I note you made no response on the part of my post asking why those who are takers don't give anything back.
Of the 50 billion plus to run the country 21 billion goes on social welfare. That is a staggering percentage of our overall budget.
You did not and above suggests you won't. I don't get quite a lot as you describe. I note you omitted to answer how you would fund the shortfall in tax take if multinationals and higher earning people leave Ireland.I did respond. I have highlighted that you and I are both takers, our tax contribution is what we give back.
Perhaps you could acknowledge that instead of claiming that you "get nothing" for your taxes paid, you do in fact get quite a lot? Substantially more than you could ever afford by yourself?
You are more interested in defending your stance on everybody is a taker rather than offer an opinion on those who who are takers and give nothing at all in return
Firstly I am one of those people who is in the high tax bracket and gets nothing from all the tax I pay
You appear to know that I actually do get something so please enlighten me as to what I don't realise I am getting.
It's irrelevant how the person accumulated his/her wealth (assuming it was done legally). Someone could amass wealth through living a frugal life, investing and reinvesting their profits. Or somebody could equally end up with the same wealth by buying a home and having its value increase due to demand or inflation, which would have been unforeseen at the time of purchase. Or by winning the Lotto. Either way it's irrelevant.That seems to imply an intent or action on behalf of the disponer in the accumulation of said wealth, that it was acquired through deliberate action, hard work, planning, intellect and foresight rather than just happening to buy a house in the 1970's or 80's.
Something that is purchased for €30k (€212k now, adjusted for inflation) and is now worth €650k can and should be considered a form of wealth and calling it such is simply accurate an is in no way loaded.
You are now cherry picking those points you want to respond on and ignoring those you don't want to respond to.Your changing the discussion. To be clear this is what you said, which is what I responded to
Then you repeated the point in answer to another poster
It is clear that you believe you pay tax and get nothing in return for it.
Despite living in relatively politically stable, safe, first world country you seem incapable of understanding how upon this happened.
Your taxes are a contribution to sustaining those standards.
You can argue all you want how that money is to spent, who should benefit most etc, but it is wrong to suggest that you don't get anything in return for the taxes you pay or that your tax contribution is in any way sufficient by itself to sustaining the first world living standards that are provided to you.
Well I think it’s a nonsensical argument.I think it's a fantastic argument.
I am putting it up to those people who regularly proclaim that their taxes pays for the schools, the hospitals, the roads, the welfare, blah...blah...
When in fact, their (and mine) taxes, on an individual basis relative to the grand scheme of actual public spending - pay for diddly-squat.
A near irrelevance. Your contribution is only relevant when combined with the contributions of the rest of the citizenry.
So drop the mega-phone, drop the pretentiousness, drop the self-entitlement, as an individual taxpayer you pay for next to nothing in the grand scheme of things. You, like me and everyone else, are a taker first and foremost.
What we pay in tax is our contribution back.
For example why can't people on unemployment benefit jobseekers allowance work in the community as part of their benefit payment?
What if someone’s paying €10m of income tax?
What I do have an issue with is scroungers and fraudsters gaming the system and how tax revenues are wasted. And people telling me my contribution is meaningless just to suit their spurious argument.
Do you have children? If so the State pays €7-€8k a year sending them to school. If you send them to a private school then thanks; you are subsidising the public school system but the State still pays about €4k a year towards their education.Firstly I am one of those people who is in the high tax bracket and gets nothing from all the tax I pay.
Most people take more than they give. I don't but I pay loads in taxes. I consider taxes the price of civilisation.Your post speaks volumes about you. You expect people to give to finance the lifestyles of those who take more than they contribute and are not willing to give back (not necessarily financial).
I'm a social liberal and an economic centralist. I think we raise more than enough in taxes but waste billions. If you want to save money then go after the structural waste within the health service and the endemic inefficiency in the State Sector generally. Go after the people who buy a house then rent it to their partner who lives there with their children while claiming HAPS. Go after the teachers and solicitors and doctors and plumbers and painters and carpenters and architects and everyone else who does nixers and insists on cash (like so many hospital consultants do). There's loads of black economy stuff going on and it should all be stopped.Your views indicate you are on the left of politics and I am yet to hear a convincing argument of how these policies are going to be funded.
In any discussion about taxing the "rich" we need to define who the rich are. What people really mean is the people in the €2 million houses etc but many of them aren't on high incomes. We already tax high incomes too much so we can't increase marginal rates. So given that we live in a Republic and should seek to create a society with as much equality of opportunity as possible it is my opinion that we should tax wealth retention more and wealth creation less. I don't want to see more taxes, if anything I'd like to see less. What I would like to see is that shift from one to the other. At the moment holding onto wealth is easy but getting wealthy through hard work is very hard and will only get harder.And before you say tax the rich, tax the multinationals you do realise we are a small open economy who can't dictate trading terms to either sector. They can and will happily go elsewhere. They are here for a reason and if we lose their tax irrespective of how much they pay how do you suggest we fund this shortfall?
Yea, but there's loads of people who are under employed and game the system. Let's not pretend otherwise. Let's also not pretend that they are all poor. Tax evasion and welfare fraud are, in essence, the same thing.The long term unemployed rate in this country is about 1.4%.
Of course it's irrelevant. What is relevant is how hard it is to acquire wealth now relative to how hard it was 20, 30 or 40 years ago. With capital inflation rates consistently higher than labour inflation rates it will become increasingly hard to acquire wealth through hard work. Therefore, in my opinion, we should spread the tax burned away from labour to encourage hard work and wealth creation.It's irrelevant how the person accumulated his/her wealth (assuming it was done legally). Someone could amass wealth through living a frugal life, investing and reinvesting their profits. Or somebody could equally end up with the same wealth by buying a home and having its value increase due to demand or inflation, which would have been unforeseen at the time of purchase. Or by winning the Lotto. Either way it's irrelevant.
You can call it whatever you like but it's still wealth.The disposner has ended up with what the OECD calls 'wealth'. But this is a rather loaded term. It would be better described as 'life-time savings'. Owning a house and having some savings doesn't make you wealthy. It demonstrates you are normal. It shows you are a responsible person who saves and in a free society
I agree completely. The State should restrict its interest to how it is taxed.it is your decison to pass on your savings to whoever you wish. Sometimes it's the Cats and Dogs Home, but normally it's your descendents and relatives. Taxation policy should not influence the redistributive decisions of disposers. The money is being redistributed. How it is redistributed is of no concern to the state.
Yea, but there's loads of people who are under employed and game the system. Let's not pretend otherwise. Let's also not pretend that they are all poor. Tax evasion and welfare fraud re, in essence, the same thing.
That's what the State has recovered. It is reasonable to say that actual fraud rates will be a multiple of that but nowhere near the rates claimed by the DSP.Yeh, welfare fraud has consistently cost the state between €30m and €60m a year over the last decade. S
Yes, so tax the rich, not high earners. The value of Defined benefit Pensions need to be included in any calculation around wealth as well which, coincidently, is probably the reason that the permanent government of the State, the Civil service, is not a fan of the idea.Of course people get something in return; I think that undeniable.
The problem arises when people who pay a hell of a lot more than their fair share are asked for more instead of targeting waste or broader-based solutions.
For example, if someone is paying the same amount of tax as 25 teachers, it’s annoying to hear teachers constantly moaning, to observe how they betrayed the country and its children during Covid, and to hear people incessantly demand that higher earners pay more.
Yes, so tax the rich, not high earners. The value of Defined benefit Pensions need to be included in any calculation around wealth as well which, coincidently, is probably the reason that the permanent government of the State, the Civil service, is not a fan of the idea.
I want to see a shift in taxation from high earners to the rich, from wealth creation to wealth retention. I do not want to see an increase in the overall tax take by the State.No!
“Tax the rich!” or “Tax the wealthy!” are just Sinn Fein/IRA and Idiocy Before Profit slogans.
Efficiency should be the focus.
High earners and the wealthy are already paying somewhere between too much and the correct amount depending on one’s point of view.
Define wealth though.I want to see a shift in taxation from high earners to the rich, from wealth creation to wealth retention. I do not want to see an increase in the overall tax take by the State.
The wealthy pay no tax based on their wealth. They pay tax based on their income. High earners, whether they are wealthy or not, pay very high rates of tax.
That's not the case though, it is relevant. If there is generational inherited wealth, that is negative for society. Generational wealth results in a rentier economy, discourages productivity and takes generations for productive labour to accumulate wealth. It is supremely relevant.It's irrelevant how the person accumulated his/her wealth (assuming it was done legally). Someone could amass wealth through living a frugal life, investing and reinvesting their profits. Or somebody could equally end up with the same wealth by buying a home and having its value increase due to demand or inflation, which would have been unforeseen at the time of purchase. Or by winning the Lotto. Either way it's irrelevant.
The disposner has ended up with what the OECD calls 'wealth'. But this is a rather loaded term. It would be better described as 'life-time savings'. Owning a house
and having some savings doesn't make you wealthy. It demonstrates you are normal. It shows you are a responsible person who saves and in a free society
it is your decison to pass on your savings to whoever you wish. Sometimes it's the Cats and Dogs Home, but normally it's your descendents and relatives. Taxation policy should not influence the redistributive decisions of disposers. The money is being redistributed. How it is redistributed is of no concern to the state.
I want to see a shift in taxation from high earners to the rich, from wealth creation to wealth retention. I do not want to see an increase in the overall tax take by the State.
The wealthy pay no tax based on their wealth. They pay tax based on their income. High earners, whether they are wealthy or not, pay very high rates of tax.