TheBigShort
Registered User
- Messages
- 2,789
What is fair or unfair is obviously subjective. I am much more interested in understanding what is effective.
Two contributors to this thread have stated that they have deliberately reduced their incomes because of the high marginal tax rate and the IDA has repeatedly warned that high marginal tax rates are being raised as a concern by prospective investors.
Sorry but what exactly are you suggesting that I fabricated?
.
That's right. You asked for it and you got it. You, on the other hand, haven't answered any questions asked of you.I asked for concrete proposals and I get this.
You have to understand that there's no silver bullet solution to the problem so a change in tax policy from now on is the best we can hope for. Therefore changing USC back to the way it was when it was introduced and changing tax rates and exemption back as well would be a good start. All future reductions should be done in a fair manner as I outlined above.Can you actually offer one concrete proposal to apply that will be in line with the overall topic.
No more "if there is a tax reduction", or "bring everyone back into USC" without stating the applicable rate or the actual intent.
What do you propose to remedy this issue.
Since you first made the accusation about me perhaps you could suggest exactly what it was I fabricated?
Looks like it alright.The figures in post #102 - you just made them up!
Whats your point?
How about a concrete proposal then to redress the imbalances inflicted on the top 20% of earners?
All your apostrophes have died...Whoa folks !
Most postings (that I put up ) and indeed I think most put up , are generally musings , rather than fully factual.
Maybe I suffer from Attention Disorder but I get lost on counter and counter arguments.
Too many facts , don,t always make clarity.
I take AAM as a help to sort things , no more & no less.
Oft nuff I ain,t correct but if wrong, yousins sort me out. !!
The figures in post #102 - you just made them up!
The top 1% of earners have roughly half the share of income as the bottom 50% but pay more than 5 times as much tax. That looks like a good deal for the bottom 50% of earners to me.
OK, so you made up figures to illustrate a point but the point is meaningless unless you use real figures.These are your figures, that I used, I didn't make them up. I used my own figures, based on yours (e.g 20bn is half of 40bn) as examples to illustrate point.
The irony of being accused of fabrication in a topic that is built on pure fabrication has passed you by clearly.
I used my own figures, based on yours (e.g 20bn is half of 40bn) as examples to illustrate point.
Also I am not inherently opposed to minimum wage workers paying extra tax. I am opposed that such a tax may be used to offer tax cuts for higher earners.
There may be scope for cobtributions under USC,
Just for the record.
The current USC is applied at 1% for incomes up to €12,012 with exemptions for income earners with less than €13,000.
So here is an opportunity for low paid workers to contribute more if there was no exemption, and like everybody else, pay 1% on that portion of the income.
Using revenue figures supplied by Bren Burgess in another thread, this will capture approximately 570,730 income earners below the €13,000 threshold.
Between all these earners they earn €3.38bn. So 1% applied on this equates to €33.8mn in extra revenue.
This will boost total income tax revenue from €20,478,000,000 to €20,511,800,000.
Before this adjustment the top 20% pay 75% of the income tax, according to the Indo article. That equates to €15,358,500,000. And as my adjustment has no direct bearing on their tax liability, that liability remains the same after the adjustment.
After the adjustment the top 20% are now liable for €15,358,500,000 of €20,511,800,000 or 74.87% of the total tax take.
Is this what this topic is all about? Will such an adjustment satisfy the top earners (even though it has made zero material difference to take home pay)?
If this is not sufficient, please put forward another concrete proposal.
We live in a world where some people earn €18,000 a year and others earn €180,000 a year.
This is an undesirable situation.
...
The solution lies not in fiddling with the tax system, but in developing an economy where there is more opportunity for well paid work.
You miss the very basic point that a 1% tax hike for 570,000 taxpayers is going to raise, in the scheme of things, a sum so puny that it couldn't be labelled as tax reform.
Do you accept my core point that excessive marginal tax rates are counterproductive?
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?