The most interesting part of the SFT paper wasn’t just the level, it was the rate of tax applied above it.
As the author concluded, its purpose is not to be incredibly penal. It’s merely to stop people benefitting from an excessive tax break. If the tax is set at a level that it’s breakeven for state and individual, the SFT has served its purpose. If an individual goes above it, they gain nothing lose nothing and are just being slightly more prudent to provide for their own retirement.
The author concluded 10%, not 40% was the appropriate level for this. And it would be perfect for those gardai and consultants who have no control over their pension accrual rate.
40% is just unnecessary gauging bringing the combined effective tax rate to over 70%. Personally I’d have loved to have seen this implemented but it’s been ignored.