Sophrosyne
Registered User
- Messages
- 1,577
Just looking at the Revenue statistics for 2014 ...
The highest effective rate was 42.54% - paid buy a group of 320 single females in the 275,000+ income category followed by:
42.10% - 825 single males - 275,000+
41.34% - 3,476 married couples or civil partners - one earning - 275,000+
41.21% - 449 single females - 200,000 to 275,000
40.41% - 94 widowers - 275,000+
40.29% - 741 single males - 200,000 to 275,000
39.73% - 5,635 married couples or civil partners - both earning - 275,000+
39.44% - 840 single females - 150,000 to 200,000
39.01% - 98 widows - 275,000+
38.24% - 2828 married couples or civil partners - one earning - 200,000 to 275,000.
I'm not sure that these rates are excessive or would act as a disincentive.
There are a few other threads doing other comparisons.That doesn’t change their effective rate of tax for a year.
As you can see from my previous post, in 2014, very few people (5,585 or 2.45% of taxpayers) had an effective rate greater than 40%.
Comparisons with the UK or any other country, which are confined solely to income tax, are hardly informative.
Labour is the biggest input when calculating the costs of the things you listed. The cost of living is a reflection of wages, not the other way around. The only way to really reduce the cost of living is to improve productivity in every area of the economy, both private and public."Cut the dole to cut higher tax rates" ....
The cost of living needs to be addressed, before you go cutting the dole imho. Basic costs relating to food, shelter, heath and cloting need to be addressed to ensure that when the dole might be cut in the future, that it doesn't result in a lot more people living on the street.
Labour is the biggest input when calculating the costs of the things you listed. The cost of living is a reflection of wages, not the other way around. The only way to really reduce the cost of living is to improve productivity in every area of the economy, both private and public.
= less taxes = more take home pay = lower wages = lower cost of living.German system
- Unemployment Insurance paid for 12 months, typically
- Paid at 60-67% of former pay [former net I think]
- after 12 months, you move onto means-tested social assistance, known as Hartz IV
- Hartz IV rates as follows:
- single = 404 pm = 93 per week
- couple = 364 pm each
- children = 237 / 270 / 306 pm
German system
- Unemployment Insurance paid for 12 months, typically
- Paid at 60-67% of former pay [former net I think]
- after 12 months, you move onto means-tested social assistance, known as Hartz IV
- Hartz IV rates as follows:
- single = 404 pm = 93 per week
- couple = 364 pm each
- children = 237 / 270 / 306 pm
It's insurance (as most countries outside of Ireland know it...) - higher income means higher contributions means higher benefits when needed. Sounds fair to me. If you were used to 1,000 pw and had expenses to match, a sudden drop to 200 a week would put you in dire straits immediately - the insurance benefits give you 6/12 months breathing room - to get another job or at least try to rearrange your affairs - rent somewhere cheaper for example.If I earned €1,000 pw and lost my job would I receive €600 a week for six months? Sounds expensive.
Not sure why it's confusing - it's the same as our JSA means-testing concept. After your period on pay-related benefits (JSB here), your eligibility for future benefits is dependent on you not having sufficient means to support yourself - so if you have savings/ spouse has income etc. then you are not eligible. There is also the possibility of assistance with housing and healthcare - but those rates are the maximum rates.Also Im confused about the 'means tested' social assistance program. My take on 'means tested' is that the social assistance is not pre-determined, but you have listed some fixed amounts.
Also Im confused about the 'means tested' social assistance program. My take on 'means tested' is that the social assistance is not pre-determined, but you have listed some fixed amounts.
Is it possible that those figures are the minimum amount of assistance available? And that depending on circumstances, further assistance payments would be payable?
If I earned €1,000 pw and lost my job would I receive €600 a week for six months? Sounds expensive.
Sounds fair to me.
Also Im confused about the 'means tested' social assistance program. My take on 'means tested' is that the social assistance is not pre-determined, but you have listed some fixed amounts.
Is it possible that those figures are the minimum amount of assistance available? And that depending on circumstances, further assistance payments would be payable?
Way back here in Ireland , if you were made unemployed you got a fair % of your previous wages out of your PRSI .
Seemed eminently fairer and sensible and stopped the newly unemployed dropping too much income too quickly.
It also eased the (risk) of working v those who wouldn,t work, who got little nuff dole.
In a similar vein I find it a bit unfair on OLd age pensions , those who paid prsi for years get little more than a non contributor ?
Go figure ?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?