KEEP programme to attract and keep key employees

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sophrosyne said:
Big Short,

Many people, not just posters, read AAM for informational purposes.

I would certainly not want to create an expectation among employees of unquoted SMEs that each and every employee would be included in KEEP as I think that would be highly irresponsible.
Click to expand...

Apologies, I've edited the post now.
 
TheBigShort said:
Apologies, I've edited the post now.
Click to expand...

You didn't edit it very well pal!

I've confirmed for you no such thing, as I am not the minister for finance and therefore not in a position to confirm anything.

I can merely tell you what my common sense tells me is likely to be the case. The private sector lobbied for a means to provide share based remuneration in a more tax friendly manner, and have been given it. The government isn't going to dictate who's key and who isn't, they'll leave that to the employers. Only some kind of crackpot socialist regime would try to dictate to employers who their key employees are... :p
 
torblednam said:
Well now you're just gonna confuse everyone who reads the last few posts... :confused:
Click to expand...

Reading this post, and with some...ahem!...common sense, should lead them back beyond the the last few posts. I doubt if there is a large audience, if any at all.
 
Where I work we have a revenue approved share scheme and a scheme to purchase shares at a discount. Should be a no brainier.

Quite a few staff won't do it because they have to pay tax (they'd rather forgo the money than let the tax man get some). More won't do it because they find having to do a tax return too much hassle.

Then I guess there are another few oblivious to the tax situation (knowingly and unknowningly). More would avail of it if the tax documents were simpler. I just see it as getting money to fill a few forms.
 
TheBigShort said:
I totally agree.
Click to expand...
If you totally agreed that we should be doing everything we can to keep our best and brightest here you'd be pushing for a reduction in the marginal rate of tax. That is the single biggest factor in why people leave and why others won't come here.
If you live in Seattle and earn €200,000 ($235,000) you will pay €58,142 in income taxes. In Ireland you'll pay €90,801. That's €628 more every week. Why on earth would anyone willingly do that? It is those sort of earners in tech companies and their like which create wealth in an economy. They are the people we need. They have the option of Ireland with our crappy public transport infrastructure, second rate healthcare services, second rate educational system, vert expensive small and badly built houses and very high taxes or cities like Seattle (there are many others, I just picked Seattle as it is a tech hub). Where does the 30 year old motivated, educated, creative tech nerd choose to live and work?
If we want to attract these people we have to be attractive. This scheme is a good idea but you can't polish a turd.
 
TheBigShort said:
Reading this post, and with some...ahem!...common sense, should lead them back beyond the the last few posts. I doubt if there is a large audience, if any at all.
Click to expand...

You have moved your position from "it should be open to all employees" to "the employer should decide who the scheme is open to".
I think everyone agrees with that position.
 
Purple said:
You have moved your position from "it should be open to all employees" to "the employer should decide who the scheme is open to".
I think everyone agrees with that position.
Click to expand...

My position was that it should be open to all employees, not some undefined notion of 'key' employee. The prevailing thought in some quarters was that the 'top guy's' or the scientists and the engineers and high skilled workers would be the ones to qualify, and not the receptionist or the accountant or the assembly line worker.

Purple said:
the employer should decide who the scheme is open to".
I think everyone agrees with that position.
Click to expand...

It would appear that you have moved from your position too.
 
Purple said:
If you totally agreed that we should be doing everything we can to keep our best and brightest here you'd be pushing for a reduction in the marginal rate of tax. That is the single biggest factor in why people leave and why others won't come here.
Click to expand...

That is what the scheme effectively does, or effectively offers the opportunity to circumvent the PAYE system and pay a 33% rate.
I have argued that the level of income that a person enters the marginal rate is far too low.
I disagree with cutting the rate in the absence of a plausible alternative revenue raising scheme to fund the deficit that would ensue. Cutting services, welfare rates or wages of public sector workers to fund a cut in the marginal rate, to me, is simply not plausible.
 
TheBigShort said:
My position was that it should be open to all employees, not some undefined notion of 'key' employee. The prevailing thought in some quarters was that the 'top guy's' or the scientists and the engineers and high skilled workers would be the ones to qualify, and not the receptionist or the accountant or the assembly line worker.
Click to expand...
Which is it, should it be open to all employees or should the owner/boss decide?



TheBigShort said:
It would appear that you have moved from your position too.
Click to expand...
Nope, I think the owner/boss should decide.
 
TheBigShort said:
That is what the scheme effectively does, or effectively offers the opportunity to circumvent the PAYE system and pay a 33% rate.
I have argued that the level of income that a person enters the marginal rate is far too low.
I disagree with cutting the rate in the absence of a plausible alternative revenue raising scheme to fund the deficit that would ensue. Cutting services, welfare rates or wages of public sector workers to fund a cut in the marginal rate, to me, is simply not plausible.
Click to expand...
This will drag the thread off topic. Since we often do that maybe we should let it drop. And yes, I know I started it.
 
Purple said:
Which is it, should it be open to all employees or should the owner/boss decide?
Click to expand...

I think I know where the confusion lies.
The OP referenced a press release from DoF. It explicitly outlined 'key' employees. The topic ensued as to what is, what is not a 'key' employee. I proposed that the scheme be rolled out to all employees. That is, if an employer in a qualifying company, is experiencing high staff turnover on the factory floor due to, say, wage pressures in the economy, causing disruption in production and a tightening of cash flow. Being a qualifying SME start-up, it should be open to the employer to offer the terms of the KEEP scheme to its factory floor staff, rather than compete with more established competitors with greater cash resources, hampering the development of an otherwise good company with good products.
If the offer is beneficial to the employees (ie they already pay tax at marginal rate) they can, like the scientists and engineers etc, choose to avail of the offer or not.
 
TheBigShort said:
I think I know where the confusion lies.
The OP referenced a press release from DoF. It explicitly outlined 'key' employees. The topic ensued as to what is, what is not a 'key' employee. I proposed that the scheme be rolled out to all employees. That is, if an employer in a qualifying company, is experiencing high staff turnover on the factory floor due to, say, wage pressures in the economy, causing disruption in production and a tightening of cash flow. Being a qualifying SME start-up, it should be open to the employer to offer the terms of the KEEP scheme to its factory floor staff, rather than compete with more established competitors with greater cash resources, hampering the development of an otherwise good company with good products.
If the offer is beneficial to the employees (ie they already pay tax at marginal rate) they can, like the scientists and engineers etc, choose to avail of the offer or not.
Click to expand...

Okay, so the employer decides who is or isn't a key employee?
If so I agree.
 
Purple said:
Okay, so the employer decides who is or isn't a key employee?
If so I agree.
Click to expand...

Yes, and that it is not restricted to the so-called 'top guys', the engineers, scientists etc, that it is open to all employees, effectively meaning that any employee in a qualifying company can be determined as 'key'.
 
TheBigShort said:
Yes, and that it is not restricted to the so-called 'top guys', the engineers, scientists etc, that it is open to all employees, effectively meaning that any employee in a qualifying company can be determined as 'key'.
Click to expand...
I don't think anyone was suggesting otherwise. The only person/people who can determine who is key and who isn't will be in the company.
Our key shop floor guys are far more important and far more skilled (and far better paid) than out graduate engineers. Graduate engineers are bugger all use until you train them as, well, engineers.
 
Purple said:
I don't think anyone was suggesting otherwise.
Click to expand...

I think the following comments confirm that others were suggesting otherwise.

Sophrosyne said:
The idea behind KEEP is to enable indigenous Irish firms to recruit and retain top quality talent so that they can compete with multi-nationals.

I cannot see this being extended to employees who are not of that calibre.
Click to expand...

Gordon Gekko said:
Who in God’s name would want to award share options to non-key employees?
Click to expand...

Anyway, I think my point has been made, whether anyone else agrees with it now or not is irrelevant. The legislation will set out terms of qualifying, and agreeing with @torblednam, it would be futile trying to define what is a key employee into legislation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top