Gerry Canning
Registered User
- Messages
- 2,504
Am with you Sunny.
I have been on trade missions with Enterprise Ireland at which government ministers give speeches and make announcements. Over the last 3 years the company I work for has created 24 jobs. I can say without a doubt that without government actions that figure would have been considerably higher. Increases in income tax, the removal of the PRSI ceiling, levies, increases in rates and general anti-employment measures taken by this government have made it much harder to find and retain key skilled staff. Without those key staff the downstream jobs can’t be created. The double taxation of pensions is just one more thing that makes it harder to find and retain people and put inflationary pressure on wages in general. This is an anti-employment, anti-employer and anti-success government. I didn’t expect anything better from a small-minded begrudging party like Labour but I am disappointed with Fine Gael.But interestingly enough, your conclusion (and SBarrett's initial conclusion) that this proves that there is no monitoring/evaluation is just slightly flawed. If you want to know what kind of evaluation/monitoring is happening, try speaking to someone who knows. Maybe someone in that Dept, or maybe someone in Richard Bruton's office. I know it's easier to rush into the usual AAM public sector bashing, but in all fairness, make a phone call before you rush to judgement.
Pension contributions don’t get tax relief, the tax is deferred. Attacking people who are trying to make provision for their own future is stupid and petty and motivated by nothing more than misplaced jealousy by people who’s pensions are funded, to a large extent, by the state.It is interesting to see the faux outrage at the idea of wealth taxes or asset taxes, particularly on assets that were built up largely through tax relief. If the pensions industry continues to offer value for money to clients, it will continue to prosper. If the main value of the industry is to harness tax relief, then it is on a slippery slope.
Why on earth are you comparing this levy to a wealth tax? Lets take France and their so called wealth tax. First off, France like I think every other country in Europe allow tax relief on pension contributions. It is in fact EU policy to encourage people to save for their furture to meet future demographic issues. Secondly, France like the majority of Countries do not tax pension fund investment gains. I think one or two Countries might but not sure of the details. France like Ireland does not tax the fund at the end but will tax annuities arrising out of the funds as income.
This wealth tax that you are talking about excludes pension funds except in a minority of cases. It also doesn't apply if your wealth is less than €1.3m or something. They also allow you to write your mortgage outstanding off against your property so as you can see this wealth tax does not impact on the vast majority of French citizens.
You seem to have a big bee in your bonnet about tax relief and pensions. If the Government felt the same way, they should have changed the tax relief on it. They didn't. They didn't even say we are putting a levy on contributions made since people are benefiting from tax relief on those contributions. They instead put a levy on the entire value of the fund. Therefore they are not just taxing the element of the contribution that came from tax relief, they are taxing the contribution made out of my own pocket and they are also taxing any investment gains made by the fund. That is grossly unfair.
Fair comment Purple. However, while I am condoning some of the actions taken by the current Government, I would see the majority of them as being reasonable if compared with the likely impact a Sin Fein coalation would want to impose.
Absolutely the imposition of a quasi Wealth Tax on pension funds is counter productive, but these funds are to an extent regarding as easy targets for raising funds. There is certainly a narrow minded view that private pensions are unearned wealth and a burden on the taxpayer, where realistically they are the exact opposite. Putting in a disincentive to those who wish to save fro their retirement makes no sense economically, but it helps to placate the masses and gives Labour some crumbs to placate their supporters.
Pension contributions don’t get tax relief, the tax is deferred. Attacking people who are trying to make provision for their own future is stupid and petty and motivated by nothing more than misplaced jealousy by people who’s pensions are funded, to a large extent, by the state.
I'm not sure that I fully understand Liam, is there any chance you could spell it out. I guess there are a few options in relation to tax relief;People on lower incomes may well get tax relief - if you're earning more than €32,800 per year and are therefore on the highest rate of Income Tax, you can claim tax relief at 41% on a pension contribution but if you're earning, say €40,000 per year you are unlikely to be able to amass a pension fund that would have you taxed at 41% in retirement. You'll have your tax-free lump sum and your pension will probably be taxed at 20% or not at all.
Higher earners who have the capacity to amass a pension fund that will still be taxed at 41% in retirement don't get tax relief, except on the tax-free lump sum element and tax-free growth of funds.
So any changes to the current system of pension tax relief would impact lower earners far more than higher earners. RainyDay seems to be in favour of such a change.
I wouldn't claim to be 'well-versed' on any tax matters, though the basic concepts of wealth tax and income tax are fairly straightforward.Rainy Day, your arguement is not based on any detailed knowledge or differentiation between Wealth tax and Income Tax. You may or may not be well versed on the differentiation and that tax relief on pension inputs is a deferral rather than a waiver of taxes payable. Pension assets are not Wealth in the general concept of the meaning. They are income generators for, in many cases averagely paid individuals who wish to put aside soem of their current earning to support their old age. Subsequent income is fully taxable.
And if you're a public sector worker, you have a notional pot that is not valued so not taxed - even if it is worth over €1M. And even if your pot was built up free-free or 'merely' tax-free.It doesn't really matter what you call your pension fund - you can call it wealth or an income generator or call it Fred if you like. It is a pot of money. If you have a big pot, you pay a lump of tax. If you have a modest pot, you pay a very modest piece of tax. If you have no pot, you don't pay this particular tax.
And if you're a public sector worker, you have a notional pot that is not valued so not taxed - even if it is worth over €1M. And even if your pot was built up free-free or 'merely' tax-free.
I'm not sure that I fully understand Liam, is there any chance you could spell it out. I guess there are a few options in relation to tax relief;
1) Leave as is, with the cap in place
2) Restrict it to 'standard rate' tax relief, as has been done for medical expenses and health insurance
3) Eliminate it
Are you saying that both 2 and 3 would impact people at the lower end of the upper tax rate most?
I certainly hope not.But it's not really all about me, is it?
The levy is due to take in over €500m this year. And done without any real protest compared to property tax or water charges. Mad.
This isn't about anyone or the public sector. It's about the Government applying a levy on pension funds for no other reason that they can. They didn't touch the tax relief because they knew that this would damage pension coverage. They figured that nobody would really miss a tiny little levy and they were right. People don't understand pensions and don't understand the impact that this levy as well as management charges can have on a 30-40 year investment. It was a sly move that took advantage of people's lack of knowledge. When the pension companies and financial advisors all complained, they got accused of having vested interests. Of course they had but that doesn't mean they weren't right. The levy is due to take in over €500m this year. And done without any real protest compared to property tax or water charges. Mad.
So perhaps your "What kind of clowns have we got in charge that will spend that kind of money and not monitor whether it is a success or not? " was just a tad unjustified so?
Dunno, haven't read it - it's your issue, not my issue.
Liam, do you not think you are being a bit optimistic in interpreting his words as meaning the levy will be removed after 2015? What he said in the budget (and repeated in the quote in your first post) was that the levy would be 0.15% in 2014 and 2015 - but he is silent on what happens then. It could very well continue at 0.15% in 2016 or move to a different % - without him having told any porkies. I would interpret his 'I have no further plans for changing in this regard' as applying to 2014 and 2015 - i.e. he is not changing what he has already told us about - but again, silent on what lies beyond...Agreed. Which is why I started this thread. Noonan has said that the levy will be removed after 2015. I want a many people as possible to see his words (the first post). I don't trust him to keep his word as he didn't keep it the last time around. This is my little protest - a pre-emptive strike.
Liam, do you not think you are being a bit optimistic in interpreting his words as meaning the levy will be removed after 2015? What he said in the budget (and repeated in the quote in your first post) was that the levy would be 0.15% in 2014 and 2015 - but he is silent on what happens then. It could very well continue at 0.15% in 2016 or move to a different % - without him having told any porkies. I would interpret his 'I have no further plans for changing in this regard' as applying to 2014 and 2015 - i.e. he is not changing what he has already told us about - but again, silent on what lies beyond...
I really can't see it being removed ever - too easy money...
Liam, do you not think you are being a bit optimistic in interpreting his words as meaning the levy will be removed after 2015? What he said in the budget (and repeated in the quote in your first post) was that the levy would be 0.15% in 2014 and 2015 - but he is silent on what happens then. It could very well continue at 0.15% in 2016 or move to a different % - without him having told any porkies. I would interpret his 'I have no further plans for changing in this regard' as applying to 2014 and 2015 - i.e. he is not changing what he has already told us about - but again, silent on what lies beyond...
I really can't see it being removed ever - too easy money...
He should take a lead from Enda and give a straight answer to all direct questionsIn my view, if you have to hide behind verbal sleight of hand and cunning word-play like this, rather than being open and direct, it says a lot about your character.
He was asked if the levy was going to be continued indefinitely. That's a fairly straight question. He replied by saying that he had no plans to change it, thus slithering away from giving the straight answer it deserved.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?