Yeah absolutely. I mean you had your fund and when the tax was introduced you only had the option to contribute or not. The current fund was getting hit regardless.
I'm sorry. Stopping one's AVC for those particular years didn't stop a O.75% charge to the capital already invested viz the complete pension pot built up.
The effect of the levy was not a reduction of relief from 41% to 40.25% as expressed in your earlier post.
There was no relationship to ones income. If I earned zero income for those years, my pension was deducted 0.75% of the total sum.
Anyone who had a mortgage in the 1970s got it written off by inflation over the next 10-15 years as salaries inflated and the mortgage stayed the same. Inflation does not hurt everyone equally - unfortunately, those who benefited from the inflation in the 1970s are now retired and inflation is the last thing they want
Depends on what line of business you were in. With international competition companies don't have luxury of salary increases merited for a small domestic economy.Mortgages rates were increased - I remember buying our first house in 1976 and later that year our mortgage increased by quite a lot. However, we then got annual salary increases in line with inflation so that by late 80s, the mortgage loan was no longer over two times our salary but more or less equal. By the 2000s it was a fraction of our salary.
Inflation is a great bonus for anyone one with a large debt, as the real value of the debt diminishes over time as long as they are in a job were wages and salaries are increased in line with inflation.
Inflation is a great bonus for anyone one with a large debt, as the real value of the debt diminishes over time as long as they are in a job were wages and salaries are increased in line with inflation.
Ok, So the answer is that the government can raid your pension for as much as they like and it is locked away from you, but they have full access.
And people are pointing out something along the lines of "If I take money from your bank account that you have saved, it doesnt matter, because you'll be saving more anyway in the future to make it up, so you wont notice".
If they raid pensions again, people will only remember that they did it now twice on the bounce. It doesnt matter how you justify what they are taking or if you consider a few thousand small or big. The problem is that your money is locked away from you and they can take it as they please.
Thats just not good, no matter how you cut it.
If people are seriously exercised by this, they can stop contributing to their pension scheme and put their money in a deposit account, or an equity savings account.
Of course, this will mean paying 20% or, more likely 40% tax on the income before they start saving it.
Pension schemes are controlled by legislation because they come with massive tax incentives and huge benefits for those wealthy enough to avail of them.
Stop whinging because a tiny percentage was recovered to deal with a national emergency.
I presume using your logic that you will also tell people to stop whinging when the Government looks to recover a tiny percentage from social welfare payments or from low paid workers who can earn a significant amount of money tax free. It's a national emergency after all.
So your argument is that those who don’t earn enough to pay tax are the equivalent to those who earn enough that they are comfortable to defer that income until retirement? They both don’t pay tax so should be treated the same?I presume using your logic that you will also tell people to stop whinging when the Government looks to recover a tiny percentage from social welfare payments or from low paid workers who can earn a significant amount of money tax free. It's a national emergency after all.
They did. Child Benefit was reduced, the Standard Bereavement benefit was removed, the Christmas bonus was removed, a substantial number of other benefits for low paid workers were removed or reduced. In total, Lenihan reduced the Social Welfare budget by 4.1% in his emergency budget, substantially more than he took from much wealthier pension savers. Public Sector pay was cut by 20% or more, including low paid workers. The USC was levied on all income, including those on minimum wage.
So your argument is that those who don’t earn enough to pay tax are the equivalent to those who earn enough that they are comfortable to defer that income until retirement? They both don’t pay tax so should be treated the same?
Everyone pays DIRT on savings. Unless your >65
Everyone earns enough to pay tax. Even if it is 0.2%. Like almost every other Country. We just choose not to tax them. Which is fine but don't expect people who work hard and contribute into a pension to just sit back and watch as the Government decide to dip their fingers into it. And the excuse? Well you get tax relief.We get tax relief to encourage us to save a pension because they keep telling us we have a pension crisis. If the Government want to take pension money, let them change the tax reliefs. They have talked about it for long enough. They cant even raise the pension age though because apparently if is unfair. Thinking they can just help themselves to private pensions or savings whenever they want is the type of thinking that despot economies would have. It goes back to this SF belief that anyone who earns over 60k is a millionaire.
Everyone does pay tax. Because of VAT and other consumption taxes, the poorest pay much more tax, as a percentage of their income, than the richest. And they can't avoid it, they have to buy food, or heating, or clothes, or transport. People who can save money or invest it in pensions, can avoid this tax, but people who need to spend their entire income to make ends meet, are punished to pay for the privileges of the wealthy.
Bit of a fallacy there. It's a line often trotted out by the "poverati" advocates but stop and think a moment.Everyone does pay tax. Because of VAT and other consumption taxes, the poorest pay much more tax, as a percentage of their income, than the richest.
Bit of a fallacy there. It's a line often trotted out by the "poverati" advocates but stop and think a moment.
Suppose I earn €100. And the government takes, say, 40% in direct taxes. So I'm left with €60. I spend it and another €10 goes in VAT. That's a tax rate of 50% in total. The government takes 50% of the money I earn.
Now suppose I get a welfare payment of €100. I spend it and the government gets about €15 back in VAT. That's NOT an effective tax rate of 15% because I was given the entire sum of money free gratis in the first place. Even post VAT I've still got a net €85 from the government. That's actually a NEGATIVE tax rate. The government is paying me, not vice versa!
You can take the thought experiment a bit further. Suppose the Government instead gives me €86 and I only pay €1 in VAT. Still a net transfer of €85 to me but the "tax rate" now shrinks to about 1%. Or suppose the government gives me €170 and takes back €85 in VAT. The "tax rate" now rises to 50% but I'm still getting a net transfer of €85. This just shows that it's nonsensical to calculate a tax rate in this manner.
The only way to do it consistently is to calculate your gross income BEFORE transfer payments and AFTER transfer payments. If the after figure exceeds the before figure you are not a net taxpayer - you are a net tax recipient.
I don't misunderstand it. Tax is money a taxpayer gives the Government. Well, more correctly I suppose, it's money the Government takes from the taxpayer. It's not like there's much choice in the matter! But, essentially, it's a transfer FROM the taxpayer TO the government. Not the other way around.I think you misunderstand income and tax. This idea that there is a wealth creating group and a wealth devouring group is typical of the right wing nonsence that pervades this debate.
The expression "poverati" refers to the cohort of NGOs and "Social Justice" outfits, usually funded by the taxpayer, who've made a very nice career indeed out of advocating higher taxes and greater government spending.If unemployed people, or disabled people, or people with mental health problems, or the rest of the "poverati", as you called them, got nothing, you would soon be complaining and so would thousands of wealthy people who depend on their expenditure.
I could accept it is income if it's earned through paying into the social insurance system. But otherwise it's a gift from the taxpayer, via the government, even if it is a necessary gift to ensure a basic (actually fairly generous) standard of life.So the payments are not gifts but efforts to manage the income created in the country and fairly distribute it, at least to ensure people don't end up starving on the streets. The incomes that people receive from Social welfare payments, many of which are supplements to insufficent wages, are incomes, and they VAT spend is tax.
I don't misunderstand it. Tax is money a taxpayer gives the Government. Well, more correctly I suppose, it's money the Government takes from the taxpayer. It's not like there's much choice in the matter! But, essentially, it's a transfer FROM the taxpayer TO the government. Not the other way around.
When the net transfer is FROM government TO the recipient, it's farcical to call it a tax. Unless you want to label it as a sort of "negative" tax.
The expression "poverati" refers to the cohort of NGOs and "Social Justice" outfits, usually funded by the taxpayer, who've made a very nice career indeed out of advocating higher taxes and greater government spending.
Now, I don't think anyone is saying welfare recipients should get nothing, but there is a reasonable case to be made that our rates are a bit too generous and too easy to qualify for.
I could accept it is income if it's earned through paying into the social insurance system. But otherwise it's a gift from the taxpayer, via the government, even if it is a necessary gift to ensure a basic (actually fairly generous) standard of life.