Top 10% of earners contribute 2/3 of the tax take

fair enough but where is the research to say that they are more likely to be jointly assessed in Ireland which is what was claimed?
 
The standout statistic for me on PAYE Income Tax and USC receipts by County is that Westmeath ranks third (after Dublin & Cork).

I'd have lost the bet on that being the case.

MNCs & MO'L?
Neither that statistic, not the chart generally, make any sense.

Westmeath's Corporation Tax take and self-employed tax take are each on a par with Offaly but its PAYE take is four times higher than Offaly's.

Westmeath's Income Tax take is on a par with Galway but its Corporation Tax take is one-fifth of that of Galway.

AFAIK it’s because that’s where the Department of Education payroll function is.

So all teachers recorded as having a Westmeath-based employer.
This makes sense.

The entire graph is so misleading that it's clearly not fit to publish.

I don't know what the ISSCOP entails but this makes it look extremely silly.
 
Last edited:
From the Irish Times article:

"The group’s income tax paper also costed a number of possible income tax changes. It estimated that indexing the income tax system against wage growth of 4.5 per cent would cost just under €1.2 billion for the full year."

Can anyone explain this second sentence? I don't understand what it means?
 
In theory for the rate of tax to be kept the same everything needs to rise with wage inflation.

Tax credits go up 4.5%. Entry point into 40% income tax goes up 4.5%. Amount of transferable benefit between spouses goes up 4.5%, USC band etc etc.

Some countries do this automatically. It’s not a tax cut. It’s just standing still. In Ireland it’s positioned as a tax cut ‘giveaway’.
The annualised ‘cost’ of doing so is €1.2bn. Or more accurately, if not done the government is increasing the rate of taxation to the tune of €1.2bn.
 
Why would higher earners be more likely to be married than lower earners?
There are big social welfare advantages for low earners to not be married.
There are big inheritance advantages for high earners to be married.
 
Ah, ok, got it thanks @Zion2022 .

With my new understanding is it not correct to say that it costs the government nothing because the equation is balanced on both sides?
 
Ah, ok, got it thanks @Zion2022 .

With my new understanding is it not correct to say that it costs the government nothing because the equation is balanced on both sides?
It actually ‘costs’ them less than nothing when this happens.

If gross wages increase by 4.5% and you index the entire tax system at 4.5% the end result is:

1. Government receives 4.5% more in income tax
2. Your net pay increases 4.5%.
3. Your ‘effective tax rate’ stays the same

But for tactical reasons the government bank upfront more than the 4.5% extra they ‘should’ by assuming no change in tax bands (essentially assuming they will increase the effective tax on the population as a whole)…and then they position the indexing as a return to the taxpayer with an associated ‘cost’.
 
How much of this is due to the very progressive nature of our income tax system?

Or is it also a reflection of high market income inequality?
From Income Tax 2023: Insights on PAYE Taxpayers, section 2.2. Gross Pay

“Figure 4 presents the distribution of employees and annual gross pay (throughout this section gross pay refers to the gross income reported through payroll systems).

As can be seen, there is a large concentration of employees at the lower end of the distribution particularly between the 0-€30,000 range which makes up over half of the number of employees. However, this cohort makes up roughly 17 per cent of the total gross pay for the year even though they make up 50 percent of the total cohort.

On the other end of the distribution, those who earned over €100,000 made up roughly 6 per cent of employees but 25 per cent of the total gross pay."

The report states those at the lower end of the distribution may include part-timers but those the top end were full-time.

The upshot is that the top earners pay 25% of the total taxes but also earn 25% of the total gross pay.
 
Last edited:
The upshot is that the top earners pay 25% of the total taxes but also earn 25% of the total gross pay.
I don’t think that’s correct.

The tax strategy group are saying that the top 1% of tax units (earning over €290k) account for almost 25% of income tax and USC receipts, whereas the paper you are referencing says that roughly 6% of employees (earning over €100k) accounted for 25% of total gross pay.

Apples and oranges.
 
I think the PAYE “employee” taxpayer numbers include DB pensioners and ARF drawdowns with income tax deducted at source.
 
Last edited:
Yes.

Income tax payers is a much larger number than workers.

Thousands of pensioners don't work, but are income tax payers.
 
Yes.

Income tax payers is a much larger number than workers.

Thousands of pensioners don't work, but are income tax payers.
Due, in the case of those who worked in the real economy, to the payment of taxes which were deferred when income was invested into their pension fund.
 

It drives me mad how political spin is just repeated by journalist, although I think some recent increases may beet inflation. There is talk of getting it to 50k but no time. 50k shouldn't be the end goal.