# How about a Christmas Bonus for taxpayers?



## Baby boomer

Well, why not?   Almost every year, we are treated to the "good news story" of the Christmas Bonus for long term social welfare recipients.   And it has already been pre-announced that this year it will be extended to hundreds of thousands of short term recipients too.  In the middle of a pandemic with public finances under unprecedented pressure!  

Of course, the much used and abused taxpayer will be called upon to manfully shoulder the burden of paying for this largesse.  Again.  While also suffering the sneaky stealth increase of a failure to index bands and limits.  Again.  

So this Christmas Bonus is actually an increase in the net transfer payment from taxpayers to welfare recipients.  Perhaps in exceptionally good times this could be justified, but now?  Seriously?  

So, a modest proposal.  Pay a "Christmas Bonus" to taxpayers too.  How?  Simply award an extra months tax credit and tax band to all taxpayers.  This can be done electronically by employers in the December or November payroll.  For the self employed, they can make the appropriate amendment to their pay and file return in November/December.

This should be a permanent feature of the tax and benefit system.  If the public finances are going well in a particular year, we all get something.  If not, we don't.  This would be a more healthy and mature approach than the handout mentality engendered by the current "bonus" given exclusively to long-term welfare recipients.


----------



## Purple

Governments get elected by bribing people with their own money. No matter how you skin it the State need to get the money it spends. 

Your proposal though is far better than things like child benefit payments; the State takes some of your money then gives it back to you less their administration fee. At least your proposal involved them not talking your money in the first place.


----------



## Baby boomer

Purple said:


> Governments get elected by bribing people with their own money. No matter how you spam it the State need to get the money it spends.


That's exactly the problem!  The nature of government, and particularly Irish governments, is that they first decide on a spending plan and then extract the tax required.  This is easily done as the government has essentially got unlimited powers to levy taxes.  The default mindset is that tax money must be spent and there's no real thought given to returning unneeded funds to taxpayers.  How much better would things be if government just had to make do with taxes on hand AND return any surplus to taxpayers as a Christmas Bonus at the end of the year?  We would avoid the inevitable overhead that goes with government spending our money, not the mention the huge waste and inefficiency.


----------



## Purple

Baby boomer said:


> That's exactly the problem!  The nature of government, and particularly Irish governments, is that they first decide on a spending plan and then extract the tax required.  This is easily done as the government has essentially got unlimited powers to levy taxes.  The default mindset is that tax money must be spent and there's no real thought given to returning unneeded funds to taxpayers.  How much better would things be if government just had to make do with taxes on hand AND return any surplus to taxpayers as a Christmas Bonus at the end of the year?  We would avoid the inevitable overhead that goes with government spending our money, not the mention the huge waste and inefficiency.


That would require a public discourse that demands efficiency and accountability and the systems to provide for it. That is absent everywhere in the State sector and nearly everywhere in large private sector organisations. I don't think we are particularly worse than many other countries, with the notable exception of our health service which is rotten and bloated from top to bottom.


----------



## Laszlo1979

Baby boomer said:


> Well, why not?   Almost every year, we are treated to the "good news story" of the Christmas Bonus for long term social welfare recipients.   And it has already been pre-announced that this year it will be extended to hundreds of thousands of short term recipients too.  In the middle of a pandemic with public finances under unprecedented pressure!
> 
> Of course, the much used and abused taxpayer will be called upon to manfully shoulder the burden of paying for this largesse.  Again.  While also suffering the sneaky stealth increase of a failure to index bands and limits.  Again.
> 
> So this Christmas Bonus is actually an increase in the net transfer payment from taxpayers to welfare recipients.  Perhaps in exceptionally good times this could be justified, but now?  Seriously?
> 
> So, a modest proposal.  Pay a "Christmas Bonus" to taxpayers too.  How?  Simply award an extra months tax credit and tax band to all taxpayers.  This can be done electronically by employers in the December or November payroll.  For the self employed, they can make the appropriate amendment to their pay and file return in November/December.
> 
> This should be a permanent feature of the tax and benefit system.  If the public finances are going well in a particular year, we all get something.  If not, we don't.  This would be a more healthy and mature approach than the handout mentality engendered by the current "bonus" given exclusively to long-term welfare recipients.


I am so happy that someone had this question, as I started to think it’s only in my mind. I don’t want to sound greedy, and I’m very happy that I actually have a job, I can’t help but thinking that the government being extremely generous with the money we all paying in. People need help, it is true. But frustrating that after months of news of 350 pw payments they will receive extra and we won’t.  And before I am being schooled about how people getting less than what they have earned before, a lot getting more. Let alone the university students Covid bonus, that sounds a bit overboard for me. It is just a bit of a moaning, as I still prefer my circumstances, but certainly something one might think as a slightly unfair distribution.


----------



## ArthurMcB

Here here laszlo, spot on.

The working man pays to the hilt and get nothin much back.


----------



## Deiseblue

I’m a taxpayer and I’m getting the Christmas bonus - OAP contributory allied to my occupational pension like many others and presumably those in receipt of PUP bonus payments would have paid tax during the calendar year to date.


----------



## MrEarl

While it may not happen here, I've little doubt that this suggestion would draw endless abuse, if posted on Boards etc.

I think it's a great idea btw and would be entirely in favour of it - if only to acknowledge the heavier tax burden that those who are still working, will have to carry, for the years to come...


----------



## FANTANA

I dunno, I’ll get a bonus from work in January and half will go to tax. I’m okay with this, part of living in Ireland. If the worst thing to happen to me in a 100 year pandemic is a few lockdowns and some worse off people than me get a small Christmas bonus then I’m pretty blessed and who am I to begrudge.


----------



## SparkRite

Great positive outlook to have @FANTANA .  
I'm not being sarcastic (for a change), I mean it.


----------



## MrEarl

FANTANA said:


> I dunno, I’ll get a bonus from work in January and half will go to tax. I’m okay with this, part of living in Ireland. If the worst thing to happen to me in a 100 year pandemic is a few lockdowns and some worse off people than me get a small Christmas bonus then I’m pretty blessed and who am I to begrudge.



Nice sentiment, but perhaps some people won't be getting a bonus


----------



## Paul O Mahoney

I'd take a reduction in USC for a month in December it's going to be spent anyway on stuff attracting 21% vat.
Remember the good old days when there was a limit on PRSI.....


----------



## Purple

ArthurMcB said:


> Here here laszlo, spot on.
> 
> The working man pays to the hilt and get nothin much back.


Yea, the thing is that most working people are net recipients from the State. Only the top 30% of earners are net contributors. If you have a load of kids then you have to be well into the top 10% before you are a net contributor. We all like to think that we are paying lots of tax and getting nothing much back but the reality is we have a very narrow tax base with high marginal tax rates and the so called squeezed middle may well be squeezed but they are paying low rates of tax and getting more back than they put in.
I'm not saying it should be any different, I'm just pointing out the fact that middle income families pay very low rates of direct and indirect taxes and consume high levels of public services.


----------



## ArthurMcB

Cant be right purple...if you oaying a fortune in tax...and getting next to nout back how are you a net gainer? Makes no sense. What big tax money are you getting from the gove?


----------



## Pinoy adventure

Where do I sign up ?
I'd love a bonus


----------



## ArthurMcB

Im all for more money for the workin man, less money for the unworking man


----------



## Purple

ArthurMcB said:


> Cant be right purple...if you oaying a fortune in tax...and getting next to nout back how are you a net gainer? Makes no sense. What big tax money are you getting from the gove?


They are providing schooling for my four children. They provide roads and police and when I flush the toilet my poo goes away. They provide a healthcare system and when it gets dark the streetlights come on. Though I'm not a middle income earners so I'm not part of the squeezed middle. 

If we take it that the squeezed middle is households earning say €70k-€120k a year they are paying somewhere between €14k and €42k a year in tax. The real cost to the State of putting a child through school is around €8k a year so if you have 3 kids that's €24k of your taxes gone before you take anything else into account. Children's allowance gives you another €1680 per child (€5040 for the family with 3 kids). There's no way a family like that with a household income of €100k a year are net contributors.


----------



## ArthurMcB

But doesnt the above apply to everyone? Theyre givens.
My point is that if 70% or so are net recipients then the bottom 40% or so of that must be massive net recipients if theyre paying little or no tax.


----------



## Purple

ArthurMcB said:


> But doesnt the above apply to everyone? Theyre givens.


Sure, but the "I pay lots of tax and get nothing back" line is just not true. Most people get back more than they put in. I'm happy with that arrangement, taxes are the price of civilisation. 


ArthurMcB said:


> My point is that if 70% or so are net recipients then the bottom 40% or so of that must be massive net recipients if theyre paying little or no tax.


 Yes, they get even more back but they pay VAT and duties so everyone pays some taxes. 

Single people on high incomes, now they do pay in far more than they get back.


----------



## Itchy

Laszlo1979 said:


> I am so happy that someone had this question, as I started to think it’s only in my mind. I don’t want to sound greedy, and I’m very happy that I actually have a job, I can’t help but thinking that the government being extremely generous with the money we all paying in. People need help, it is true. But frustrating that after months of news of 350 pw payments *they will receive extra and we won’t*.  And before I am being schooled about how people getting less than what they have earned before, a lot getting more. Let alone the university students Covid bonus, that sounds a bit overboard for me. *It is just a bit of a moaning, as I still prefer my circumstances*, but certainly something one might think as a slightly unfair distribution.





ArthurMcB said:


> The working man pays to the hilt and get nothin much back.





ArthurMcB said:


> Cant be right purple...if you oaying a fortune in tax...and getting next to nout back how are you a net gainer? Makes no sense. What big tax money are you getting from the gove?





ArthurMcB said:


> But doesnt the above apply to everyone? *Theyre givens*.
> My point is that if 70% or so are net recipients then *the bottom 40% or so of that must be massive net recipients* if theyre paying little or no tax.



These posts are a real demonstration of the lack of understanding of relative v. absolute wealth. Its more important to make _more than other people_ rather than to make more. Were taking about an extra payment to those without an income rather than examining the impact, say a property/wealth tax, would have for "the working man". There is misconception that middle/lower income people would benefit from a tax cut where they can _see _money in the pocket. Where for example they would more than likely benefit/get more value from an improved state service. 

But what's the point of a better service when you "get nothin much back" anyway?


----------



## ArthurMcB

Anyways i stand by my statement...if the gove have money to handout, give it to the working man.


----------



## Zenith63

Personally I think the idea of a Christmas bonus for social welfare recipients feels like a weird charitable gesture (post the three ghosts Scrooge) in good times and has terrible optics in bad times, as evidenced by threads like this.  A Christmas bonus for tax payers makes no sense to me whatsoever, but I'd like to see the Christmas bonus for social welfare recipients just be spread over the year in the usual weekly payments and get rid of this annual debate.


----------



## Leo

ArthurMcB said:


> Anyways i stand by my statement...if the gove have money to handout, give it to the working man.



While I'd love a little bonus, the main problem I see with the proposal is it's likely to cost me more than I get! Sure, they could give me €100, but by the time they put the systems in place and pay for the staff to run it, it'll cost me €200 in additional taxes!


----------



## Paul O Mahoney

Zenith63 said:


> Personally I think the idea of a Christmas bonus for social welfare recipients feels like a weird charitable gesture (post the three ghosts Scrooge) in good times but has terrible optics in bad times, as evidenced by threads like this.  A Christmas bonus for tax payers makes no sense to me whatsoever, but I'd like to see the Christmas bonus for social welfare recipients just be spread over the year in the usual weekly payments and get rid of this annual debate.


Good post, but the Christmas bonus is now and always has been a political issue. 
Even if they did spread it across the year there would be a huge outcry for it to be still given, its the same for children benefit if that was "means tested" , it should be in my view, there'd be such an outrage it would be political suicide,  no matter what counter tax rebalancing might occur.


----------



## losttheplot

If you look at it another way, part of the SW payment is withheld throughout the year and paid in December as a lump sum. Calling it a bonus makes it sound like an extra payment. Revenue could do the same, collect tax at a higher rate for 11 months and give us a tax free December. Then we'd all think Christmas was great.


----------



## Purple

Leo said:


> While I'd love a little bonus, the main problem I see with the proposal is it's likely to cost me more than I get! Sure, they could give me €100, but by the time they put the systems in place and pay for the staff to run it, it'll cost me €200 in additional taxes!


I think of children's allowance like that; they take €200 a month in taxes and then give it back to me less their administration cost. All I'm really doing is part funding a job in the Department of Social Protection.


----------



## Baby boomer

Purple said:


> I think of children's allowance like that; they take €200 a month in taxes and then give it back to me less their administration costs.


Er, not quite! They take an extra €100 from me and €100 from you and give the entire €200 back to you minus their cut.

I used to think this was a great wheeze when my kids were young enough to get it  - not so much now!


----------



## Purple

Baby boomer said:


> Er, not quite! They take an extra €100 from me and €100 from you and give the entire €200 back to you minus their cut.
> 
> I used to think this was a great wheeze when my kids were young enough to get it  - not so much now!


I think it should be increased by 20% and taxed. That way people on low incomes get more and people on high incomes get less. I'm not a fan of universal payments and I don't think people on high incomes should be getting welfare payments.


----------



## cremeegg

ArthurMcB said:


> Im all for more money for the workin man, less money for the unworking man



Well you have the wrong username then. Arthur McBride famously refused a job offer.


----------



## ArthurMcB

cremeegg said:


> Well you have the wrong username then. Arthur McBride famously refused a job offer.


Who now


----------



## Deiseblue

Arthur famously turned down the opportunity to decamp to France for fear of being killed in the morning !


----------



## Purple

Deiseblue said:


> Arthur famously turned down the opportunity to decamp to France for fear of being killed in the morning !


And engaged in workplace violence when he didn’t like the terms and conditions that his prospective employer was offering. The song he wrote about it probably breached GDPR as well. Disgraceful behaviour. He was obviously well connected in the Union.


----------



## MugsGame

A lesson to employers on the hazards of a mandatory uniform policy and not offering triple time for it being on Christmas morning.


----------



## Purple

MugsGame said:


> A lesson to employers on the hazards of a mandatory uniform policy and not offering triple time for it being on Christmas morning.


Didn’t excuse the intimidation of a young and vulnerable employee or the destruction of employer issues safety equipment used to alert others to their proximity. Playing football with it was particularly bad.


----------



## MugsGame

It was a health and safety drill to verify the robustness of their flotation instruments and other equipment.


----------

