Varadkar: "We need to cut tax but increase social insurance to get a fair society"

cremeegg the example you gave is incorrect from 2011 it was 14.5% 2009/2010 it was over 18% that was taken and if you look at the years before then it was over 17%.Varadker is getting ready to remove the USC and put back the stealth tax which only applied to people in employment paying PRSI Class A1 which is the class in your example,
 
Last edited by a moderator:
cremeegg
I know some one who has being putting 9% into pension since may 1990 it is now worth close to 500000 They can take 25% tax free, Lots of people earning the average wage could not put money into pension between getting caught out for fees for there kids going to collage and paying high PRSI + the stealth tax on top of there PRSI aka usc for paye workers only,
 
I am concerned by Varadkar's pronouncements; specifically around the €115k earnings cap and the €2m fund threshold.
 
The EU are forcing his hand Leo is not doing this because he would like to give something back to the people who already were paying most of the prsi for the past 40 years,He is just testing the waters to see who he can squeeze the most out of ,Hopefully he will not be allowed to put stealth taxes back on top of the prsi class A1 worker on low wages so you know where he is going next,Hope you are as understanding when he starts takes stealth taxes of the people you are concerned about nothing to see hear when he starts treating other groups the same way as PRSI Class A1 were treated before 2011,I have made my views known where its counts I suspect Leo knows the game is up,Tax breaks will get hit for sure so don't start raving about something you should never have had.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Gordon Gekko said:
I am concerned by Varadkar's pronouncements; specifically around the €115k earnings cap and the €2m fund threshold.
Click to expand...

Hi Gordon

Can you post a link to the Minister's comments? I can't see anything online.

I think it's inevitable that we will see some further reduction to the real value of the fund threshold and/or annual contribution limits over time. The reality is the State has no interest in allowing people to defer taxes beyond what is required to build a fund to provide for a modestly comfortable retirement.
 

I'm not convinced, primarily because the €2m also affects public servants, particularly those of decision maker level. €2m is essentially a €60k pension x 30 plus the €200k tax-feee lump sum. As public sector wage cuts are reversed and pay increases come on the agenda, any decrease in the SFT would bring more public servants into the charegable excess tax net.

That's not to say that I'm convinced that the €2m is safe, but if I had to bet on it, my money would be on the €2m being adjusted annually for inflation (again).

The Minister's comments were around SSIA style State support for pensions which makes me worry on the basis that the SSIAs attracted "support" at 25%.
 
Dr James Reilly pointed out the other day 38% of workers Earn less less than 400 per week or 20800 per year. Leo Varadker says we must Cut tax But increase social Insurance to get a fair society .Sarenco is correct Government will no longer be under pressure from the pension Industry.From now on the Pension Industry will be more interested in making money out of people on low wages they will be lobbying to bring in anyone earning a wage which means tax breaks will be transferred from high earners to low income earners which of course nean giving breaks to people who do not pay tax., There will be lots of Gordon Gekko Type who will see no problem with the Government being unfair once it is not affecting them I was pointing out the fact the Government were taking away more than was required They were taking 7%or8% for years before the USC came in of one section only.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
How is it unfair to make people contribute to their own pension fund?

If that's the direction things are going, you can have my State Pension, thanks.
 
I have a very good private pension along with my state pension.The point I was making is there were lots of people who were paying a total of 7.45% on a wage of 50000 euro per year along with there employers 10.75%
I am not the dog in the manger type .Now stop throwing the toys out of the pram.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Your wild claims about PRSI rates have been utterly debunked elsewhere.

Who's "trowing" their toys out?

You're being unnecessarily confrontational.
 
Gordon Gekko said:
The Minister's comments were around SSIA style State support for pensions which makes me worry on the basis that the SSIAs attracted "support" at 25%.
Click to expand...

Ah, I see. Yes, I saw the comments around the Minister's preference for an SSIA "top up" scheme to replace the current system of tax relief.

I certainly take the point that a considerable number of public servants would be impacted by any further reduction to the SFT but hard choices will be required as our population ages dramatically over the coming decades. I think most people would agree that a pension of €60pa, plus a €200k lump sum, is hardly modest.
 
jjm2016 said:
Dr James Reilly pointed out the other day 38% of workers Earn less less than 400 per week or 20800 per year.
Click to expand...
Lies, damned lies and statistics; 20-25% of the Irish workforce work part time. If you do 10-15 hours and get €300 or €400 for it you are not low paid.
 
You are wrong Prsi Class A1 2009/2010 was 4% on the first 6604 or 127 per week balance of 8% up to 1400 per week 9% on anything over 1400 per week.

Before 2009 it was 4% on 6604 or 127 per week balance @ 6% I am just pointing this out Sorry if you find it unnecessarly confrontational if you check it out yourself you will see i am correct Gorton.
Come back when you have checked it out for yourself do not take other people word people working and earning 0ver 500 euro 26800 per year were paying these rates which were not required from any other group.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I agree purple it is not Paul Murphy who is quoting this it is James Rielly Just so you know.
 

It's on a much smaller scale, but as soon as the mandarins and powerbrokers realised that the parking levy would affect them, it was mothballed.

And I agree, €60k is decent, but it's not Rockerfeller either.
 
Purple said:
It is a massive pension for the vast majority of people.
Click to expand...

That is a different argument.

For someone with a high-cost base and high earnings throughout his/her career, it is not a massive pension.

The State Pension is fine for a significant cohort, but for others it's trivial. It is wrong to mix the two in my view.
 
Gordon Gekko said:
For someone with a high-cost base and high earnings throughout his/her career, it is not a massive pension.

The State Pension is fine for a significant cohort, but for others it's trivial. It is wrong to mix the two in my view.
Click to expand...

I can't agree with that Gordon.

A €60k pension, plus a tax-free lump sum of €200k, is extremely generous by any standards when you consider that the average earnings of full-time workers are only around €45k.

It seems to me that the State's policy objective should be ensuring that as many people as possible have sufficient means to enjoy a moderately comfortable retirement. Why should our tax policies be directed at ensuring that high earners are in a position to continue enjoying a high-cost lifestyle in retirement?

I very much take the point that turkeys rarely vote for Christmas. The public sector unions in the UK were particularly vocal critics of the decision to reduce their lifetime pension allowance to £1 million and I've no doubt that the public sector unions here would be similarly outraged. However, I sense that there is a growing political consensus that the burgeoning public sector pension bill needs to be tackled as a matter of some urgency and the tax code would be one way of addressing this issue.

Incidentally, the full contributory State pension has an actuarial value of around €350k - that's hardly a trivial sum by any standards.
 
The point I am making is already one section of the workforce were already paying a total of between 6.45 % up until 2008 and 7.45 % in 2009/2010 then it was dropped and the USC came in which amounted to around the same .I think the USC Should be put into a fund everyone had to pay like when it first came in .It stands for Universal social charge If everyone had to pay it people would be more inclined to Question the spending of it. Rather than try get out of it we should be questioning how it is spent ,
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register