"We are the only OECD state where some get back more than they pay in income tax"


This is a fair point. But it fails to grab the concept of a maximum personal disposable income of €2m.
You are correct in identifying people who earn vast sums of money and controlling asset wealth simultaneously. But if liquid income was limited to say, €2m a year, then the picture would change.
I may live in a house that is worth €3m, but if I can't afford to turn the lights on, what is the point? Logically speaking, I liquidate my €3m, subject to 7yr income cycle, I don't get caught with 100% tax over that time. I live accordingly and that wealth is liquid in the economy.
Similarly, I may own assets of €1bn. But if I am limited to a €2m a year lifestyle (there are only 300 people in Ireland who breach this limit), then so what?
What good is falling on a fortune like say, 1% Facebook shareholding, if you can't spend it!
But such wealth is not to be dismissed, gauranteed is a minimum lifestyle of €2m a year, indexed linked, for the rest of your life. Knowing also, that the wealth you have generated is slowly, but surely, being transferred to others, further enabling the productive and innovative process to the next generation.
 
Purple said:
He wants to take all income earned above a certain amount and redistribute to those who have less.
Click to expand...

No, that is not the point. I want a maximum income, set at a level that is almost universally desirable and simultaneously attainable (evidenced by our existing 300 €2m+ earners) to all.
However, I do want to eradicate, what I perceive to be unwanted and wholly unnecessary levels of wealth, in the control of a tiny proportion of people and, more importantly, held in that control, by virtue of the lavish lifestyles that such wealth control bestows them. Wealth that is ultimately generated by the input of thousands of fellow citizens, directly and indirectly, many of whom, through their honest efforts still struggle to keep their heads, and their families heads, above water.

€2m a year, 300 odd people, instead of wanting more, it is time to relinquish control over wealth.

Purple said:
My argument is that such an absolutist scheme would mean people just stop creating wealth beyond the point at which it will generate the maximum income
Click to expand...

Your argument does not stand up.

Purple said:
it just creates a whole industry for tax evasion, sorry, avoidance, lawyers and accountants.
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't. The market is only 300 people.
 
Is excessive income not redistributed when money is spent. Even if it's left in a bank, the bank can lend it out. If it's invested in business it creates employment.
Unless its all kept under the mattress, it's probably doing something beneficial for society.
 

That's a fair point. But again I would reiterate
 

Welcome to the thread and good post. Just hope you don't end up becoming your user name!
 
I think there was a suggestion a while back about limiting the length of threads to 2 pages. As this thread is now on 20 pages, I propose that the excess 18 pages be redistributed among the other threads.

One are where I think there should be a limit is some public pensions - especially the TDs who end up with the TDs and ministers pensions. These should be capped or means tested. If you've grown use to Charvet shirts and fine wines, then you should provide for it yourself.
 
TheBigShort said:
In this instance it refers to wages, and in no way shape or form could I agree that an income limit, applicable to 0.015% of the workforce equates to a society organised around the concept of equality of outcome.
Click to expand...

I disagree. Granted 2m is a nice chunk of change but for a lot of growing businesses with a lot of employess that could be achievable. When deciding where to locate and invest, knowing there is a ceiling would act as a deterrent.

TheBigShort said:
Ireland was mentioned as an example of a country in the post I responded to. My response was this;
Click to expand...

You were asked "which country, say in Europe, most approximates this objective at the present time." Is your answer Ireland?
 

Until now you have said you would tax income over 2m a year at 100%. Are you also suggesting a wealth tax too?
 
Firefly said:
Until now you have said you would tax income over 2m a year at 100%. Are you also suggesting a wealth tax too?
Click to expand...

Just to reiterate


The consequence of this, over a period of time, if such a proposal were adopted as a social norm, would be the eventual eradication of socially unjust controls of excessive wealth.
It is fine to have €1bn in a bank account, but what odds? Your lifestyle is restricted to €2m a year. As mentioned above, €1bn sitting in a bank account will be used to lend and invest into the economy at large - no change there. All that will happen is that money will recycle its way back into the economy and out of the control of one individual.
The bank will act as an effective conduit between those who create the wealth and those who benefit. Without a income limit, there is nothing to stop an individual placing €20m on black in a casino. The result being a massive transfer of wealth between two entities - the casino and the individual.
And yes, if the casino wins (invariably), the money can lie in a vault doing precious little. Alternatively the punter wins and buys a private island, a private jet, a castle, and a fleet of bespoke automobiles. All very nice, but mostly unproductive. Hoarding of wealth is another term for it.
A bank lending that money has greater scope to impact on all levels of society at anyone time.
Ultimately the point will be, why bother acquiring such vast sums of wealth? It's not as if €2m a year is insufficient?
 
TheBigShort, why not just have high inheritance taxes? Most people with vast incomes get it from inter-generational wealth.
 
Purple said:
TheBigShort, why not just have high inheritance taxes? Most people with vast incomes get it from inter-generational wealth.
Click to expand...

That would certainly be a consideration. But one problem is once the inheritance is acquired, an individual could be saddled with a tax liability that they can't afford to pay. In turn forcing the sale of assets, some with considerable sentimental value (family home etc). This builds resentment and in turn resistance.
I'm not seeking either, I'm seeking to establish, as a social norm, that the acquisition of extreme levels of personal wealth becomes a thing of past, a fruitless endeavor.
 

That's my point. If you can only take out 2m a year you are not going to take out any more as it will just be taken in full. The end result is that it would sit there. Any billionaire worth his/her salt would get a return of more than 2% so they would just continue to get richer. How would this eradicate their wealth? If there was a tax tomorrow of 100% on any income over 25k a year and you were in control of how much you took as salary, would you pay yourself more than 25k?



Would these be the same banks who chase unfettered profits and give lavish bonuses to their executives?
The devil would be in the detail there.


You could say that about someone who buys expensive things like paying 10k for a bicycle or 1k for the latest iPhone when they could buy something cheaper. All that money being spent on something unproductive? Shouldn't they just buy cheaper bikes and phones and shouldn't their income be instead re-distributed? Where do you draw the line?

TheBigShort said:
Ultimately the point will be, why bother acquiring such vast sums of wealth? It's not as if €2m a year is insufficient?
Click to expand...

If you were told that you were going to be paid for Mon-Wed and anything you do on Thur & Fri you wouldn't be paid for would you come in on Thur & Fri? If Mark Zuckerberg knew his income would be limited to 2m a year would he have grown Facebook to a size that employs 17k workers?
 
So you can live in a €20,000,000 house and have another billion in assets as long as you don't have an income over €2 million? If someone has assets but cannot generate an income from them why would they bother putting those assets to productive use?

TheBigShort said:
I'm seeking to establish, as a social norm, that the acquisition of extreme levels of personal wealth becomes a thing of past, a fruitless endeavor.
Click to expand...
Why? Is €2 million a year an extreme level of personal wealth? You are talking about consultant doctors, solicitors, barristers, etc. At the moment there is a considerable amount of tax evasion by those people (consultants don't insist on being paid in cash for nothing). We'll just see far more of it with your proposal.

If you want a fair society you'll also have to tackle welfare fraud and the black economy. There are far more than 300 people involved there, probably more like 300,000 people. It is a bit much to say that someone can't earn above X amount while there are others who can not bother to work at all, no legally anyway, and live their entire lives off others.
 
Firefly said:
If you were told that you were going to be paid for Mon-Wed and anything you do on Thur & Fri you wouldn't be paid for would you come in on Thur & Fri?
Click to expand...
That's what happens to me now. It's called income tax! I still come in though but Thursday and Friday are the two days a week I work in indentured servitude to the State.
 
Purple said:
That's what happens to me now. It's called income tax! I still come in though but Thursday and Friday are the two days a week I work in indentured servitude to the State.
Click to expand...

Explains why you're so grumpy on Fridays!
 
Purple said:
That's what happens to me now. It's called income tax! I still come in though but Thursday and Friday are the two days a week I work in indentured servitude to the State.
Click to expand...

On a serious note though, imagine if you didn't have to come in to work on Thur and Fri yet received the same after tax income, would you bother?
 
Firefly said:
The end result is that it would sit there. Any billionaire worth his/her salt would get a return of more than 2% so they would just continue to get richer. How would this eradicate their wealth?
Click to expand...

True, but it is effectively notional wealth. It actually has no intrinsic value, or very little, as it is effectively redundant in the possession of someone who already earns €2m a year.

Firefly said:
If there was a tax tomorrow of 100% on any income over 25k a year and you were in control of how much you took as salary, would you pay yourself more than 25k?
Click to expand...

Over a 7yr business cycle, absolutely, I would want to guarantee my income as much s possible in the event of a job loss.
But I still wouldn't propose such a notion as that would be organising society around equality of outcome (have you moved on from that?) given the vast number of working people it would affect.

Firefly said:
Would these be the same banks who chase unfettered profits and give lavish bonuses to their executives?
The devil would be in the detail there.
Click to expand...

Accept lavish bonuses and salaries greater than €2m wouldn't be a thing of the past. Speaking of bankers, BoI recently appointed a new CEO on €950,000 pa, assuming a bonus of €950k on top and even this banker would not be affected by a€2m income cap.

Firefly said:
You could say that about someone who buys expensive things like paying 10k for a bicycle or 1k for the latest iPhone when they could buy something cheaper. All that money being spent on something unproductive?
Click to expand...

True, there is waste at all levels, and it will be a tall order to eradicate it all. But perhaps a starting point would be to identity excessive waste.

Firefly said:
If Mark Zuckerberg knew his income would be limited to 2m a year would he have grown Facebook to a size that employs 17k workers?
Click to expand...

Mark Zukerberg is a US citizen. Like minimum wage, a max wage would vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. The €2m cap I propose is a ball park figure. In the US there is an income limit for NFL players, albeit it is massive at something like $167m a year.
Zukerberg intends to give 99% of his wealth away. Perhaps he has his own notion of what is a sufficient amount of wealth to possess? Obviously, it differs to me, but the principle appears to be similar, ditto Gates, and various other multi millionaires.

Purple said:
So you can live in a €20,000,000 house and have another billion in assets as long as you don't have an income over €2 million? I
Click to expand...

But realistically, would a house ever be worth €20,000,000 if it was known that nobody had access to greater than €2m a year? An income limit would put a downward pressure on over inflated asset prices.

Purple said:
If someone has assets but cannot generate an income from them why would they bother putting those assets to productive use?
Click to expand...

If you don't put them to productive use, your competitor will. If the product is viable and marketable, someone, if not you, will take the opportunity. Isn't that the 'invisible hand'?


No, €2m is not an extreme level of wealth. It is a ball park figure. Raise it to €3m if you want. The point is, that it is certainly sufficient, attainable, but broadly out of reach for 99.985% of the population.

Purple said:
It is a bit much to say that someone can't earn above X amount
Click to expand...

It only matters if it affects you directly. It makes no odds to me as I don't come anyway near it, nor likely to. It only affects some 300 people in Ireland. Raise the cap to €3m and you may only be talking about 50-100 people.

Purple said:
That's what happens to me now. It's called income tax! I still come in though but Thursday and Friday are the two days a week I work in indentured servitude to the State.
Click to expand...

So Fireflys notion that you wouldn't come in was wrong.

Firefly said:
On a serious note though, imagine if you didn't have to come in to work on Thur and Fri yet received the same after tax income, would you bother?
Click to expand...

Bother with what exactly?
 
Firefly said:
On a serious note though, imagine if you didn't have to come in to work on Thur and Fri yet received the same after tax income, would you bother?
Click to expand...

So if I earn €300 mon-wed, and if I come in Thur-Fri, and still end up with €300 why wouldn't I bother? Is that it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register