Could definitely see this happening - it could be as sly as requiring PRSI contributions when retired to maintain health care eligibility, with means testing to define the rate of payment.Potentially; or a pension levy style land-grab against people with decent private pensions to pay for the recklessness of others.
Is USC paid on pension Don't hear much about FG promise in the last election to get rid of it,Could definitely see this happening - it could be as sly as requiring PRSI contributions when retired to maintain health care eligibility, with means testing to define the rate of payment.
I'm hopeful this initiative gains steam, so I can get my pension the hell out of Ireland: https://www.ft.com/content/731a27b4-5cb0-11e7-b553-e2df1b0c3220
Is USC paid on pension Don't hear much about FG promise in the last election to get rid of it,
I am very interested in seeing how Leo handles this at one stage he was on for putting USC in with PRSI it did not happen in the budget so they are already creaming extra from pensions by not doing soThere no relief from USC on the way in, and you pay USC on the way out.
So not great in other words!
I think I am going to start a petition. I'd appreciate a bit of feed back on the text below, especially if I've made any errors.
Petition to Scrap the 41% Exit Tax on Investment Funds and Replace it with Capital Gains Tax
Ireland is one of the leading regulated domiciles for internationally distributed investment funds and exchange traded funds (ETF's). The Irish tax regime has been, and continues to be, one of the key growth drivers of the funds industry in Ireland. The Irish tax treatment of these funds encourages big institutional investors and small individual off-shore investors across the world to use Irish domiciled funds, which, as a result, has seen billions of euro flow into them.
The one group who don't benefit from this is small Irish Investors. The current tax treatment of UCTIS ETF's and other unit linked funds means small Irish investors must pay 41% tax on any gains that they realize from their investments. This compares prohibitively to investing in individual stocks where the capital gains rate of 33% applies.
Furthermore investors in individual stocks can offset losses against gains, while ETF investors can not, leaving them at a significant disadvantage. i.e. if you invest in 2 ETF's and one has loss and one a gain, you must pay tax on the gain and get no benefit from the loss. On top of this ETF investors must pay the 41% tax after 8 years, whether or not they sell their investment, under the again overly-complicated "deemed disposal" rule.
Low cost, broadly diversified exchange traded funds (ETFs) are the best way for ordinary people to get access to and benefit from the stock market. However the current Irish tax treatment completely discourages investment in diversified ETF's and encourages investment in risky single stocks. This can be seen in revenues own figures as the tax take from exit tax is falling (as investors flee these products) while the tax take from Capital gains is rising.
The current, overly-complicated unit exit tax system should be scrapped and replaced with capital gains tax giving a fair, level playing field for all investors.
Eh, DIRT in 2018 is not levied @33% - it's levied @37%. It's not scheduled to reduce to 33% until 2020.Dirt rate Budget 2017 down from 41% to 33%
thanks for the correction on dirt taxEh, DIRT in 2018 is not levied @33% - it's levied @37%. It's not scheduled to reduce to 33% until 2020.
Regardless, exit tax is still levied at 41%.
No problem - and apologies if I sounded a bit snarky.
FWIW I think it's outrageous that DIRT hasn't been (and apparently won't be) reduced to the standard rate of income tax.
Why should a pensioner (or anybody else for that matter) with a modest income have to pay DIRT @37% (or 33% for that matter)?
They do unless they are over 65 and their total income is below the annual exemption limit.They ( pensioners) dont !
They do unless they are over 65 and their total income is below the annual exemption limit.
I don't believe any government will ever again take on the prsi paying paye taxpayer I am old enough to remember what started the tax marches back in 1982
when the government of the day increased prsi from around 15% to 19.1% it was payable on all low income then ,If any of you are old enough to remember this is why tax prsi relief on income tax was brought in to try get prsi paying taxpayers back on side.
another reason why they will never ever be able to touch paye paying taxpayers prsi pension is because in 1995 when they brought in the new public service pension the deal that was struck between unions and goverment was the government makes up the shortfall between the prsi pension and 50 %of final salary if they had full service
We in the private sector have a lot to thank the public sector for ,
no way would they be able to take it off one group paying the same prsi just because one is a private pension not a hope in hell of any government trying that one on they know who they will be dealing with they still have nightmares from 1982 they main parties never fully recovered since prsi workers took to the streets back in 1982,
It was the start of the floating Vote all of the main parties are now chasing,
The main parties have two sets of core supporters one set vote them in and pay the most tax high earners and people with unearned income they then take there tax and feed it to there other core group/supporters who want to pay for nothing,
The people who brought in the changes were paying less than 2% prsi under another prsi band in 1982 and were still paying 2% until the USC came in 2012/13
I just checked prsi rates for 1982 went from 14.8% to 19.1% of paye income/payroll in the private sector