Brendan Burgess
Founder
- Messages
- 54,416
I attended a paper by Tom McDonnell of TASC on options for introducing a wealth tax. It followed a paper by the Nevin Research Institute, doggedly repeating that the top 10% of households in Ireland pay an effective tax rate of 22.5%, so I was expecting more nonsense.
But it was a very well thought out paper which you can find here.
[broken link removed]
It sets out the pros and cons, almost in a Civil Service type briefing. It also sets out the features which a wealth tax should have. It gives a good account of wealth taxes in Ireland and other countries.
Some stuff I took from it:
We already have wealth taxes in Ireland
The trend in other countries is to abolish wealth taxes
It won't raise very much money. A rate of 0.6% on wealth above €1m would yield €150m
Wealth taxes tend to be poorly designed and tend to have a high administration cost - up to 25% of the tax raised
Wealth data in Ireland is poor, so it's difficult to forecast the yield
The family home is probably the biggest component of wealth
Summary of arguments in favour of a wealth tax
[/FONT]Summary of arguments against
If the threshold of liability is set at a sufficiently high value; Relief is appropriate if the threshold is set at a low value; income related ceiling provisions may be appropriate as a counter-cyclical alternative to reliefs.
But it was a very well thought out paper which you can find here.
[broken link removed]
It sets out the pros and cons, almost in a Civil Service type briefing. It also sets out the features which a wealth tax should have. It gives a good account of wealth taxes in Ireland and other countries.
ABSTRACT
This paper considers the advantages and disadvantages of introducing a net wealth tax intheRepublic ofIreland. The implications for vertical and horizontal equity are discussed, as are theimplications for economic efficiency, growth, savings and potential capital flight. There areother major questions. Are there administrative barriers to its introduction? How should debtbe treated? Who
should pay the tax? How does the tax relate to other taxes? How should assetsbe valued?
The key objectives of a net wealth tax are to raise a meaningful amount of revenuefor the exchequer and improve horizontal and vertical equity while at the same timeminimisingadministration and compliance costs, minimising economic distortions, and minimising the riskof capital flight. The tax structure most compatible with these policy objectives is one witheither zero or very few exemptions and reliefs, a high threshold of liability, and a flat marginal
rate that is set at a low level.
Nevertheless, for practical reasons it would be necessary to exempt
certain asset classes, for example human capital. There is a general lack of good data on thedistribution of wealth in Ireland and the potential revenue yield from a net wealth tax is highlydependent on the degree to which wealth is concentrated in the right hand tail of thepopulation.Even so, ayield of
at least 0.1 per cent of GDP appearsvery much compatible with a
threshold of liability for net wealth set at €1 million and a wealth tax rate set at 0.6 per cent. .Such a yield is attainableeven under very conservative assumptions of aggregate wealth and thedistribution of wealth in Ir
eland. Less conservative assumptions of the degree to which wealth
is concentrated in the top 1to 2 per cent of the population generate substantially higher estimated yields
Some stuff I took from it:
We already have wealth taxes in Ireland
- CGT - €413m in 2012 (down from €3b in 2007)
- CAT - €283m in 2012
- the Local Property Tax
The trend in other countries is to abolish wealth taxes
It won't raise very much money. A rate of 0.6% on wealth above €1m would yield €150m
Wealth taxes tend to be poorly designed and tend to have a high administration cost - up to 25% of the tax raised
Wealth data in Ireland is poor, so it's difficult to forecast the yield
The family home is probably the biggest component of wealth
Summary of arguments in favour of a wealth tax
- [FONT="]There is a potential revenue for the exchequer (which means we could either reduce taxes elsewhere or we can increase public spending – at least once the deficit is closed)[/FONT]
- [FONT="] [/FONT][FONT="]Supports vertical equity (the social solidarity argument i.e. it redistributes wealth – wealth tends to be much more unequally distributed than income)[/FONT]
- [FONT="]Supports horizontal equity (horizontal equity is the principle that two people with the same taxable capacity should pay the same amount of tax – income and wealth both provide taxable capacity)[/FONT]
- [FONT="][/FONT][FONT="]Helps with administrative efficiency (helps detect and discourage evasion of other capital taxes by providing data that can then be cross-checked with other tax returns)[/FONT]
- [FONT="][/FONT][FONT="]Helps the fight against tax evasion (provides evidence of assets that might otherwise go undisclosed or undeclared)[/FONT]
- [FONT="]Encourage more productive use of assets (e.g. land lying waste or being used unproductively)[/FONT]
[/FONT]Summary of arguments against
- It's a double or triple taxation - we are taxed when we earn it; when we spend it and now when we save it prudently
- It may affect savings and capital accumulation
- There is a big risk of capital outflow
- It will be evaded as capital transfers abroad are very easy
- It is expensive to collect
- Progressive income tax is preferable
- All assets - no exemptions e.g. farmland should not be exempted
- Maybe exempt pension funds
- Net assets after borrowing
- A high threshold e.g. €1m of net assets
- A flat low rate e.g. 0.6%
If the threshold of liability is set at a sufficiently high value; Relief is appropriate if the threshold is set at a low value; income related ceiling provisions may be appropriate as a counter-cyclical alternative to reliefs.