Tim Hartford on Basic Income and other suggestions

I hear you 44brendan and admit I have a jaundiced view of stats.
So You are correct I ain,t listening too well to counter arguments,or maybe I am getting too mistrusting of stats and views.
I have the (unscientific) notion ,not so much that higher earners are being preferably treated by revenue but more that there is a cohort of (rich)people who have tweaked things and appear to benefitting too much .
Just to balance , I also have the (unscientific) notion that too many of (the tax the Rich) are work shy !

Maybe its just a fact of life that Mr Average gets squeezed from either side?
 
Firefly said:
The Swiss are voting on June 5th whether or not to go with a Basic Income....
Click to expand...

Yap, cast my vote last night! Daft on two counts - first you could not live on 2.5K per month and second have recently rejected the idea of a minimum wage by 76%, the changes of this every passing is zero!

But that is the thing about direct democracy - you get to vote often (4 times a year in our case) and more often than not on issues that have no chance of every flying.
 
newirishman said:
Here's one for a good read: "Debunking Irish Income Tax myths"

Not sure where you seen inordinate breaks for the "elite" - but the top 1% paying 30% of taxation doesn't look like a tax break to me.
Click to expand...

Gerry Canning is right to mistrust how statistics are represented by interest groups.

The figures in this report are unreliable.

IBEC used Revenue’s statistical report for 2012 – based on the year 2011.

It's top 1% to refer to those with incomes of €200,000 or more.
  • The number of cases with incomes of 200,000 or more is correctly stated as 18,741,
  • Their income % is also correct at 9.11%,
  • But the combined income tax and USC % paid by this group - €2,616m, is 18.02% of total income tax and USC paid € 14,515m - and not 30.4% as claimed in the IBEC report. You can check this out yourself - Table IDS20 - 2011.
Other figures in this report are also incorrect.

Now, while top earners still payed 18.02% of all income tax and USC paid on 9.11% of all income earned, claiming that they payed 30.4% seems rather mischievous.
 
Last edited:
But who on earth takes anything IBEC - the big employers' union whose biggest subscribers are RTE, the ESB, Eir and the banks - says seriously?
 
Purple said:
Can you post a link Sophrosyne?
Click to expand...

As mentioned, IBEC used Revenue's statistical report for 2012 based on the year 2011.

[broken link removed]

Select Income Distribution Statistics pdf.

Table ISD20 is on the final page of the document.
 
Last edited:
T McGibney said:
But who on earth takes anything IBEC - the big employers' union whose biggest subscribers are RTE, the ESB, Eir and the banks - says seriously?
Click to expand...

That's an issue .
On economic type things,
IBEC can present an argument that the Rich are being screwed.
Nevin institute can present an argument that the Rich are in clover .

From pure observation I do note that those we perceive as Rich have weathered the Recession quite well.
From pure observation I do note that those we perceive as Poor have weathered the Recession quite well.

It still appears to be that Mr Average has been (played) , am I cynical ?
 
I honestly think you are paying too much attention to vested interest press releases and too little to actual statistics Gerry. Take nothing you hear on radio/tv/web news at face value and make your own inquiries.
 
No, you are just believing the populist lies trotted out by left wing talking heads which are left unchallenged by our left wing media.
The reality is that Mr. Average has done best out of the recession; lowest tax increases, lowest cuts to state hand-outs as a proportion of income. The so called squeezed middle is in reality the least squeezed sector of society.
 
Last edited:
I know Sophrosyne,
Would it be fair to say anyone working with income k25 to k100 ?

Purple,
You could be correct that Mr Middle was least squeezed but could still perversely ended up hardest hit in the recession. ?

T Mc Gibney,
Can agree with you.
 
Gerry Canning said:
Purple,
You could be correct that Mr Middle was least squeezed but could still perversely ended up hardest hit in the recession. ?
Click to expand...
I don't see how that could be the case. People who lost their jobs were hardest hit. The rest of us are not in the same league. If you are lucky enough to have a job for life then you are fortunate indeed, pay cuts and tax increases notwithstanding.
 
Gerry Canning said:
I know Sophrosyne,
Would it be fair to say anyone working with income k25 to k100 ?
Click to expand...

That is rather a wide spread Gerry.

But don't forget that a "tax unit" may be a single or widowed individual with or without children or a one or two income source couple.

Typically, a childless single individual with an income of €100,000 would pay considerably more tax than a one-income source couple with the same income.

Similarly, two single individuals have an income of €100,000, one pays and obtains a deduction for pension contributions, the other does not contribute and so will pay more tax.

It is not just about incomes, it is also about personal circumstances and the extent of the tax reliefs for which they qualify.

Individualized tax reliefs prevent meaningful averaging.
 
Sophrosyne said:
Similarly, two single individuals have an income of €100,000, one pays and obtains a deduction for pension contributions, the other does not contribute and so will pay more tax.
Click to expand...

Both will pay tax, just the one contributing to the pension is deferring paying that tax until retirement.
 
Leo said:
Both will pay tax, just the one contributing to the pension is deferring paying that tax until retirement.
Click to expand...
And due to the resulting higher income when retired may qualify for fewer hand-outs than the lower income individual, thus saving the country money (and therefore getting less of their tax back).
 
Last edited:
Leo said:
Both will pay tax, just the one contributing to the pension is deferring paying that tax until retirement.
Click to expand...

That is true, but we look at statistics for a year.

Difficulties in ascertaining income for a tax year and the effective rate of tax paid on that income is usually behind the Basic Income and also the Flat Tax Rate theories.

An individual may have a "taxable" income of, say, €10,000 per annum, but may also have sizeable non-taxable income and/or payment exemptions and grants from a variety of interdepartmental and agency sources, depending on their personal and business situation.

There are no available statistics which tell us the totality of either individual or household income and other forms of assistance, including for instance, the yearly cost of their medical card usage.

Neither are there statistics which tell us the diminishing effect of tax reliefs on the tax paid in the various income groups.
 
Very true. Another example of income which is not seen is those who have a defined benefit pension. It's value can be considerable but is not seen as income. This applies to everyone from civil and public servants to GP's who have a GMS contract.
 
From reading the posts .
To get to an agreed income/tax/fairness/hardest hit etc is difficult as there are many variables, and each comment I view has value in itself but amalgamating and getting income correct is like getting 6 lotto numbers. .

From my perch , I can only rely on observation and it (appears) the disparity on (richer)(poorer) is widening.
Trying to figure (real income) is like holding an eel !
I do like the idea of basic income .

Anyway I am sure our Great Leaders will sort it !
 
Gerry Canning said:
From my perch , I can only rely on observation and it (appears) the disparity on (richer)(poorer) is widening.
Trying to figure (real income) is like holding an eel !
I do like the idea of basic income .
Click to expand...

I am in favour of a basic income but if the income gap is widening then the state should ensure competition in the markets, particularly in areas like law and medicine, and work to narrow the skills gap through education. Unskilled people will always earn less than skilled people. That's the way it is and that's the way it should be. If you want to earn more than make your labour more valuable.

If you are unskilled and low paid then do something about it and no, that doesn't just mean going back to full or part time education. Most skills are learned in the workplace.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register