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

Purple said:
So if the 3 specialists who can perform a specific operation or procedure don't work Thursday or Friday some others will just magically appear to cover those days?
People who earn at the top of their field usually do so for a reason.
Click to expand...

Don’t be silly, if you have three specialists who can perform a specific operation or procedure then it would be nonsense to schedule them to work all at the same time.

Purple said:
That's a very interesting perspective; to you if something is not classified legally as discrimination it is not discrimination
Click to expand...

I never said that. I agree that outside of the current nine grounds of discrimination there is scope to identify other grounds of discrimination. Socio-economic background is one that is currently gaining momentum, identifying that people from particular localities and despite obtaining certain levels of education, have endured a disproportionate level of discrimination when seeking employment.

Discrimination with regard income would only apply if a different tax rate was applied by the State on your income and more favourable tax rate was applied to my income. Eg if we both earned €50,000 and you paid 50% tax and I only paid 25% tax on €50,000 – that is discriminatory.


Purple said:
A good example of that is how until recently we discriminated against gay people.
Click to expand...

Sexual orientation is one of the nine grounds of discrimination.

Purple said:
To me a arbitrary maximum income would be a form of discrimination. It doesn't matter how many or few people it effects; it is discrimination
Click to expand...

It would only be discriminatory if one person was treated differently to another, but if the rules apply to everyone then it is not discriminatory.

Purple said:
Why does that matter?
Click to expand...


The proposition was made that a maximum income would create more tax exiles. I identified that at €2m a year, those exiles would only come from a pool of 300 earners. I aslo identified a number of other reasons as to why being a tax exile is not such a given outcome.

If there were to be additional tax exiles out of that pool of 300, I would expect it to be a small amount of people, and to be of such insignificance in the whole scheme of things as to render the point moot.
 
Can you imagine implementing this in the UK and the effect on the premier league. I wonder how many of the 300 top earners were artists or sports people.
 
It's getting a bit silly in parts. But I won't let that stop me dipping my toe in on occasion.

Putting people in jail because they earn more than €2m would be unacceptable discrimination on grounds of income IMHO.

Levying an additional, say, 3% USC on incomes over €2m would be acceptable discrimination IMHO (doesn't mean I would advocate it)

A 7 year 100% tax is certainly discrimination. Is it acceptable? Moot

Taxing A's 50k at a different rate than B's 50k is most certainly not discrimination on grounds of income, acceptable or otherwise. Though it is obviously unacceptable discrimination on some other grounds, possibly entirely random.
 
Last edited:
Forgot about the 7 year bit. Although it seems prof footballers do creative things with image rights. I think I read Paul Pogbas were being taken care of in Clonakilty.
 
TheBigShort said:
Oh, ok, I will go with Sweden. How about you?
Click to expand...

That's interesting. Sweden (as you know) doesn't have a cap on earnings after which tax is applied at 100% (or anything near it). In fact, income tax is applied at a rate of 31% on amounts greater than 2,500 euro per year! Ireland has a far more progressive income tax system where those at even moderate incomes pay a lot less tax than in Sweden.
 

So are you suggesting Ireland as your country?
 
losttheplot said:
Can you imagine implementing this in the UK and the effect on the premier league. I wonder how many of the 300 top earners were artists or sports people.
Click to expand...

But now you are talking about the UK? Why would you limit it to the top 300 earners??
The figure 300, in Ireland, relates to the top 0.015% of income earners. In the UK, applying the same % and considering the size of the economy relative to Ireland, then you are probably talking about 3,000 to 6,000 people! Many of whom may be premier league players.
 
I was wondering how many of the 300 in Ireland would be artists and sports people. I wouldn't fancy trying to take money from Conor McGregor.
 
I'm all in favour of the Swedish model; their income tax burden is much more fairly distributed.
 
TheBigShort said:
Don’t be silly, if you have three specialists who can perform a specific operation or procedure then it would be nonsense to schedule them to work all at the same time.
Click to expand...
Don't be sully; they are self employed and could be working in different hospitals. According to themselves they all work every hour god sends so they would all be working flat out.

TheBigShort said:
Eg if we both earned €50,000 and you paid 50% tax and I only paid 25% tax on €50,000 – that is discriminatory.
Click to expand...
If you are retired and I am not you would pay less tax. Is that discrimination?

TheBigShort said:
Sexual orientation is one of the nine grounds of discrimination.
Click to expand...
Yes, and until recently we still discriminated against gay people, despite what the law said.

TheBigShort said:
It would only be discriminatory if one person was treated differently to another, but if the rules apply to everyone then it is not discriminatory.
Click to expand...
Okay, so if someone chooses to earn lots of money we discriminate against them but that's okay, because there are only a few of them. What about people who choose to be a particular religion, is it okay to discriminate against them if there are only 300 or so of them in the country? Should Jews pay a higher tax? What about Scientologists, sure everyone thinks they are nuts; should they pay a higher tax as well? What other group specific social engineering would you favour?
 
Purple said:
they are self employed and could be working in different hospitals.
Click to expand...

Or they might not be. You will have to confirm this either before it goes any further.

Purple said:
According to themselves they all work every hour god sends so they would all be working flat out.
Click to expand...

Except thurs and fri of course.

Purple said:
If you are retired and I am not you would pay less tax. Is that discrimination?
Click to expand...


If you are retired, where is your income coming from? Is a wage income? In which case doesn’t sound like you are retired to me. Perhaps it is from a pension plan? Yes? In which case the tax liability on your retirement income is treated differently to the tax liability on your PAYE income, as the tax on your rental income, as is the tax on your CGT income, DIRT, dividends etc, etc.

You are only discriminated against if you are treated less favourably to anybody else who is in receipt of the same type of income.


Purple said:
Yes, and until recently we still discriminated against gay people, despite what the law said.
Click to expand...


I understand the point, but the law, until the same-sex referendum only recognised marriage as being between a man and a woman. Inherently there was discrimination, but legally there wasn’t. That’s why we voted to change the referendum. If the people had voted against same-sex marriage, then legally it would not be discrimination against gay people for the State not to recognise same-sex marriage.
For instance, the law only recognizes marriage between two people. What if three people want to marry each other? Isnt that discrimination? Inherently yes, legally, no.
So we can all bandy about claiming what is and what is not discriminatory, but until it legally recognized as a right, then its not discrimination. That's what allows a State to apply different rates of tax on different types of income and at different levels of income.
If you want to call that discrimination, fine. Some people call it progressive taxation. Others call it high earners have to pay for everything! Others call fair, others call it unfair. Call it what you want, it has no legal basis for a discriminatory case.
 
TheBigShort said:
A society that ensures, insofar as practical, that no one goes without adequate food and shelter, access to healthcare and education.
Click to expand...



Purple said:
I'm all in favour of the Swedish model; their income tax burden is much more fairly distributed
Click to expand...

So for the third time of asking, perhaps Firefly could give his answer to the Duke's question above?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register