TSW Commission: Most goods and services should be subject to 23% VAT and not zero or 13.5%

AJAM said:
If forced to choose, I would rather see higher vat rates than higher income taxes
Click to expand...
Unlike income tax, VAT is regressive in that poor people spend a higher share of their income on it than the wealthy . Zero and reduced VAT rates on food are intended to make it somewhat less regressive since poor people spend a higher share of their income on food. Raising VAT on food would thus disproportionately hit the poor, which is the ideological opposite of what this TSW Commission claims to aim for. Perhaps there should have been more genuine economists on this Commission as opposed to economically illiterate social activists.
 
tomdublin said:
Zero and reduced VAT rates on food are intended to make it somewhat less regressive since poor people spend a higher share of their income on food.
Click to expand...
Income tax is always and everywhere progressive and consumption taxes are always and everywhere regressive. It's just a question of how you calibrate but you can't get away from this by design.

Personally I prefer high and uniform consumption taxes, something like VAT of 18% on absolutely everything. Rich people buy food too and they don't need the subsidy. People on low incomes should be supported via, well, income supports. Doing it via low VAT is not efficient as rich people like me get to benefit too and we don't need it.

FWIW alcohol and in particular cigarettes are consumed far more in relative terms (and also absolute terms too for cigarettes) by low-income people. The rates of excise are crippling for people on low incomes who are essentially being financially punished for a drug addiction. This is a highly regressive part of our tax system that gets very little attention and really should.
 
Purple said:
Yes, that's the elephant in the room but most of the people working in these areas are now heroes and above any criticism, constructive or otherwise.
Click to expand...

NoRegretsCoyote said:
The rates of excise are crippling for people on low incomes who are essentially being financially punished for a drug addiction
Click to expand...
Very valid point. MUP on alcohol compounds this, despite being sold to the public as a "progressive" policy. These addiction taxes seem to be a main reason for deprivation & malnourishment of children among the poor despite relatively generous social welfare payments.
 
You're conflating wealth and income. Why should we give supports to wealthy people who have modest incomes? If I choose to keep €3 million in the form of a house and take a low paying job then you'd give me income supports. Why?
 
I disagree here. The retired couple are retired, and will presumably have paid taxes of all kind throughout their working life.
Social policy and taxation based around discretionary income? If they are retired their income is going to be generated from pensions more than likely which is already taxed. They already pay property tax and continue to pay VAT the same as everyone else.

What part of their income is discretionary? Their wealth? Wealth is not the same as income. Wealth is not the same as disposable income.
Why should they downsize. If they do why should they be taxed on it. All of their accumulated wealth will either have been earned (and taxed already) or inherited (and taxed already).
 
rustbucket said:
I disagree here. The retired couple are retired, and will presumably have paid taxes of all kind throughout their working life.
Click to expand...
Everyone of every age who works has paid tax roughout their working life. Some have finished their working life, others haven't. So what?
rustbucket said:
Social policy and taxation based around discretionary income?
Click to expand...
Yep.
rustbucket said:
If they are retired their income is going to be generated from pensions more than likely which is already taxed.
Click to expand...
No, pensions aren't taxed until you draw them down.
rustbucket said:
They already pay property tax and continue to pay VAT the same as everyone else.
Click to expand...
Yea, so?
rustbucket said:
What part of their income is discretionary?
Click to expand...
The bit that they don't have to spend on utilities, housing costs (rent or mortgage) and essentials.
rustbucket said:
Their wealth? Wealth is not the same as income.
Click to expand...
Exactly!
rustbucket said:
Wealth is not the same as disposable income.
Click to expand...
Exactly!
rustbucket said:
Why should they downsize.
Click to expand...
They shouldn't if they don't want to. That's the beauty of being rich, they have options.
rustbucket said:
If they do why should they be taxed on it.
Click to expand...
They shouldn't.
rustbucket said:
All of their accumulated wealth will either have been earned (and taxed already) or inherited (and taxed already).
Click to expand...
Or, mostly, gained through capital value appreciation. They bought a house in 1980 for a bag of bruised apples and now it's worth €800k. Fair play to them. Now they are rich and don't need social transfers from people who aren't rich (but may have a high income) and are struggling to pay the bills.

All I'm saying is that the retired couple is doing okay. They have a large descressionary income and don't need additional social transfers. Poor pensioners do but rich ones don't. That's all.
 
Purple said:
So remove VAT on bottled water or other such items. It's hardly insurmountable.
Click to expand...
How about it's increased to 50% on bottles up to 1 litre and removed from bottles over that to allow for people with boil water notices?
 
PGF2016 said:
How about it's increased to 50% on bottles up to 1 litre and removed from bottles over that to allow for people with boil water notices?
Click to expand...
VAT on small bottles of water at 50% and on small bottles of Irn Bru and Coca Cola at 23%?

Only in Ireland.
 
PGF2016 said:
How about it's increased to 50% on bottles up to 1 litre and removed from bottles over that to allow for people with boil water notices?
Click to expand...
Purple said:
The simpler the tax code is the better it is.
Click to expand...
+1
And also, the purpose of a tax system is to garner income for the State. It's not to reward or punish individuals' consumption of certain foods or drinks.
 
NoRegretsCoyote said:
Of course it is! There are many policy objectives embedded in the tax rate and the tax base. More than you could count!
Click to expand...
Well they shouldn't be, at least as I described above. In my opinion.

For starters, Revenue has neither corporate responsibility nor accountability for social engineering and its consequences.
 
T McGibney said:
For starters, Revenue has neither corporate responsibility nor accountability for social engineering and its consequences.
Click to expand...
No, but the government does. Tax on alcohol and tobacco is social engineering, as is the plastic bag levy. "Progressive" income tax is another form of social engineering.

That said when anyone asks me what our corporate social responsibility policy is in work I say it's to obey the law and pay our taxes. The State then uses that money to do nice things for people and all that stuff. So I get what you mean and I'm inclined to agree in principle.
 
T McGibney said:
VAT on small bottles of water at 50% and on small bottles of Irn Bru and Coca Cola at 23%?

Only in Ireland.
Click to expand...
IrnBru and Coke should be taxed to the hilt (with exemptions if being used to treat hangovers).
Purple said:
The simpler the tax code is the better it is.
Click to expand...
Agreed. But as per your comment on plastic bags some tax code complexity can be used for the greater good.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register