TheBigShort
Registered User
- Messages
- 2,789
So some 92% of income earners will be hit by increased taxes, while the top 8% or so will get a tax cut?
If you increase PRSI to say 6% with a 75K cap ( I think that's around what it was before), incomes up to 112,500 would pay more ,
Not really. It was Irish taxpayers and the Troika that kept it all going. The multi nationals look after their own interests for sure.
Don't forget about the other 200,000 plus jobs in Irish companies which supply those multinationals and the other tens of thousands of jobs created by those suppliers who now sell the products and services they developed while supplying those multinationals in Ireland.But there's around 200k MNC employees, lets say an average wage of 50k, that's around 10B in money getting pumped into Ireland each year - essentially foreign currency transfers into Ireland - new money and as such more economically important than salaries paid from money that already exists in the Irish economy
Yes, the top 5 to 10% who have such an unfair tax burden placed on them, the people who carry the rest of us.So some 92% of income earners will be hit by increased taxes, while the top 8% or so will get a tax cut?
Nobody in their right mind would disagree with you.I'm not saying they don't, but they employ a massive amount of people here and from 2009 - recently enough, we were borrowing so much to stay afloat I think that only for multinational employment here we would not have been able to pay for public services.
We have
and you're suggesting a disincentive to cycle?
- soaring car insurance costs
- personal debt problems
- one of the highest obesity rates in the world
- carbon footprint targets that we're never going to meet
- horrific traffic congestion in our cities
Also, most cyclists have cars and already pay motor tax.
I cycle but also drive. Should I have the option of paying one or the other?As a cycling commuter, I think I am getting an extraordinarily good deal from the state for use of roads etc - it costs me nothing.
Yes. You seem surprised/unhappy at this yet you also seemed to agree earlier that a cap was fair. Can you think of a magic way of restoring the cap that was removed in 2011 without providing a relative benefit to higher earners?So some 92% of income earners will be hit by increased taxes, while the top 8% or so will get a tax cut?
This illustrates the big problem for high earners seeking relief from the most progressive tax structure in the world. They were hit first and worst in the recessionary budgets (which seemed fair enough and there wasn't much squealing about it) but any suggestion of just reversing things is met with shrill shrieks from the left that high earners are being given free money at the expense of the most vulnerable. It really seems that for high earners, tax increases are a one way street - what goes up can never come down.
The Top 20% pay too high a share.
1) Cut the levels of social welfare down to the levels paid in other European countries
2) Cut the higher level of tax
Copy Sweden's income tax model take their rates and bands, that way there's no decrease in taxation on the higher paid
Good idea.
Shortie; what he said.
the proposal here is to have a fair taxation system rather than an unfair one which punishes hard work.
See, when you actually listen to what people are saying you can be surprised.Its not that im against what you are saying, im just surprised somewhat considering this is where we started out
Yes, low and middle income earners are under taxed in this country.That a PRSI tax increase of 2%-6% on 92% of income earners is deemed acceptable to you?
The re-introduction could be revenue neutral; the extra income could be used to reduce marginal PAYE rates. The lower and upper rates could be cut by the same proportion (e.g. a 2% cut in the higher rate and a 1% cut in the lower rate).I think the idea has some merit (i would be hestiant to impose a 6% rate on low-income though), certainly the extra revenue collected would go some way to providing vital social services.
Yes, the top 5 to 10% who have such an unfair tax burden placed on them, the people who carry the rest of us.
agree 100% with this. Of course higher earners would get a benefit.....why.....because the pay so much bleedin tax!
certainly the extra revenue collected would go some way to providing vital social services.
A step in the right direction and certainly a step away from the socialist/populist lie that "the Rich" (boo, hiss) don't pay their "fair share" and are exploiting the hard pressed "Wurkers".And the top 8% , who earn 30% of the income, and who pay 50% of tax would, by my quick calculations (I stand to be corrected) now be liable for 48% of the tax take.
Yes, low and middle income earners are under taxed in this country.
So, at any one time, a taxpayer could be categorized as both an overly burdened taxpayer (in top 50% bracket contributing to 96% of the tax) and simultaneously a tax payer who could contribute more (in bottom 80% bracket contributing to only 25% of the taxes).
80% of the increases in spending in the State sector want on wages.You know, I don't really buy this to be honest. I really think it's a cultural thing that decides the quality of public services in this (and every other) country. Simply paying people more won't cut the mustard as we have seen in the Bertie years. During the Celtic Tiger when the coffers were awash with cash we still poor public services in my opinion. Our universities were already slipping down the tables, we still had people on trolleys in A&E, the buses & trains were often late, school class sizes were probably the same. I was using a private company for my refuse collection, ditto for my electricity. I still had to queue for ages if I needed to go to the post office (which never seems to open to facilitate working people), ditto for the motor tax office. I am at odds to think of how much better our public services were when we had all this money compared to now. I accept the issue in rural Ireland regarding crime, however this has as much to do with public servants retiring early and the improved road network than anything else
The train drivers will be on strike looking for more pay yet there was a report out yesterday that the infrastructure itself is falling apart. Customers will suffer and be at risk, but it doesn't matter as long as the workers get more money eh?
You are quoting yourself. Are you saying that your view has changed significantly?There has been a significant jump from the top 20% who pay too much to the bottom 92% who dont pay enough.
From page 1
A step in the right direction and certainly a step away from the socialist/populist lie that "the Rich" (boo, hiss) don't pay their "fair share" and are exploiting the hard pressed "Wurkers".
You are quoting yourself. Are you saying that your view has changed significantly?
This thread is an argument, by some contributors, that the lazy, populist, left wing consensus (the boo, hiss bit) is incorrect. Like most left wing ideologies the populist consensus is ill-though out and based on begrudgery instead of facts.This thread is "boo, hiss" the poor dont pay their fair share! Not the other way round.
How so?Clearly your view has, once again.
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?