I’m not disagreeing with you but I'm not really sure about what is the most evaded tax, although VAT is tax that's very difficult to avoid for consumers. Completely agree that it's complicity is one of it's flaws.
No I believe you.VAT evasion is massive. Read the regular tax settlements list if you don't believe me.
Er, yeah. Sorrycomplicity? I presume you mean complicated?
My eyes are open to that. I agreed with you. I said it was one of the bad things about VAT.If you don't think VAT is complicated, read any Revenue VAT guide, especially on VAT on property. It will open your eyes.
What are the figures on VAT tax evasion (in comparison to the VAT collected)?VAT evasion is massive. Read the regular tax settlements list if you don't believe me.
Off topic: I found this forum by mistake. Why are most people in here Irish? I don't see anything particularly Irish about it.
It's a very important question and it's not the first time I've been asked it.
In our fairly free economy, people don't earn money based on how hard they work. Firstly, people earn money based on the supply of that type of labour. So low skilled employees (almost can do the job), no matter how hard the person works receive a small wage.
Do highly skilled people work harder to achieve these skills? In some cases, for example doctors or pilots (I assume). But a lot of the time they don't, for example a typical historian compared with a marketing executive.
If you take professions in the public eye for example, take a class of budding actors. 30 people all working to varying degrees. It's not that hard to imagine a film director coming along and picking the star of his next film to be the person he judges to have the most talent out of the class, as opposed to their friend who spends 20 minutes more per day practising.
That person goes on to become famous and ends up earning 100 times what the next highest earning brings in from the class. Even if that person was the most talented, and hard working, they certainly weren't 100 times harder working. It's an extreme example but something you find to a lesser degree everywhere.
A more common type of example; me and my partner. She works night shifts caring for old people in a home. She's paid minimum wage. I once put a website together in two days which made me more money everyday before I woke up in the morning than she made in a 12 hour shift. If half my money was taxed away, it wouldn't affect my quality of life much, if she had a 10% increase in taxes, she'd find it difficult to deal with.
Secondly income is based on the local economy, so someone in London earns more money than someone in... er, Nairobi. Well that's mostly just the luck of where you're born and brought up.
Thirdly... I can't think off the top of my head and this post is long enough.
So in summary, I don't think wages are fairly handed out depending on how hard you work, therefore taxing people more that earn 10 times as much for, say the same amount of time spent working (or even twice as much time working) is justified. That's why regressive tax is bad.
The only response I've ever got is a sour grapes "because s/he earns more", which doesnt make sense.
Couldn't find any concrete figures in the annual report ( apart from receipts of €13.4b in VAT BTW). It's still not clear if VAT evasion is "massive" IMHO. Where did you get this fact/opinion? (BTW I'm not trying to imply you are wrong, just want the facts)You should be able to find some indication of the level of detected evasion in the annual Revenue reports. The level of undetected evasion would be a different matter entirely.
Well if that's sour grapes, income tax is a sour grapes tax altogether. You can't say progressive tax and regressive tax are both fair as they're complete opposites. Are you sure it's not wealthy person's sour grapes at seeing a lot of their money going to the government? Please explain why it is sour grapes.Another case of sour grapes
Have you tried reading the Wikipedia documentation on how articles are authored and managed?
..not if VAT was properly applied on all online transactions, as is increasingly the case anyway.If direct taxation was abolished in this country and replaced with increases in VAT, poor people would suffer more as the better off would buy more online
and of course, people with transport would be in Northern Ireland doing ALL their shopping....
So long as we share a land border with the United Kingdom, we must maintain a fairly similar tax regime.
On principle I believe a mix of taxation (current system) is probably fairest anyway.
I'd be of the opposite view, favouring taxation on spending rather than income.
Direct income taxation at source was introduced by the Brits around the time of the 1st World War as a "temporary measure" to raise funds to allow the the British, German and Russian royal families to resolve the imperial ambitions and differences between cousins using the lives and money of millions of innocent people as the tools. This was the time the Brit royals adopted the family name "Windsor" as a PR exercise in order to be seen by their subjects as truly British, old chap, rather than German.
Like sheep, when we won partial political independence, we continued with the seriously flawed taxation and administration models we inherited and to this day we match the Brits step for step, blindly repeating every single mistake they make, including the naming of benefits and governmaent departments, organisation, and nearly all of Blair's quangos, responsible for nothing and aswerable to no-one, eating up huge chunks of direct and indirect taxation.
I'd read your essay, but I wouldn't hold my breath until its implemented.
When people choose a job/career they do so for a number of factors. The income they can derive from their efforts is one but job satisfaction etc also have to be taken into account. There are plenty of things that I would rather do than my current job but since I have responsibilities to my family and the people who work with me I do not have the luxury of being self indulgent. If I work longer, smarter and harder than my neighbour and take more risks (with the resulting stress) why should he get paid the same as me? If he should not get paid the same then why should I be penalised by paying a greater proportion of my larger income in tax?It's a very important question and it's not the first time I've been asked it.
In our fairly free economy, people don't earn money based on how hard they work. Firstly, people earn money based on the supply of that type of labour. So low skilled employees (almost can do the job), no matter how hard the person works receive a small wage.
Do highly skilled people work harder to achieve these skills? In some cases, for example doctors or pilots (I assume). But a lot of the time they don't, for example a typical historian compared with a marketing executive.
If you take professions in the public eye for example, take a class of budding actors. 30 people all working to varying degrees. It's not that hard to imagine a film director coming along and picking the star of his next film to be the person he judges to have the most talent out of the class, as opposed to their friend who spends 20 minutes more per day practising.
That person goes on to become famous and ends up earning 100 times what the next highest earning brings in from the class. Even if that person was the most talented, and hard working, they certainly weren't 100 times harder working. It's an extreme example but something you find to a lesser degree everywhere.
Was your partner aware of the pay levels when she started the job? If she was and choose to do the job anyway then the job satisfaction that she derives from her job should balance out the low pay. If it does not then she should get another job.A more common type of example; me and my partner. She works night shifts caring for old people in a home. She's paid minimum wage. I once put a website together in two days which made me more money everyday before I woke up in the morning than she made in a 12 hour shift. If half my money was taxed away, it wouldn't affect my quality of life much, if she had a 10% increase in taxes, she'd find it difficult to deal with.
…but the quality of live derived from the lower income in Nairobi could be higher.Secondly income is based on the local economy, so someone in London earns more money than someone in... er, Nairobi. Well that's mostly just the luck of where you're born and brought up.
What constitutes “fair”?So in summary, I don't think wages are fairly handed out depending on how hard you work, therefore taxing people more that earn 10 times as much for, say the same amount of time spent working (or even twice as much time working) is justified. That's why regressive tax is bad.
I agree. In my opinion our tax system is, in general, fair.On principle I believe a mix of taxation (current system) is probably fairest anyway.
Well if that's sour grapes, income tax is a sour grapes tax altogether. You can't say progressive tax and regressive tax are both fair as they're complete opposites. Are you sure it's not wealthy person's sour grapes at seeing a lot of their money going to the government? Please explain why it is sour grapes.
eg. a three-band VAT with the lowest eg 7.5% (way below Eurozone average) applying to everything; the mid 19% (EU avg) applying to mini-luxuries (processed (ie convenience)/ unhealthy food, electricity/utility usage above a certain 'green' level, average consumer goods) and the high 27.5% applying to luxuries (Manolo Blahniks, anything with luxury or special edition in the title)
How does this sound to people?
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?