The 92% was your calculation from my off-the-cuff example of one change that could be made (and, as an aside, I would see any such change as one of several changes) - a 6% PRSI rate with a 75K cap. And you are now taking that as THE accepted definition of 'don't pay enough'? You are very difficult to debate sensibly with.There has been a significant jump from the top 20% who pay too much to the bottom 92% who dont pay enough.
What he said.The 92% was your calculation from my off-the-cuff example of one change that could be made (and, as an aside, I would see any such change as one of several changes) - a 6% PRSI rate with a 75K cap. And you are now taking that as THE accepted definition of 'don't pay enough'? You are very difficult to debate sensibly with.
80% of the increases in spending in the State sector want on wages.
If I get bad food and/or bad service in a fast food restaurant I don't think to myself, while sitting on the loo, give them all pay rises, that'll sort things out!
The full stop button on your keyboard is broken.Cut the dole where do you think the savings would go, high taxpayers are on the best wages in the world public and private this is driving up the cost of most things in Ireland, the only way around this is to use the tax system you may not like it but this is how it is going to be,Irelands high wages are driving up the cost on people on the dole and people on low income, Sort this first THEN we can look at dole
So some 92% of income earners will be hit by increased taxes, while the top 8% or so will get a tax cut?
Self employed are "Wurkers". They might actually employ a few people themselves and that makes them employers. Employers are evil and anything they have is gained on the backs of "wurking people". Therefore they should be taxed to the hilt. It doesn't matter what they actually earn or how they earn it.It seems odd that the self-employed start paying PRSI at a rate of 4 per cent once they reach an earnings threshold of €5,000, compared with a threshold of €18,304 for PAYE employees, when you consider that they receive less benefits for their contributions.
You then went on to assume that I took issue with this comment. But when I explained that I didnt take issue with it (just pointing out the obvious contradictions from the position of how high earners are overtaxed to increasing taxes on them) now you take issue with me for not taking issue with you!
And you claim im being difficult!!
Sure, go back to what we had 15-20 years ago or copy the Swedish model. Would you like that repeated again?Perhaps you could avoid anymore off-the cuff remarks and give some concrete proposals.
Meaningless tokenism. It would have to be much higher to be anything more than that.I like the idea of applying the 1% USC rate on all income.
What, from 11.9% (what it is now) to 12.1%? Again, meaningless tokenism.Also I do think there is scope to increase effective rates of corporation tax.
I also think that wages increases in public and private sectors will drive demand, in turn, increasing income tax take, increasing VAT take, increasing employment, in turn reducing the welfare bill.
All of these factors will facilitate a re-adjustment of the income tax system, reducing the burden on higher earners without unduly penalising low-income earners or cutting welfare rates. Simultaneously, low-income earners will contribute a greater % portion of the income tax take.
That’s a bit rich.Unless you have better ideas (no more off the cuff nonsense please) then I will leave it at that.
No I am not. I know only two well the difficulties imposed through taxes and charges on working people.
i have no issue with agreeing that paying 40% tax on income after €33,800 is excessive.
I’m glad that you have accepted that the tax base is too narrow and that high earners are over taxed.
That would be a disaster and economically is complete nonsense.
I also think that wages increases in public and private sectors will drive demand, in turn, increasing income tax take, increasing VAT take, increasing employment, in turn reducing the welfare bill.
Perhaps cutting the incomes of high earners would work?
I have. That's why I see that you have now accepted it.You haven't been paying attention Purple.
Simply paying people more won't cut the mustard
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.
ditto for the motor tax office
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.
I want us to be more competitive. If we can't increase competitiveness then we can't increase wages. The State sector is the biggest draw on income so if they massively increase efficiency (try to get up to average OECD levels) it will allow us to deliver better services at no extra cost. that in itself will reduce costs and increase competitiveness nationally.The problem as I see it is that you want to keep wages as low as possible to remain competitive whilst simultaneously increase the tax take from those low wages.
High wages relative to labour efficiency is the issue. the Swiss are hughly paid but very productive. We are far less productive (particularly in the State and domestic sector).Furthermore, those that have high incomes need to be facilitated with tax breaks, even though by your reckoning, its high incomes that make us uncompetitive.
I want us to be more competitive. If we can't increase competitiveness then we can't increase wages. The State sector is the biggest draw on income so if they massively increase efficiency (try to get up to average OECD levels) it will allow us to deliver better services at no extra cost. that in itself will reduce costs and increase competitiveness nationally.The problem as I see it is that you want to keep wages as low as possible to remain competitive whilst simultaneously increase the tax take from those low wages.
It will reduce tax take and necessitate a reduction in pay in the state sector.Perhaps cutting the incomes of high earners would work? This will reduce their tax burden and also make them more competitive?
I have. That's why I see that you have no accepted it.
It is a good thing to increase the proportion of our economy wich is in the export sector. That’s exactly what we should be doing. It was the shift to the domestic sector which was a major cause of the crash we experienced.Its not a case of simply paying more. Its a case of living in an economy where domestic demand has taken a beating, suppressing wages, suppressing demand,increasing unemployment etc. There is growth in the economy now but it is broadly generated from the export sector. It is unbalanced.
Get them to do their jobs better. We have a dysfunctional health sector and doctors and nurses are a major part of the problem (and therefore the solution). We have the worst value for money health service in the OECD. Throwing more money at it is like giving a pay rise to the guys in the fast food restaurant who gave you food poisoning.How do propose to resolve this? Reduce medical staff numbers or cut incomes? Or increase taxes on nurses etc?
Or increase staff numbers and provide better resources?
Busses are much better than they used to be. It’s amazing what the threat of competition can do!Not sure about the buses these days but my experience is that the trains are pretty efficient these days. Certainly I think the NTA would back that up.
Reducing class sizes is about the worst value for money thing you can do in the education sector. It requires more schools and more teachers. What we need is more non classroom facilities, more specialist teachers and generally better training. Teachers with the balls to mark their own students would also help.Again, how would you propose to reduce class sizes? Build more schools, employ more teachers - wouldn't this require more taxes?
Have you reported them?I use a private company to collect my waste. I seperate my waster for environmental purposes. When it is collected, the contents of each bin is dumped into the same truck.
Agreed.Very efficient on-line service available. The que was most probably down to their being only one office in Dublin. But to have more offices would cost more taxes.
Ideally motor tax could be scrapped and a fuel charge applied?
Are you saying public servants who retire early are involved in organised crime??
We have a lack of skilled labour in this country, particularly in the construction sector. We really don’t need another situation where semi-skilled bricklayers are getting paid €2500 a week.How would you fix the infrastructure? I've an idea, say the government borrows from the ECB at 0% to invest in the infrastructure. The bulk of the money will go to workers who can fix the infrastructure. Unemployment will fall, income tax receipts will increase, as will VAT etc. This could, in some part, facilitate the re-structuring of the income tax system that is called for here, without unduly burdening low income earners or cutting welfare.
Just an idea.
So you think someone earning €33,800 a year is a high earner?Accepted what? That on page 3 of this topic I stated taxes were too high on incomes of €33,800?
Perhaps its you that cant accept that transferring the tax liability from high earners to low earners is simply not sustainable?
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?