That must mean it's a good thing; a simple tax increases productivity and real output so more accountants are employed by these profitable cmpanies making simple tax returns.
Is that what you are saying?
Those who earn more ,should pay more
- Thread starter thedaras
- Start date
That must mean it's a good thing; a simple tax increases productivity and real output so more accountants are employed by these profitable cmpanies making simple tax returns.
Is that what you are saying?
T McGibney
Registered User
- Messages
- 6,962
Exactly, that's what I'm saying. The problem in this country is that nobody in authority seems to agree and that the relentless trend, both in terms of tax policy and regulation generally, is in the direction of more complexity.
Introducing a flat rate of tax is an attractive idea and it well worth examining but in reality, it is very difficult to implement. The UK looked into this a few years ago and found that there would be a something like a £50 billion shortfall in income tax in year one that would have to be found somewhere. By adjusting the rate and tax free allowances, they found that middle income earners ended up losing out at the expense of lower and higher income earners. Countries would love to move towards this system but the implementation is very complicated.
Absolutely right. Even the more left leaning parties like Labour, SF and even the SDLP were out in the last 12 months saying how terrible it would be if Ireland were "forced" to increase it's corporate tax rate. I even heard Vincent Brown talk about how the low tax rate attracted and retained corporations of all sizes. What has always baffled me is that the same people are then out advocating an increase in taxation on "the rich", as if it would not have the same affect as increasing corporation tax. Perfect example of Einstein's definition of insanity.
There is always talk about getting "the rich" to pay their "fair share", but pretty much none of the advocates allow themselves to be pinned down to define "rich" and "fair share". As already mentioned 5% of income tax payers are responsible for 50% of income tax revenue. I, for one, am extremely grateful for the amount of tax these people are already paying; if any high income earners are reading this: THANK YOU!
Also, nobody mentions what would happen if "the rich" paid more taxes. Rich people do not hoard their money in secret rooms in their mansions. They either deposit it in a bank or directly invest it. If the government were to take this money away from them then there would be less capital available, and with less capital there will be less business investment and therefore less jobs. Taxing the rich more will have exactly the opposite effect on the economy.
This is very true. In order for a flat tax rate to be successfully introduced it would have reduce the tax liability of all those currently paying taxes. Unfortunately there are a huge number of low income earners in this country that do not pay tax, but they have to be brought in to the tax net.
The reasons why politicians do not like the ideas and come out with reports that show how "unworkable" it is, is because in the short term a flat tax rate would also mean reducing government spending (not a bad thing). But of course politicians hate having to reduce spending as it doesn't allow them to buy more votes.
If 'the rich' or those in well paid jobs have to pay more to cover those on lower salaries where is the incentive to take on additional study, to apply for promotion, to start your own business?. Why bother when it will all be eaten up in tax?. We would need a total rehaul of society for this kind of thing to work. I don't think it works in a capitalist society. And then you have to break it down..some are 'rich' by sheer hard work, long hours building up a buisness etc, some are 'rich' by inheritance. Some are 'not so rich' due to circumstances, not being given opportunities and some are 'not so rich' due to laziness and an expectation that society should provide for them. Its hard to lump everyone into broad catagories and say A must fund B. Like another poster said - what is the definition of rich? A couple with a joint income of 100K+ ? what about if they have a huge mortgage? Then you open up the 'well they have a nice house, they didn't have to buy it' can of worms
Just an extra tax credit of 650 pa.
More to the point, should 65+ pay less income tax?
I don't think so.
Complainer
Registered User
- Messages
- 4,949
You seem to forget that income tax is just one of the many taxes in place in Ireland today. VAT brings in more to the Govt than income tax. Everybody pays tax.
As soon as I saw that Chris had referred to people paying 'no tax', it was inevitable that you would swoop in (again...) with your 'income tax isn't the only tax' soundbite. VB's article was about more income tax for 'the rich' - do you think it was unclear to ANYBODY (yourself included) that what Chris was talking about (and this whole thread was about...) was income tax? Does your comment add anything to the topic of this thread?
Complainer
Registered User
- Messages
- 4,949
Sorry for letting an inconvenient fact get in the way of a good rant. I withdraw everything.
Fair play to you. It's nice to see a poster admit they were wrong to ignoring the fact that the discussion is about income tax so that they could have a rant.
Regarding Orka's rather impolite remarks about Complainer's mention of VAT..
Mentioning other taxes that everyone pays may indeed "add something to the topic of this thread" . Discussing income-tax rates without reference to other taxes makes for a rather narrow debate .
Even if one thinks the topic should have concentrated exclusively on income tax, with no mention of any other tax allowed, there is no reason for such an ill-tempered rebuke.
Mentioning other taxes that everyone pays may indeed "add something to the topic of this thread" . Discussing income-tax rates without reference to other taxes makes for a rather narrow debate .
Even if one thinks the topic should have concentrated exclusively on income tax, with no mention of any other tax allowed, there is no reason for such an ill-tempered rebuke.
A good point, but a recently obsolete point. The budget last December has significantly shifted the landscape.
Income taxes & levies (excluding PRSI) are up 26% whilst VAT is down 2% year on year to 30/09/2011.
http://www.finance.gov.ie/documents/exchequerstatements/2011/analtaxsept.pdf
Yes, everyone pays VAT and that's fair....do you think that it's fair that some people do not pay income tax whilst others do?
There is a history with Complainer; making the same point repeatedly about non payroll taxes in discussions about income tax. There are many occasions when stating the obvious is helpful but doing so repeatedly within the same discussion is rarely constructive.
This is a discussion about income tax. Who pays what VAT is a different point. It would be interesting to see how VAT receipts are broken down; how much come from essentials and how much comes from luxury items, but that’s for another thread.
Under the current progressive tax system - yes , I think it's fair that those on low incomes pay little or no income tax .
The Universal Social charge ( which is of course a tax on income )has moved the goalposts in that it catches everyone earning over €4,004 per annum.
Complainer
Registered User
- Messages
- 4,949
Thanks for the update on the numbers. I wasn't aware that income tax had crept back up ahead of VAT. However, the substantive point still applies - that income tax is not the ONLY tax. It is less than half of our total tax take. Lots of people who don't pay income tax do pay other taxes. Any discussions around the equity or fairness of our income tax system are looking at less than half of the big picture.
PS Did anyone else have a giggle at the name of that PDF file?
To play Devil's Advocate then; if we include VAT, then can we break that down on who is also contributing to the VAT take?
Proportionally do higher earners also spend more/buy higher value goods and so therefore contribute more to the VAT intake?