescription charges. I would ask *why is it made so difficult for such a person to obtain these benefits?* It has been well publicised that some very high earners pay minimal tax simply because they can afford to pay Accountants to reduce their tax liability and to avail of perfectly legal tax avoidance schemes.

Our Taoiseach, Bertie Ahern, has already signalled that there will be *no more tax cuts. *He could widen the tax bands so that fewer people reach the 42% rate or, perish the thought, introduce a tax rate of say 55% on incomes above €100,000. I have no confidence either will happen. With living costs rising almost by the day, in particular fuel which impinges on everything, increasing discontent is on the horizon.


----------



## casiopea (1 Sep 2005)

*Re: Different definitions and interpretations of "rip-off"*



			
				ClubMan said:
			
		

> Maybe you could present the figures at some point so that we could gauge the savings (on statutory payroll deductions such as tax and social insurance first of all) when you get a chance?



I will do. In fact Ill probably need your help to interpret it(!)  My P60 is in ireland and it will be 6 weeks before Im back again, but Ill ressurrect this thread and do a comparison between my 2003 p60 and my 2004 swiss p60.  I stayed in the same job with the same company during this transition so it should be a relatively fair comparison. 



			
				ClubMan said:
			
		

> Address what? You seem to assume a priori that there is some problem to be addressed here. Can you state what specifically you believe that it is?



*Specifically*: "The Rip-Off".  Or whatever you want to call it.  My original point, we got sidetracked on casiopeas taxes, was:



			
				casiopea said:
			
		

> I think people are getting too caught up in the definition of rip-off and the mixed grill example. I agree, the price of a first class train ticket and a mixed grill is not an example of a rip-off. But that is not what this series is about. The rip-off, is the difference in your pay check from the top to the bottom, ie the tax your paying. And in fairness to Eddie, I think he's been quite clear about that....
> .....There are things the consumer can do other than moaning. But, in my opinion, not much. Yes, we can shop around for better value. Yes, we can send nappies to Michael Martin. You can even do what I did and move to a country with a lower taxation (I pay 18% which is a stark difference to 42%) but at the end of the day this problem has to be addressed by the Irish Government.



*Address what?*
Rip-Off might be a wrong or a right word for it, it doesnt matter, we're only being pedantic. What the government needs to address whether this is amount is too high and most importantly how the money is being spent.  

I think this is what Eddie is trying to achieve with this program and I think this is a very very good thing.


----------



## ClubMan (1 Sep 2005)

*Re: Different definitions and interpretations of "rip-off"*



			
				sherib said:
			
		

> Tax is always an emotive issue


I think that there has been a refreshing lack of emotion on the issue so far in this thread.



> but what gets to me is the inequality of the distribution of the tax burden.


Not being smart but can you point to figures that illustrate this alleged inequality?



> If it was OK to have top tax rates for PAYE workers (on relatively low incomes) up to 70%+ when times were bad, why is it now OK to tax the highest earners the same as low or middle income earners?


Surely this suggests that the tax burden is actually more equally distributed now? Was the top tax rate ever 70%+? I think remember top tax rates in the 50-60% but that was it. Maybe it was before my time? Once again just looking at the headline tax rates and bands does not really tell us much because of other factors.



> The cost of food, energy, transport, clothing, phone services, health insurance and all the other basics are not discretionary and eat up a significantly greater proportion of a low to middle income worker's net income.


There is a wide variety of sources for such goods and services and a wid variety of prices that can be paid. This is definitely an area where people can shop around for suitable value and prices to suit their needs and pockets. If you think that there is a problem in this area then what do you suggest? More deregulation? Price caps? Something else?



> It is quite disgraceful to read in another forum that a single parent is only €10 a week better off by working full time rather than fall back on state support. Trying to be helpful, posters have indicated the multiplicity of state supports that _may_ be available to this person including a Doctor only Medical Card. She would still have to pay up to ~€80/month for prescription charges. I would ask *why is it made so difficult for such a person to obtain these benefits?*
> 
> ...
> 
> Our Taoiseach, Bertie Ahern, has already signalled that there will be *no more tax cuts. *He could widen the tax bands so that fewer people reach the 42% rate or, perish the thought, introduce a tax rate of say 55% on incomes above €100,000. I have no confidence either will happen. With living costs rising almost by the day, in particular fuel which impinges on everything, increasing discontent is on the horizon.


You seem to be contradicting yourself here - bemoaning the alleged difficulty that some people have in qualifying for or claiming certain benefits while also bemoaning the lack of further tax cuts. Surely there are trade offs here and lower taxation will impact somewhere else - such as in terms of state benefits?

It might be more constructive if you could pinpoint specific examples (e.g. specific benefits that are hard to claim or qualify for) rather than taking about generalities.


----------



## ClubMan (1 Sep 2005)

*Re: Different definitions and interpretations of "rip-off"*



			
				casiopea said:
			
		

> I will do. In fact Ill probably need your help to interpret it(!) My P60 is in ireland and it will be 6 weeks before Im back again, but Ill ressurrect this thread and do a comparison between my 2003 p60 and my 2004 swiss p60. I stayed in the same job with the same company during this transition so it should be a relatively fair comparison.


If you are unable to interpret your P60 then how can you honestly say that you are better off in terms of statutory payroll deductions in Switzerland compared to Ireland!? It'll be interesting to see the figures when you get a chance to retrieve and post them.


> *Specifically*: "The Rip-Off".  Or whatever you want to call it.  My original point, we got sidetracked on casiopeas taxes, was:


But WHAT rip-off? Talking generall about "rip-off Ireland" is meaningless. We need to deal with specifics here to make any headway. 


> Rip-Off might be a wrong or a right word for it, it doesnt matter, we're only being pedantic. What the government needs to address whether this is amount is too high and most importantly how the money is being spent.


Trying to get to the bottom of what we're talking about is not mere pedantry or semantics. I don't understand what you mean by _"What the government needs to address whether this is amount is too high..."_. You seem to concede that it's not established objectively that the tax burden is too onerous but yet you seem to assume a priori that we are being ripped off in this respect. I don't get it. 



> I think this is what Eddie is trying to achieve with this program and I think this is a very very good thing.


As I've said before I'm all for idenfiying and tackling the real rip-offs (such as some of those listed in the link posted earlier on) and raising consumer awareness but I don't agree that we have a pervasive "rip-off" culture/environment that impinges on most or all walks of life.


----------



## ubiquitous (1 Sep 2005)

*Re: Different definitions and interpretations of "rip-off"*

The tax take in this country may look high, but it is unlikely to be significantly higher than other countries as the internationally accepted wisdom is that the comparitively low-tax policies pursued in this economy in the past 10 years or so has been one of the major factors driving our high economic growth rates and the surge in inward investment. Maybe this accepted wisdom is wrong, but if it is none of our leading economic experts (on either side of the ideological divide) have disputed it. 

In relation to Switzerland, my own uninformed understanding is that the economies of the major contintential powers (France, Germany etc) were performing poorly due to the combination of high tax and social insurance charges on employment. Maybe Switzerland has escaped this phenomenon? If their tax rates are lower than Ireland, you would imagine that the country would be a magnet for inward investment. Maybe they can afford to do without the likes of the Intels and Dells of this world.


----------



## CCOVICH (1 Sep 2005)

*Re: Different definitions and interpretations of "rip-off"*

Can _anyone_ go live in Switzerland?  What are the indirect taxes like there?


----------



## casiopea (1 Sep 2005)

*Re: Different definitions and interpretations of "rip-off"*



> If you are unable to interpret your P60 then how can you honestly say that you are better off in terms of statutory payroll deductions in Switzerland compared to Ireland!?



I was joking, being disparging about my financial knowledge and paying you a compliment on yours.  I can read my p60.  

Ive tried to be as clear as I can be.  So I think Im wasting both of our time by ping-pong replying.  Maybe my english isnt as good as it used to be after all these years abroad (<- thats also a joke).



> But WHAT rip-off? Talking generall about "rip-off Ireland" is meaningless.



ClubMan, we are in complete agreement.  Im trying to get away from the term rip-off, stupid examples like mix grills and oxford dict. definitions of "rip-off".

The essence of my point is that how tax money is spent and, from that, if these taxes are too high needs to be looked at by the Irish Government.   

Im off now. It was a pleasure, as always, debating with you.

Cas.


----------



## casiopea (1 Sep 2005)

*Re: Different definitions and interpretations of "rip-off"*



			
				CCOVICH said:
			
		

> Can _anyone_ go live in Switzerland?  What are the indirect taxes like there?



Certainly anyone working in finance, IT, business can apply for a position and be granted a B-Visa.

Again, Im not ireland bashing, Im not saying moving to Switzerland is a solution (!!!)  Interestingly there is another frequent poster here called delgirl who like me is irish and like me is married to a swiss man and theyve chosen to live in Ireland.


----------



## CCOVICH (1 Sep 2005)

*Re: Different definitions and interpretations of "rip-off"*

I'm not suggesting that you're Ireland bashing, and certainly don't want to give that impression  .  Was just asking those questions out of interest.


----------



## sherib (1 Sep 2005)

*Re: Different definitions and interpretations of "rip-off"*



> Originally posted by casiopea
> Im trying to get away from the term rip-off, stupid examples like mix grills and oxford dict. definitions of "rip-off"....Maybe my english isnt as good as it used to be.


 
That's why dictionaries are a useful tool  Precision of definition allows everyone to sing off the same hymn sheet. Rational debate is precluded when some are speaking about oranges, more about apples and a few about lemons.

If there isn't overcharging in Ireland, why have tourism returns dropped by 40% in the West of Ireland? That's a good example of people voting with their feet. Conversely the takings in Brown Thomas (exclusive shop in Dublin) were up by the same amount last year and even more this year.

Of course income tax has reduced (thanks to Mary Harney and Charlie Mc Creevy's policies). When it was sky high on low incomes, the black enonomy thrived and oceans of money flowed out of the country to Off Shore Accounts and other devious methods. That was a sign of intelligent governance. The economy grew to what it is today, assisted by the carrot of being one of the lowest Corporation Tax countries in Europe; an advantage which isn't pleasing our European neighbours. Many other factors contributed to our booming economy which it would take too long to enumerate here.

Responding to some of ClubMan's comments: You seem to assume that everyone is as adept at crunching the numbers and knowing what they are entitled to as you are and well educated AAM forum contributors. If it were so easy why does anyone need to post on AAM to seek this advice? And not everyone has access to a computer or the Internet. 

Yes the tax burden is more equally distributed now compared to the past but there is a lot of capacity for increasing tax equity. I am unaware of the possibility of shopping around for electricity, heating, transport (bus/train), phone rental and other basics. Of course I am not suggesting more regulation (the converse) but simply that these essential costs impinge more on low to middle income workers. An obvious solution would be to increase the 20% tax band thus increasing net disposable income. That could be offset by introducing a third tax band for incomes in excess of say €100,000. 

I don't see any contradiction is seeking an increase in net income by the widening of tax bands (the equivalent of a tax cut). Why should that impinge on services? That would benefit all workers but particularly those just above the minimum industrial wage - thus helping to buffer them against rising costs of living.

It is accepted that Ireland is one of the most expensive countries in Europe to live in. Fine if one has an above average net income but far from fine for those barely keeping their heads above water - which is getting deeper by the day!


----------



## delgirl (1 Sep 2005)

*Re: Different definitions and interpretations of "rip-off"*



			
				CCOVICH said:
			
		

> Can _anyone_ go live in Switzerland? What are the indirect taxes like there?


Switzerland is incredibly beautiful, it's clean, the public transport works like clockwork, the health care is outstanding, I could go on, but you get the idea.

Indirect taxes are high, particularly if you are a property owner, there are all sorts of taxes and levies which we don't have in Ireland.

In Ireland, for example, water is free for domestic use - in Switzerland domestic water usage is metered and then you are charged again for wastewater leaving the property.

In Ireland you can choose whether to go to church and make a donation - in Switzerland if you are Roman Catholic, Protestant or of another Christian denomination, in most cantons you have to pay Church Tax. I'm not sure what percentage of the salary it is, but the total church taxation revenues were $850 million (1.3 billion Swiss francs) in 1997. 

In Ireland, if you own your own home - you don't pay any taxes on it. In Switzerland you pay 'Wealth Tax'. For example, if you own a property worth 1m Swiss Francs, the wealth tax would be approx. SFR5,000 which is approx. E3,300 per annum.

In Switzerland property owners pay council tax and pay for each bag of refuse they dispose of on top of the council tax. They also pay for each container of recyclable material left for collection.

In Ireland you are not obliged to have private health insurance, but every person resident in Switzerland must be insured with one of the health insurance companies officially recognised by the Confederation. Health Insurance is not cheap - we pay E165 per month here for VHI cover - my brother-in-law pays around E330 for his family with 1 extra child. My parents in law, who are a lot older and have various maladies, pay approx E650 per month for 2 people.

Bottom line is - the country works extremely well, but it's not cheap!


----------



## ClubMan (1 Sep 2005)

*Re: Different definitions and interpretations of "rip-off"*



			
				sherib said:
			
		

> Responding to some of ClubMan's comments: You seem to assume that everyone is as adept at crunching the numbers and knowing what they are entitled to as you are and well educated AAM forum contributors. If it were so easy why does anyone need to post on AAM to seek this advice? And not everyone has access to a computer or the Internet.


I'm not assuming anything of the sort. However people should do whatever is required (by themselves or with the assistance of private advisors or statutory agencies such as _MABS _or the _Citizen Information Centres_) to apprise themselves of their entitlements and ensure that they are claiming everything due to them. Nobody needs a computer or the internet to do this. They do need a bit of get up and go but as grown adults some personal responsibility in such matters is required and people should not expect somebody else to do it for them. If people fail to do this and lose out then that's tough. If they then moan about paying too much tax and what a rip-off Ireland is then that's stupid. I can't see how my views on this specific matter are in any way controversial.



> Yes the tax burden is more equally distributed now compared to the past but there is a lot of capacity for increasing tax equity.


Such as...?



> I am unaware of the possibility of shopping around for electricity, heating, transport (bus/train), phone rental and other basics.


I thought that there were some new electricity service providers in the market now? If not I presume that deregulation will open up this market sooner rather than later. Wasn't that part of the reason for splitting _ESB _into two - one for the infrastructure and one for service provision - in preparation for deregulation of the market? Trains are a monopoly alright. Buses are not totally. Phone rental can be avoided through mobiles or _VoIP_/internet telephony. There are several ways of heating one's home so there is choice there. What other basics do you think are restricted to a single option?



> Of course I am not suggesting more regulation (the converse) but simply that these essential costs impinge more on low to middle income workers. An obvious solution would be to increase the 20% tax band thus increasing net disposable income. That could be offset by introducing a third tax band for incomes in excess of say €100,000.


Before you meddle with the tax bands/rates you need to show that there is some reason to do this. What is the reason in this case?



> I don't see any contradiction is seeking an increase in net income by the widening of tax bands (the equivalent of a tax cut). Why should that impinge on services?


Less tax means that the exchequer has less money for everything including social services etc.



> That would benefit all workers but particularly those just above the minimum industrial wage - thus helping to buffer them against rising costs of living.


Again you need to show why this is necessary first. [broken link removed] the average industrial wage is c. €30K as of March 2005 (est.). According to [broken link removed] a single person earning that salary with the standard tax credits on _PRSI _Class A1 would pay €3282 in tax and €1536 in _PRSI_/health levy. This means that they pay c. 11% of their gross income in tax and c. 16% in all statutory payroll deductions. This is before additional tax credits/allowances are taken into account. For example common reliefs/allowances would include those for _SSIAs_, pension contributions, owner occupier mortgage interest, service charges, private health insurance, marginal relief for lower paid, medical expenses etc. Then there are also welfare benefits for the lower paid or unemployed. Maybe you can explain how and why you think that paying 16% (or less if other credits are taken into account) of gross income in tax/_PRSI _is excessive and what you think it should be?



> It is accepted that Ireland is one of the most expensive countries in Europe to live in. Fine if one has an above average net income but far from fine for those barely keeping their heads above water - which is getting deeper by the day!


Accepted by whom?


----------



## balga (1 Sep 2005)

*Re: Different definitions and interpretations of "rip-off"*

Whether the term "rip off" or expensive is used, I confess to continually making mental comparisons between the cost of a good to me here in Dublin, and the cost (to me) of a similar good in Perth, WAustralia.  Perhaps such a comparison is fair, perhaps not.  I do it anyway.
Some people seem to believe that Dublin (or Ireland) is expensive.   I certainly believe that some goods I buy are.  I have always asked myself why this should be.   Perhaps I have experienced two examples that allow almost direct comparison.
I was involved closely in the leasing of retail (shopping) space in Ireland based on a similar format to that of over 150 units spread across Australia.  The rental cost per square foot here was just under three times that of the average Australian cost.  Supply and demand?  No problems with that argument, simply presenting my experience.
Not so long ago the WAustralian authorities decided to close a turn of the century built maximum security prison.  Casuarina prison was built on crown land on the outskirts of Perth.  Immediate price of land zero.  The closed prison, Fremantle prison is now one of the major tourist attractions in the port city of Fremantle.   
Simply two examples in my experience.


----------



## CCOVICH (1 Sep 2005)

*Re: Different definitions and interpretations of "rip-off"*



			
				delgirl said:
			
		

> Bottom line is - the country works extremely well, but it's not cheap!



So the country offers value for money (taxes)?    

That's my main problem with Ireland, not necessarily the tax burden per se, but the return I get on my taxes.  I have to admit, it's getting better, i.e. I have the M1 which has shaved anything up to 45 minutes off my journey up to the hills (still a toll road though), there is the prospect of a bit more room on the DART when the eight carriage trains come on line.  But then we have the disgrace that is the M50, the Carrickmacross bypass, which should be a better road that it actually is, and the messing around that is going on with the new prison in North County Dublin.


----------



## ClubMan (1 Sep 2005)

*Re: Different definitions and interpretations of "rip-off"*



			
				CCOVICH said:
			
		

> So the country offers value for money (taxes)?


How do you adjudge that to be the case? What about the other issues that _delgirl _mentioned such as mandatory private health insurance, religious taxes (for those that profess certain faiths), annual property/wealth taxes, indirect taxes that apply there but not here etc.? I can't imagine that most people would be happy with these additional/higher taxes even if the quid pro quo was "better" services and what have you.



> That's my main problem with Ireland, not necessarily the tax burden per se...


Just to clarify, the reason I went into some detail about the tax issue is that others here and elsewhere incorrectly claimed or insinuated that, in Ireland, we face a heavy or onerous tax burden and, based on an analysis of direct/statutory payroll deductions, I have tried to show that this is not necessarily the case.


----------



## CCOVICH (1 Sep 2005)

*Re: Different definitions and interpretations of "rip-off"*



			
				ClubMan said:
			
		

> How do you adjudge that to be the case?



I don't adjudge anything to be the case, hence the ?  I was questioning whether delgirl thought the Switzerland offered value for money.  Given that I have never lived in, or visited Switzerland, I would not presume to know anything about the place other than what _delgirl_ and _casiopea_ have outlined here, and that they will more than likely finish ahead of us in WC qualifying.



			
				ClubMan said:
			
		

> What about the other issues that _delgirl _mentioned such as mandatory private health insurance, religious taxes (for those that profess certain faiths), annual property/wealth taxes, indirect taxes that apply there but not here etc.?



Yes, I noticed these, and I wouldn't be keen on a religious tax for one, but look, I'm not trying to make out that Switzerland is better than Ireland, I'm just interested in people's experiences of other countries.  You seem to assume that I am all "anti-Ireland", I'm not, I believe that this State has it's good points and bad points, like every other country in the world.

We had the opportunity to move to the US or the Caribbean around 2-3 years ago.  We chose to buy an apartment here, and it's likely we'll be here for the rest of our lives.  So I don't think it's that bad at all.  But certain things frustrate/annoy me from time to time.  Fair enough?




			
				ClubMan said:
			
		

> I can't imagine that most people would be happy with these additional/higher taxes even if the quid pro quo was "better" services and what have you.



Maybe, maybe not.  What might be interesting would be a poll, a la the feature they have on boards.ie?  I couldn't predict in advance what the result would be, but I think that one or two people on AAM have mentioned that they wouldn't mind paying higher taxes if it meant better services, but that doesn't imply that any more than one or two think so.


----------



## ClubMan (1 Sep 2005)

*Re: Different definitions and interpretations of "rip-off"*



			
				CCOVICH said:
			
		

> I don't adjudge anything to be the case, hence the ?


Fair enough - I read it as a stament or at least a rhetorical question rather than a question directed at _delgirl_.



> You seem to assume that I am all "anti-Ireland", I'm not


I have neither said nor, I believe anyway, insinuated that at any stage in this thread in reference to any individual's views. I am merely dealing with the issues in hand and trying to tease them out based on discussion of the underlying facts rather than generalities.



> We had the opportunity to move to the US or the Caribbean around 2-3 years ago. We chose to buy an apartment here, and it's likely we'll be here for the rest of our lives. So I don't think it's that bad at all. But certain things frustrate/annoy me from time to time. Fair enough?


Yes - but in the context of this thread I thought that we were trying to get away from the generalities and down to specifics - if not in the definition of the "rip-off" catchphrase then at least in terms of what people consider a rip-off and what is something else like high prices etc.



> Maybe, maybe not. What might be interesting would be a poll, a la the feature they have on boards.ie? I couldn't predict in advance what the result would be, but I think that one or two people on AAM have mentioned that they wouldn't mind paying higher taxes if it meant better services, but that doesn't imply that any more than one or two think so.


I don't think that that would help us much to be honest - internet (and tele, text etc.) polls are meaningless because they are not a done on a rigorous scientific basis involving the careful phrasing of questions (so as not to lead) and careful selection of the sample queried.


----------



## sherib (1 Sep 2005)

*Re: Different definitions and interpretations of "rip-off"*

http://www.valueireland.com/warned/youve_been_warned.htm
Come on now ClubMan, a little while ago you conceded there was overcharging in Ireland yet continue to reject any suggestion of this when it's posted here. It would become boring and wearing to respond to every sentence but what exactly does this mean to ordinary people - in simple language without stone walling or paralytic analysis:


> Originally posted by ClubMan
> I_ thought that there were some new electricity service providers in the market now? If not I presume that deregulation will open up this market sooner rather than later. Wasn't that part of the reason for splitting ESB into two - one for the infrastructure and one for service provision - in preparation for deregulation of the market? Trains are a monopoly alright. Buses are not totally. Phone rental can be avoided through mobiles or VoIP/internet telephony. There are several ways of heating one's home so there is choice there. What other basics do you think are restricted to a single option?_


 
I respect your powers of analysis but the above comments are disingenuous. You seem to be playing around with words just for the sake of it, e.g. *"there are several ways of heating one's home so there is choice there".* Irrelevant comment on this issue which is about the *cost* and not the *choice*. Would you recommend candles?  

Delgirl's confirms the points people have been attempting to make while being squashed like flies when they hold a different viewpoint. That isn't debate.



> Originally quoted by Delgirl
> Switzerland is incredibly beautiful, it's clean, the public transport works like clockwork, the health care is outstanding, I could go on, but you get the idea. Indirect taxes are high, particularly if you are a property owner, there are all sorts of taxes and levies which we don't have in Ireland. In Ireland, for example, water is free for domestic use - in Switzerland domestic water usage is metered and then you are charged again for wastewater leaving the property.


Why shouldn't these charges be levied here? We have the worst of both worlds - high indirect taxation without the benefit of excellent services.

In fact we did have property tax here (does no one remember?) and water charges where I live but these were abolished and I'd like to know why. IMO property tax should be levied on properties valued in excess of €1M. That in fact in one of the worst scandals - no property tax on the increasing number of very high cost homes, yet all the benefits of schools, third level education and _untaxed_ child benefit are available to such people. *The benefits are disproportunate to the contribution as a % of income*. That's what I mean by inequity and if that is not clear I can't explain it better. It is my opinion and I am sticking to it. 

You repeatedly ask for evidence - well, what about opening your eyes and popping into one of our public hospitals? When you've done that, get the figures for the numbers attending third level education based on demography. Yes, it's a wonderful country for some (so why would they complain) but it is both economically and socially an increasingly unequal society for a large majority who, unfortunately, don't vote. Even if they did, which of our main parties would represent their interests? They are not members of the cosy club network - who have reaped more than their share of the Celtic Tiger's spoils.


----------



## CCOVICH (1 Sep 2005)

*Re: Different definitions and interpretations of "rip-off"*



			
				ClubMan said:
			
		

> I have neither said nor, I believe anyway, insinuated that at any stage in this thread in reference to any individual's views.



Not on this thread, but you have referred to me as a "Rip Off Ireland merchant" on another thread?



			
				ClubMan said:
			
		

> Yes - but in the context of this thread I thought that we were trying to get away from the generalities and down to specifics - if not in the definition of the "rip-off" catchphrase then at least in terms of what people consider a rip-off and what is something else like high prices etc.


I don't know, maybe I've gone OT, but I was just responding to posts by others.  As regards specifics, I already mentioned the M50, the Carrickmacross bypass, and the prison fiasco.  These projects represent poor value/rip offs to me.





			
				ClubMan said:
			
		

> I don't think that that would help us much to be honest - internet (and tele, text etc.) polls are meaningless because they are not a done on a rigorous scientific basis involving the careful phrasing of questions (so as not to lead) and careful selection of the sample queried.



Fair enough.  It was just a thought that I had.  But interestingly, would you not trust some of the contributors (e.g. mods and admins )to this site to phrase questions carefully?  And the sample queried, would be registered AAMers?  It wouldn't be conclusive of course, but would give a 'flavour' of how AAMers feel on certain issues (Yes or no).


----------



## podgerodge (1 Sep 2005)

*Re: Different definitions and interpretations of "rip-off"*



			
				casiopea said:
			
		

> stupid examples like mix grills and oxford dict. definitions of "rip-off".
> 
> Cas.



I'm sorry , but for once I wish to object to the above statement.  You, no-more than me or anyone else, as depicted in last night's deletion of comments, has a right to state that these are "stupid" examples.  IMHO the example of a "mixed grill" is equally as important when discussing this issue as any 'more important' issues that you may feel require discussion.

I would like to feel that comments such as those could be edited as well - I thought this was a 'respect each others views' website but am beginning to wonder.



			
				casiopea said:
			
		

> Im trying to get away from the term rip-off
> Cas.




I thought the topic was of this thread WAS rip-off


----------



## ClubMan (1 Sep 2005)

*Re: Different definitions and interpretations of "rip-off"*



			
				sherib said:
			
		

> http://www.valueireland.com/warned/youve_been_warned.htm
> Come on now ClubMan, a little while ago you conceded there was overcharging in Ireland yet continue to reject any suggestion of this when it's posted here.


Where precisely did I deny that overcharging or rip-offs never happen in _Ireland_? I think that you'll find that you are mistaken if you think that I did. If you read my earlier reference to that link you will see that I very clearly agreed that at least some of the issues raised in the article were, indeed, genuine rip-offs that merited attention and rectification.



> It would become boring and wearing to respond to every sentence but what exactly does this mean to ordinary people - in simple language without stone walling or paralytic analysis:
> 
> ...
> 
> Would you recommend candles?


I don't understand the seeming sarcasm implied by some of what you have posted, not least of all the above, but I will overlook that and respond nonetheless for what it's worth...



> I respect your powers of analysis but the above comments are disingenuous. You seem to be playing around with words just for the sake of it, e.g. *"there are several ways of heating one's home so there is choice there".* Irrelevant comment on this issue which is about the *cost* and not the *choice*. Would you recommend candles?


No - my point was that there are choices in terms of the main energy sources to use for, say, home heating and not all of these presumably cost the same - e.g. OFCH, GFCH, electricity not to mention some of the other more niche options. Are you saying that all of these cost the same to install and run and thus that people have no choice in terms of what they install and the price that they pay? 



> Delgirl's confirms the points people have been attempting to make while being squashed like flies when they hold a different viewpoint. That isn't debate.


More misplaced hyperbole - I have merely discussed and dissected the issues in hand. Neither I nor anybody else has "squashed like flies" others or their opinions. I think it's a good idea to stick to discussion of the issues rather than attempting to deflect from them by insinuating that some people are engaging in some sort of war of (words) attrition. That is not my intention anyway but I will continue to argue my case and challenge others where I feel it's necessary. That is the nature of mature discussion.



> Why shouldn't these charges be levied here? We have the worst of both worlds - high indirect taxation without the benefit of excellent services.


So are you admitting that we don't have high direct taxation and that the problem, if any, lies specifically with indirect taxation? I never said that the taxes mentioned above that are levied in _Switzerland _should not be levied here. I just made the point that I personally doubt that many people would go for higher and more taxation regardless of the potential payoffs. I could be wrong. Maybe if/when people vote in a Government that stands on a policy of higher taxes and better services it will prove me wrong.



> In fact we did have property tax here (does no one remember?) and water charges where I live but these were abolished and I'd like to know why.


Yes - I remember both. But I don't understand what it is that you attribute their abolition to. Maybe you can clarify? If I'm not mistaken water charges, which were paid by some people including my own services, were abolished when people simply did not comply with the law requiring them to pay. A bit like certain attempts to boycott bin charges but with more effect. Surely this puts a lie to the claim that people would pay higher taxes to fund better services (e.g. the proper upgrade and maintenance of our public water systems which are, in many case, decrepit and inefficient)?



> IMO property tax should be levied on properties valued in excess of €1M.


Why €1M specifically?


> That in fact in one of the worst scandals - no property tax on the increasing number of very high cost homes, yet all the benefits of schools, third level education and _untaxed_ child benefit are available to such people. *The benefits are disproportunate to the contribution as a % of income*. That's what I mean by inequity and if that is not clear I can't explain it better. It is my opinion and I am sticking to it.


Fair enough but you might sway people to your way of thinking if you could post some hard facts and figures to back it up.



> You repeatedly ask for evidence - well, what about opening your eyes and popping into one of our public hospitals?


I never said that our public health system was some sort of paragon of excellence. I am aware of some of the problems having helped to nurse my terminally ill father in hospital a few years back, and currently attending a public maternity hospital with my wife. In both cases we had no problems with facilities and treatment but _A&E _was a disaster when my father was admitted one time, not least of all because of (a) the number of frivolous cases and (b) the number of junkies and drunks attending, wasting the time of the staff and making life generally uncomfortable (and sometimes dangerous) for everybody. I don't understand your point about opening my eyes as if I am deliberately ignoring things. I have lived my whole life in _Ireland _and believe that this gives me as much right as anybody else to give my views on matters. If you disagree with me - fair enough - but at least argue your case rather than simply dismissing mine.



> When you've done that, get the figures for the numbers attending third level education based on demography. Yes, it's a wonderful country for some (so why would they complain) but it is both economically and socially an increasingly unequal society for a large majority who, unfortunately, don't vote. Even if they did, which of our main parties would represent their interests? They are not members of the cosy club network - who have reaped more than their share of the Celtic Tiger's spoils.


Maybe you could help me out by linking to and, ideally, analysing these figures to support your argument. 

In my opinion yet again somebody (you in this case) is taking a very generalised and scatter-gun approach to blaming our ills on rip-off Ireland or whatever you want to call it. Read back over your post and notice how generalised the arguments and issues are and how bereft of supporting facts, figures and information it is. 

Please don't take any of this personally - I won't take your sarcastic comments personally - but try to understand the points that I am making based on discussion of the issues rather than any clash of personalities. That's what killed the last thread on this issue.


----------



## ClubMan (1 Sep 2005)

*Re: Different definitions and interpretations of "rip-off"*



			
				CCOVICH said:
			
		

> Not on this thread, but you have referred to me as a "Rip Off Ireland merchant" on another thread?


I thought that I already explained that that was intended as a facetious comment and that I had apologised for any offence or embarassment caused. If I did not then I do so here.



> I don't know, maybe I've gone OT, but I was just responding to posts by others. As regards specifics, I already mentioned the M50, the Carrickmacross bypass, and the prison fiasco. These projects represent poor value/rip offs to me.


But why precisely. 



> Fair enough. It was just a thought that I had. But interestingly, would you not trust some of the contributors (e.g. mods and admins )to this site to phrase questions carefully? And the sample queried, would be registered AAMers? It wouldn't be conclusive of course, but would give a 'flavour' of how AAMers feel on certain issues (Yes or no).


Internet polls are a crock. That's why we never enabled them on _AAM_.


----------



## CCOVICH (2 Sep 2005)

*Re: Different definitions and interpretations of "rip-off"*



			
				ClubMan said:
			
		

> I thought that I already explained that that was intended as a facetious comment and that I had apologised for any offence or embarassment caused. If I did not then I do so here.


 
Thanks.  You had said that you were _half_ joking.




			
				ClubMan said:
			
		

> But why precisely.


 
1.  Have you ever used the M50?  Try it on a weekday morning anytime from around 7 am.  You'll find yourself in city centre style traffic (moving at roughly 5 mph) until you get to a toll bridge where you are then requested to pay for the privlege of using the road.  At the weekends, it can be nearly as bad.  That's my experience of it, I think it represents poor value for money.  Others are free to disagree of course.  

2.  Have you ever used the Carrickmacross bypass?  A fine idea, but a badly designed road with little scope for safe overtaking.  Avoiding the traffic in the town is great, finding yourself stuck behind an agricultural vehicle the whole length of the bypass.  That's my experience of it, I think it represents poor value for money.  Again, others are free to disagree of course.  

3.  The prison fiasco.  The government has paid 6? times the agricultural value for a piece of land to site a new prison in North County Dublin.  It now looks as if this land may never be used for a prison, not least among the reasons is that local residents have appealed to the Minister not to go ahead with the prison, otherwise they will go to court.  It may go ahead in the end, but again, I feel the that costs to date (an in all likelyhood the final costs) represent poor value for money, or at least a waste of taxpayers funds (i.e. don't spend over the odds for land that may prove useless)

Now that's why I feel these projects represent poor value/a rip off  IMHO. Anyone can disagree with my interpretation, but I am free to feel this way.



			
				ClubMan said:
			
		

> Internet polls are a crock. That's why we never enabled them on _AAM_.


 
Fine.  I assume that's opinion as opposed to fact?


----------



## ubiquitous (2 Sep 2005)

*Re: Different definitions and interpretations of "rip-off"*

The odd thing is that the only reason the M50 and the Carrickmacross bypass aren't bigger, better roads is because of the refusal of government to spend additional funds on both projects. It may well be the case the society as a whole would be much better off had more money been spent on these roads, but the bottom line is that we, the taxpayers, would be funding the additional costs in the form of higher taxes or tolls. In that scenario, some people would label the tax or toll increases as a "rip off" Which came first the chicken or the egg?

If the govt paid only 6 times agricultural value for the North Dublin prison land, then they got remarkable value for money. Any tuppence-ha'penny half-acre site in my part of the country can command prices of up to or over €100k - over ten times the going rate for agri land.


----------



## casiopea (2 Sep 2005)

*Re: Different definitions and interpretations of "rip-off"*



			
				podgerodge said:
			
		

> You, no-more than me or anyone else, as depicted in last night's deletion of comments, has a right to state that these are "stupid" examples.
> 
> I would like to feel that comments such as those could be edited as well - I thought this was a 'respect each others views' website but am beginning to wonder.



Hi Podgerodge,
When I said this I was talking in context of Eddie Hobbs example on his show and not you or any other poster on this board.  I do respect your views.  I was trying to say, albeit somewhat unsuccessfully given how much Ive had to explain, that Eddie hobbs show has us talking about how our taxes are spent and that is a good thing.  I was trying to move away from this term "rip-off" as I felt it was being used too widely and loosely, for example the mixed grill.  

Regarding the Catholic Tax, I pay roughly 200 euro a year here on catholic tax.  Some time back when there was a heated debate about the catholic church in Ireland I mentioned this as a positive about the Irish Catholic Church.



> So the country offers value for money (taxes)?



Yes, I believe so.  This is where Im going when I said yesterday that the irish government needs to address how irish tax money is spent.


----------



## ClubMan (2 Sep 2005)

*Re: Different definitions and interpretations of "rip-off"*



			
				CCOVICH said:
			
		

> Thanks.  You had said that you were _half_ joking.


Just to clarify - I was fully joking.


> 1. Have you ever used the M50? Try it on a weekday morning anytime from around 7 am. You'll find yourself in city centre style traffic (moving at roughly 5 mph) until you get to a toll bridge where you are then requested to pay for the privlege of using the road. At the weekends, it can be nearly as bad. That's my experience of it, I think it represents poor value for money. Others are free to disagree of course.


Is this totally a problem with the way in which the road was constructed? Surely the fact that so many people feel the need to drive their private cars (often with a single occupant) is also a contributory factor and another obvious inefficiency in the overall system?



> 2. Have you ever used the Carrickmacross bypass? A fine idea, but a badly designed road with little scope for safe overtaking. Avoiding the traffic in the town is great, finding yourself stuck behind an agricultural vehicle the whole length of the bypass. That's my experience of it, I think it represents poor value for money. Again, others are free to disagree of course.


Again how is this necessarily a problem with the road itself as opposed to the vehicles that use it?



> 3. The prison fiasco. The government has paid 6? times the agricultural value for a piece of land to site a new prison in North County Dublin. It now looks as if this land may never be used for a prison, not least among the reasons is that local residents have appealed to the Minister not to go ahead with the prison, otherwise they will go to court. It may go ahead in the end, but again, I feel the that costs to date (an in all likelyhood the final costs) represent poor value for money, or at least a waste of taxpayers funds (i.e. don't spend over the odds for land that may prove useless)


OK - this is a bit more specific and I would totally agree that if this is the case then it certainly merits investigation so that at the very least we can learn from whatever mistakes have been made and can avoid the same thing again in the future.

If you have more specific facts and figures about the projects in question that illustrate how you believe they represent value for money I'd be interested in seeing them



> Now that's why I feel these projects represent poor value/a rip off IMHO. Anyone can disagree with my interpretation, but I am free to feel this way.


Of course - but we can hardly come to conclusions on the topics in hand on anecdotal evidence alone, can we?



> Fine.  I assume that's opinion as opposed to fact?


Yes - but I'm sure that internet polls are not statistically sound although I'd have to root out some relevant research articles...


----------



## ubiquitous (2 Sep 2005)

*Re: Different definitions and interpretations of "rip-off"*

In fairness, when any government in any country spends a number of billions a year, there will always be some element of waste. The Comptroller & Auditor General's office has done a fantastic job in the past decade or so in identifying this waste when it occurs and in setting up auditing and accounability process to ensure that similar incidents are minimised or avoided altogether in the future. In the rare occasions that Ministers bypass these accountability processes to push pet projects (for example, Punchestown Event Centre), the existence of these processes mean that the citizens of the country can find out the details quickly and then it is up to them to make their own mind up on the politicians responsible.


----------



## CCOVICH (2 Sep 2005)

*Re: Different definitions and interpretations of "rip-off"*



			
				ClubMan said:
			
		

> Is this totally a problem with the way in which the road was constructed? Surely the fact that so many people feel the need to drive their private cars (often with a single occupant) is also a contributory factor and another obvious inefficiency in the overall system?.


 
Not totally, but the fact that they are in the process of adding more lanes suggests that there is a problem with the way the road is constructed (of course some of the problem is caused by increasing demand).  Wrt to people feeling the need to drive their cars, I don't think all of them would if they felt that there was a viable alternative to travelling from North County Dublin/Swords/Meath to South County Dublin.  A metro/train to Swords, the building of the city centre interconnector etc. may of course alleviate some of the problems with the M50, but that's some way off at this stage.



			
				ClubMan said:
			
		

> Again how is this necessarily a problem with the road itself as opposed to the vehicles that use it?


 
Because the design of the road doesn't faciltate safe (or indeed legal) overtaking for long streches.  Wrt to the vehicles that use it, unless they are barred from doing so, they will continue (and have every right) to do so.




			
				ClubMan said:
			
		

> OK - this is a bit more specific and I would totally agree that if this is the case then it certainly merits investigation so that at the very least we can learn from whatever mistakes have been made and can avoid the same thing again in the future.
> 
> If you have more specific facts and figures about the projects in question that illustrate how you believe they represent value for money I'd be interested in seeing them


 
That's all I've heard for the moment I'm afraid, and it may very well work out ok, but I wouldn't hold my breath, especially based on what the head of the residents/community association was saying on _The Last Word_ the other evening.



			
				ClubMan said:
			
		

> Of course - but we can hardly come to conclusions on the topics in hand on anecdotal evidence alone, can we?


 
No, wouldn't expect that we come to any conclusion, but it's interesting to debate these issues anyway, even in the absence of conclusive proof one way or another, isn't it?




			
				ClubMan said:
			
		

> Yes - but I'm sure that internet polls are not statistically sound although I'd have to root out some relevant research articles...


 
Don't feel you have to, it's a moot point, and one that I'm not going to argue.  I just couldn't resist that 'dig' on the fact that it was an opinion offered without conclusive proof  .


----------



## CCOVICH (2 Sep 2005)

*Re: Different definitions and interpretations of "rip-off"*



			
				ubiquitous said:
			
		

> The odd thing is that the only reason the M50 and the Carrickmacross bypass aren't bigger, better roads is because of the refusal of government to spend additional funds on both projects. It may well be the case the society as a whole would be much better off had more money been spent on these roads, but the bottom line is that we, the taxpayers, would be funding the additional costs in the form of higher taxes or tolls. In that scenario, some people would label the tax or toll increases as a "rip off" Which came first the chicken or the egg?


 
Fair enough.  Some people would indeed refuse to pay more for better services, or label the increased costs of better service as a 'rip off'



			
				ubiquitous said:
			
		

> If the govt paid only 6 times agricultural value for the North Dublin prison land, then they got remarkable value for money. Any tuppence-ha'penny half-acre site in my part of the country can command prices of up to or over €100k - over ten times the going rate for agri land.


 
But what if this land is never turned into a prison?  What value has the land to the taxpayer in that scenario?


----------



## ubiquitous (2 Sep 2005)

*Re: Different definitions and interpretations of "rip-off"*

Time will tell if the prison land acquistion was a good idea or not. The only thing is that if the State has acted improperly or recklessly in relation to the purchase, there is at least the comfort to taxpayers that there are decent regulatory mechanisms in place to bring the details of the matter to public attention and to apportion blame where necessary. There is also the assurance that the State does have rigorous procedures in place for the purchase of land for public infrastructure purposes, and that to satisfy these procedures the relevant authorities must demonstrate to the Dept of Finance that each project is ultimately feasible on both an economic and on a planning basis. In that context, there is a strong level of assurance to the taxpayer that the State must have had convincing expert opinion to hand that confirmed to them that the prison development is feasible in that location. It might not suit the residents associations or other objectors to admit this but that is the reality.

If one is to argue that the State should never acquire land without zoning or planning permission for infrastructural developments, then the State is left in a situation where it has much less flexibility to negotiate in the course of such acquisitions. This would mean that it would be in a much weaker position to achieve value for money in any such deals.


----------



## Purple (2 Sep 2005)

*Re: Different definitions and interpretations of "rip-off"*

Over the last few years we have had; the introduction of what is now the highest minimum wage in Europe, benchmarking and massive increases in spending by government. Did people really think that these things would have no knock on effect on the cost of state provided goods and services? Did people really think that these state price increases would have no knock on effect on costs in the private sector?
If everyone in the country gets a 5% pay rise then their relative wealth stays the same. We just damage our economy.
Rip-off Ireland? I don't think so. At least it's not from a taxation point of view. I agree with ClubMan that we pay low indirect taxes (maybe too low), and moderate indirect taxes.


----------



## ClubMan (2 Sep 2005)

*Re: Different definitions and interpretations of "rip-off"*



			
				Purple said:
			
		

> If everyone in the country gets a 5% pay rise then their relative wealth stays the same.


Not everybody gets these increases. In fact, a few years ago I took a 25% pay *cut *in order to get back to work after several months unemployment having been made redundant. Thankfully I've gone back to something closer to the industry standard for my profession now but I've never received a nationally negotiated pay increased in my life.


----------



## Purple (2 Sep 2005)

*Re: Different definitions and interpretations of "rip-off"*

To be clear ClubMan I wasn't saying/implying that everyone gets the increases under national wage agreements. I was just making the point that if everyone goes up a step then no one has a better view (so to speak).
The reality is that the unions have sold out the poorest in society in order to get pay rises for their middleclass members in the public sector. Their insistence that income tax did not go up to pay for benchmarking meant that indirect taxes had to. This effected the poorest the most. These policies have also contributed to the loss of manufacturing jobs in the country. But I digress.  
I have also never received a nationally negotiated pay increase and have had to take a pay cut in the past (about 30%) to move from a skilled manual position to a management roll.


----------



## balga (2 Sep 2005)

*Re: Different definitions and interpretations of "rip-off"*

Obstetrician Fees : 

                 2001             £1600              expensive
                 2003             E2600              v expensive
                 2005             E3200              vv expensive.


----------



## ClubMan (2 Sep 2005)

*Re: Different definitions and interpretations of "rip-off"*



			
				balga said:
			
		

> Obstetrician Fees :
> 
> 2001             £1600              expensive
> 2003             E2600              v expensive
> 2005             E3200              vv expensive.


Where do these come from (he said nervously! )?


----------



## Sue Ellen (3 Sep 2005)

*Re: Different definitions and interpretations of "rip-off"*

"Originally Posted by *balga*
_Obstetrician Fees : _

_2001 £1600 expensive_
_2003 E2600 v expensive_
_2005 E3200 vv expensive._

Where do these come from (he said nervously!)"

Hi Clubman,

Looks they are figures for 3 babies born over 2 year gaps and they sure do look like high charges/increases. In my baby days the fee used to go up by £50 per year for private patients but they appear to running amok now.

Just had a look at your previous thread and if thats anything to go by the ones mentioned above don't appear unusual! At a guess I would say they're for strictly private patients though so if your wife is getting either public or semi-private it might not be so bad - hopefully.  

Trust they're both keeping well?


----------



## ClubMan (3 Sep 2005)

*Re: Different definitions and interpretations of "rip-off"*

Thanks. Yes - she's semi-private, combined care (alternating between _GP _and hospital) with _VHI _cover. Strangely we were never asked for the [broken link removed] we thought was standard for private/semi-private (or all?) patients. Thursday is the due date and things are going fine so far. We have found the public and semi-private care, treatment and facilities in the _Rotunda _and with her _GP_ excellent all the way through the pregnancy.


----------



## casiopea (4 Sep 2005)

*Re: Different definitions and interpretations of "rip-off"*

Good luck to you and your wife for next thursday Clubman. Be sure and post the news when clubbaby shows!

cas.


----------



## sherib (4 Sep 2005)

*Re: Different definitions and interpretations of "rip-off"*



> Originally posted by ubiquitous
> A mythical single worker earning €30,000 on PAYE in 2004* (around the average industrial wage), with standard personal & employee credits) would have paid €3,880 in tax that year, or 12.9% of their income. A similar worker earning €40,000 that year would have paid €8,080, or 20.2% of their income.


* Applies to 2005 based on link below
The point I am trying to make is that the tax burden falls inequitably higher on the PAYE worker just above the average industrial wage. The figures here are for a single PAYE taxpayer who is a full rate PRSI contributor in 2005. _*The largest percentage increase in tax paid ( in 2005) is between €30,000 and €40,000 gross, i.e. +7.27%* as posted by Ubiquitous._

_Tax on incomes of €50,000, €60,000, €80,000, €100,000 and €120,000 is respectively:_
_€12,280, €16,480, €24,880, €33,280 and €41,680 or, as % of income:_
_24.56%, 27.47%, 31.1%, 33.28%, 34.7%._

On gross salaries from €50,000, €60,000, €80,000, €100,000 and €120,000 the % increase in tax is +4.36%, +2.91%, +3.63%, +2.18% and + 1.42%

These are the figures for 2005. I hope I am correct in assuming tax credits and exemptions (what are the exemptions?) are the same for all income brackets. There is a ceiling of €44,180 on PRSI but none on the Health Levy. The higher the income the less PRSI is paid as a % of gross income:

PRSI as a % of gross incomes of:
€30,000, €40,000, €50,000, €60,000, €80,000, €100,000 and €120,000 is:

*5.12%, 5.34%, 4.92%, 4.5%, 3.9%, 3.6% and 3.33%.*

A widening of the 20% tax band, at least linked to inflation, would improve the net income of everyone but especially those just above the average industrial wage. Cost increases impinge on everyone but _proportionately more_ the lower the net income.

One further point with reference to SSIA incentives. The net difference between incomes of €40,000 and €30,000 is €5,200 - revenue taking 48% of that salary difference. If such a worker wishes to save the max SSIA costing €3,000+ p.a. this leaves €2,200 for cost of living increases. No need to tell me it is discretionary! I am simply pointing out such a worker is less likely to be able to afford a maxed SSIA. The cost of that bonanza will, possibly already is, be borne by all taxpayers. Not such a great idea but doubtless a vote catcher. Charlie McC's eipthaph
http://www.budget.gov.ie/2004/example4.asp#example4

*On what income would 42% tax be paid? Is there anyone in this tax bracket?  *


----------



## ClubMan (4 Sep 2005)

*Re: Different definitions and interpretations of "rip-off"*

Are you sure that your figures above are correct? I checked some of them using [broken link removed] and got significantly different results for both tax and _PRSI_.



> _*The largest percentage increase in tax paid ( in 2005) is between €30,000 and €40,000 gross, i.e. +7.27%* ._


I think that this is incorrect for 2005. Using _Karl's _calculator the figures are:

€30K
Tax €3282 (10.94% of gross)
PRSI €1526 (5.09%)
Total €4808 (16.03%)

€40K
Tax €7482 (18.71%)
PRSI €2136 (5.34%)
Total €9618 (24.05%)



> There is a ceiling of €44,180 on PRSI but none on the Health Levy.


There is also a weekly/monthly _PRSI _(4%) exemption on the first €127/€551 of income.


----------



## sherib (5 Sep 2005)

*Re: Different definitions and interpretations of "rip-off"*



> Originally quoted by ClubMan
> Are you sure that your figures above are correct?


Yes, pretty certain. They tally with the figures posted by ubiquitous seemingly from the same table. They were extrapolated from this http://www.budget.gov.ie/2004/example4.asp#example4
However, since I'm not sure if the "proposed tax figure" from the DOF table includes PRSI, I have done the calcuation again (not using _Karl)_ so it is clearer. I had a nice table but it went all over the place when I tried to copy it.

Referring to *the DOF table*, for all gross incomes from €30,000 to €120,000, I've added (a) "Proposed PRSI Levy and (b) "Proposed Tax Liability" and then calculated (a) + (b) as a percentage of gross income. 

On €30,000 (a) PRSI is €1,536 and (b) is €3,880 = 5,416/30,000 = 18.05%.

On €40,000 (a) + (b) = €10,216/40,000 = 25.54%.
25.54% - 18.5% is *+7.49%* - _*the % increase in tax between 30K and 40K*_

On €50,000 (a) + (b) = €14,743/50,000 = 29.49%.
29.49% - 25.54% is *+3.95% -* the % increase in tax between €40K and €50K

On€60,000 (a) + (b) = €19,178/60,000 = 31.96%
31.96% - 29.49% = *+2.47% -* the % increase between €50K and €60K 

On €80,000 (a) + (b) = €28,024/80,000 = 35.03%
35.03% - 31.96% = *+ 3.07% -* the % increase between €80K and 60K

On €100,000 (a) + (b) = €36,855/100,000 = 36.86%
36.86% - 35.03% = *+ 3.83% -* the % increase between €80K and €100,000

On €120,000 (a) + (b) = €45,670/100,000 = 38.06%
38.06% - 36.86% = *+ 1.2% -* the % increase between €120K and €100K

My focus is on tax paid relative to gross income.
(PRSI on €30,000 is *€1,536*
PRSI on €120,000 is *€3,990* - explained by *ceiling on PRSI*.
Yet _*no ceiling on Health Levy*_) 

The largest % increase in tax on gross income is between €30,000 and €40,000. _*That is the sole point I am trying to make*_. Try the sums on a calculator based on Revenue's table. I can't use Karl's calculator! Please, could you test the figures on incomes of €50,000 to €120,000? I think that would show what I'm getting at. 


> Originally posted by ClubMan
> There is also a weekly/monthly _PRSI _(4%) exemption on the first €127/€551 of income.


 
I don't understand that. Is it relevant to incomes of €30,000+? 
Nevertheless, the fact is the greatest increase in the % of tax (18.05% to 25.54%) is between gross incomes of €30,000 and €40,000 as the DOF table shows. After that from €60,000 to €120,000, the sequential increase on every additional €10,000 gross income declines to 1.2%.

For every €10,000 above €30,000, a PAYE taxpayer pays an additional ~€4,000 in tax. There is _no difference_ in the *increased *tax burden for every €10,000 between incomes of €30,000 and €120,000. There is a huge difference in gross income.

I don't know why your tax calculations on €30,000 and €40,000 differ from the above but I don't think that alters the point I am trying to make.

Incidentally, the best of luck for the safe arrival of Ms/Mr Jnr CM in the next week of so.


----------



## ClubMan (5 Sep 2005)

*Re: Different definitions and interpretations of "rip-off"*



			
				sherib said:
			
		

> I don't understand that. Is it relevant to incomes of €30,000+?


Yes - it's relevant to all incomes where _PRSI _is normally paid. The first €127 p.w. or €551 p.m. is exempt from _PRSI _(4%). After that _PRSI _(4%) and health levy (2%) is paid on all income up to the _PRSI _ceiling. Above that only the health levy is paid. However the effects of including this weekly/monthly exemption are probably marginal in the greater scheme of things.



> I can't use Karl's calculator!


Does this note from _Karl _help at all?


> 14 Aug 05 - Some people from Ask        About Money have reported a problem - an "!" is displayed        when to click on the 'show' button. To fix this for the moment: if a *%7e*        appears in the link change it to *~*        as follows: [broken link removed]





> The largest % increase in tax on gross income is between €30,000 and €40,000. _*That is the sole point I am trying to make*_.


That seems to be a fair point and maybe something that needs to be looked at (get ready for the annual _AAM _budget submission!). However this point does not support the suggestion that we pay high direct taxes which was suggested earlier on in the thread. Would you agree?

Thanks for the best wishes.


----------



## balga (5 Sep 2005)

No need to be (financially) nervous.   This is an optional service in 
Dublin.  Although, my understanding, from speaking to a sibling, is that one normally pays a certain amount in WA.  Apparently there is a very good at home midwifery programme which operates out of the NMH. It is currently available in only certain areas of Dublin, and involves no extra cost.

I included this recent and concrete example in the definitions thread on purpose.   These payments qualify for inclusion in the MED 1.  

All the best to you and yours.


----------



## ClubMan (5 Sep 2005)

_balga _- I presume that the post above was misplaced. If you can point to the thread where it should have gone please do and I'll move it to the correct location.


----------



## sherib (5 Sep 2005)

> Originally posted by ClubMan
> The first €127 p.w. or €551 p.m. is exempt from _PRSI _(4%). After that _PRSI _(4%) and health levy (2%) is paid on all income up to the _PRSI _ceiling.


I didn't know about that exemption. Does that mean that _irrespective _of gross income, the first €6,604 (€127x52) is exempt from PRSI? And, if so, the effective PRSI ceiling is €50,780 (€6,604+€44180)?


> Originally posted by ClubMan
> That seems to be a fair point and maybe something that needs to be looked at (get ready for the annual _AAM _budget submission!). However this point does not support the suggestion that we pay high direct taxes which was suggested earlier on in the thread. Would you agree?


 
I have to pack for my holiday  so haven't enough time to consider that question. However, I don't like the term "rip-off" - it is too broad and too emotive. I do believe that 21% VAT is too high and VRT unfair and not in line with European directives. Nonetheless, there seems to be a culture among some people to charge whatever it is thought the customer will bear. I would call that _sharp practice_. There is the option of walking away but if an essential service is needed, the consumer has no choice but to pay. High prices, e.g. €5 for a pint in the Merrion are not rip-offs - just a long held practice of separating "them" from "us". I don't think that state controls should be introduced to counter that. The same applies to fancy restaurants.

Finally, while financial incentives have helped to grow our economy, increase employment etc, it has always been my view that the heavy hand of the state is remarkably efficient when it comes to people at the lower end of the scale as compared to those at the top end. By that I mean, people trying to return to work yet upon doing so loose their state benefits. At both ends of the economic scale there will always be those who know how to "work the system". It is not good for our society to see an ever increasing divide between the haves and the have nots. I also think that not enough is invested in education, especially at primary level, to ensure that the boats of all our citizens are lifted. I read a recent ERSI report which makes that point.
But then teachers have always been aware of this. There has been some improvement but not enough to make a large enough difference.


----------



## ClubMan (5 Sep 2005)

sherib said:
			
		

> I didn't know about that exemption. Does that mean that _irrespective _of gross income, the first €6,604 (€127x52) is exempt from PRSI? And, if so, the effective PRSI ceiling is €50,780 (€6,604+€44180)?


The first €127 p.w. (if paid weekly) or €551 p.m. if paid monthly is exempt from _PRSI_. The _PRSI _ceiling is still €44,180. In effect this means 2% health levy only on €6,604 (or €6612 if paid monthly), 6% (_PRSI _+ health levy) on the next €37,576 (or €37,568) and then 2% health levy only on the balance if applicable.



> I do believe that 21% VAT is too high


Many essentials are 0% _VAT _rated and some items are charged at 13.5% (?).



> Nonetheless, there seems to be a culture among some people to charge whatever it is thought the customer will bear. I would call that _sharp practice_.


I disagree - I call it business but competition and consumer discretion should ensure that intolerably high prices are not sustainable and create downward pressure on prices.



> Finally, while financial incentives have helped to grow our economy, increase employment etc, it has always been my view that the heavy hand of the state is remarkably efficient when it comes to people at the lower end of the scale as compared to those at the top end. By that I mean, people trying to return to work yet upon doing so loose their state benefits. At both ends of the economic scale there will always be those who know how or "work the system". It is not good for our society to see an ever increasing divide between the haves and the have nots.


I'm not sure what specifically you are talking about here. Maybe you could give a few specific examples (after the holidays if necessary! )?



> I also think that not enough is invested in education, especially at primary level, to ensure that the boats of all our citizens are lifted. I read a recent ERSI report which makes that point.
> But then teachers have always been aware of this. There has been some improvement but not enough to make a large enough difference.


Many people who complain about lack of investment in education and public services are the same people who moan about benchmarking, negotiated payments for efficiency improvements and changes in work practices and the allegedly cushy number that public servants have. Seems like a bit of a contradiction in terms to me.


----------



## markowitzman (5 Sep 2005)

Balga
Give the obstretrician as much money as you can afford and if you can get the best one get them.........pay for quality ......dont let cost alone be your determining factor.........in a different sector I see from eddie hobbs website that a one hour consultation and report from eddie's people is 847euro vat inclusive.........much higher hourly rate than your obstetrician.............good luck to eddie........I think a lot of his work and he deserves what he gets as he provides a quality service to his clients.......my feeling is that the real point is that the real rip off in the country is POOR product/service at INFLATED price.........sadly this is becoming more prevalent.......but please remember price is not kingpin imho..........quality is! Pay for quality........if you get it great.......if not complain and vote with your feet.


----------



## balga (6 Sep 2005)

The post is fine where it is.

I'm afraid I wouldn't under any (currently imaginable) circumstances consider these payments as value for money.  I won't bother with the complete details, however whilst attending my wife's labour (2003) in the delivery ward, a birth was taking place* in the storeroom outside.  *The matron came in to tell me not to leave the delivery ward.  

It was an interesting experience.


----------



## markowitzman (6 Sep 2005)

Dont get me started on the health service!.......reason for health waste of money is as simple as a complete overspend on the administration section resulting in underfunding for direct clinical care.............no politician apart from mary harney last xmas 12 months made an attempt to look for value for money from the admin section......suffice to say the unions had this shot down in 48 hours and we have heard nothing since!......in my view no more money should be thrown at health (and I work in the sector!!) until some politician sanctions a complete audit of the admin system (preferably privatise the lot of admin imho)..........but so many political appointees in the admin section of all health boards that this never will be done I fear!


----------



## RainyDay (7 Sep 2005)

markowitzman said:
			
		

> in my view no more money should be thrown at health (and I work in the sector!!) until some politician sanctions a complete audit of the admin system


Sounds like a hugely expensive consultancy exercise which will result in yet another fat report to gather dust on a shelf.


----------



## ubiquitous (7 Sep 2005)

...and which will take years to conclude during which time there would be a cast-iron political excuse to suspend all attempts to incrementally reform the system pending receipt of the report.


----------



## markowitzman (7 Sep 2005)

bring back the nuns!


----------



## ClubMan (7 Sep 2005)

RainyDay said:
			
		

> Sounds like a hugely expensive consultancy exercise which will result in yet another fat report to gather dust on a shelf.


Would such an audit of the health service not be a suitable job for the CAG or do they restrict their attention to purely financial rather than organisational audits?


----------



## efm (8 Sep 2005)

Going back to the original topic "how much tax do we pay?"

Does anyone know if there are any studies that take a look at the complete tax liability for people in Ireland? ie direct AND indirect taxes.

I think Clubman made the point, and I agree, was that direct taxes are not excessive - last year Mrs fm and I paid 33% of our total combined incomes on direct taxes. However, I don't know how much of our discretionary spending went on taxes / duties / rates.

If there was a study that took the average industrial wage and an average family buying an average basket of goods and services we could begin to look at the average overall tax burden on people in Ireland; once we had this we could then compare to similar studies for other countries.

efm


----------



## ClubMan (8 Sep 2005)

There might be some relevant reading here:

KPMG Tax Monitor - March 2005 
The _Eurostat _survey/report mentioned in the above _KPMG _link may be available somewhere in [broken link removed] but I can't find it right now. As far as I recall this ranks EU countries based on direct, indirect, corporation and total tax takes.   
Wikipedia Tax article 
 I haven't had a chance to read these myself yet.


----------



## efm (8 Sep 2005)

Clubman,

Excellent links which, I think, bear out a lot about what you are saying about the actual levels of taxation in Ireland.

I think one of the key comments is this from the KPMG report:


> The statistics show that Ireland has a taxation burden, as a percentage of its gross domestic product (GDP) of 31.2 per cent. The average for the EU is 41.5 per cent. Relative to our GDP, we are therefore more lightly taxed than are citizens and businesses in most EU States.


 
Also, if you follow the wikipedia links through to the Forbes Tax Misery and Reform Index 2005 it has an intersting analysis of cumulative tax rates pre country which puts Ireland the 15th lowest out of 52 (France is the highest and UAE the lowest).

What I am still trying to find, and I may well have missed it, is a comparison of the ratio of personal and indirect taxes to the overall tax take across differing countries - ie we may have low overall tax rates, but are PAYE workers and direct tax payers paying a greater percentage of the tax take in Ireland than in other countries?

BTW Clubman - any huffing and puffing yet ? I hope you are bringing your laptop to the delivery ward so that you can keep in touch and keep posting those "Don't duplicate posts" posts !!  (ps I looked for a smilie for gioving birth but couldn't find one)


----------



## Glenbhoy (12 Sep 2005)

you may find some useful comparisons here:

http://www.finfacts.com/cgi-bin/irelandbusinessnews/exec/view.cgi?archive=2&num=284


----------

