IBEC are calling for a cut in social welfare and everybody else is having there spake. What will happen and what has to happen to help the state recover so?
They cant cut the dole or pensions. Can they? If the put up VAT more shoppers head north. Income tax will have to go up for everybody IMO.
A property tax will take far too long to set up so its a longer term thing.
Are we back to the days of a Minister for Hardship?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wzu1ToAxdFk (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wzu1ToAxdFk)
Quote from: Silky on April 03, 2009, 08:43:33 AM
IBEC are calling for a cut in social welfare and everybody else is having there spake. What will happen and what has to happen to help the state recover so?
They cant cut the dole or pensions. Can they? If the put up VAT more shoppers head north. Income tax will have to go up for everybody IMO.
A property tax will take far too long to set up so its a longer term thing.
Are we back to the days of a Minister for Hardship?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wzu1ToAxdFk (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wzu1ToAxdFk)
Welfare is very high as it stands , and is one of the main government expenditures. With deflation prices are falling so it could be done but it won't they don't have the bottle.
Doesn't this breed confidence........... :-\
Friday, April 03, 2009
Lenihan admits finances are not viable
by Paul O'Brien, Political Correspondent
FINANCE Minister Brian Lenihan last night admitted the country's fiscal position was "unsustainable" after figures showed a €3.7 billion shortfall in the public finances for the first quarter of the year.
The Department of Finance figures showed the Exchequer deficit has increased tenfold since the corresponding period last year, when it stood at just €354 million.
Fine Gael accused the Government of leading the country "on a road to ruin" because it was spending far more than it was earning.
The quarterly Exchequer returns showed tax revenue for the first three months of the year was down €2.6bn, or 23%, on 2008.
Government spending, by contrast, was running at €680m, or 6%, above expenditure levels for the same period last year.
The rising levels of unemployment, resulting in more social welfare payments, were a major factor in the increased spend.
The department also released projections of what the Government stands to earn and spend this year before the effects of next Tuesday's emergency budget are taken into account.
The Government is currently in line to spend e65.4bn this year, a combination of e57.5bn to fund day-to-day costs and e7.9bn for infrastructure projects.
However, it stands to take in just e34bn in tax and a few billion more from other revenue streams such as PRSI and the health levy.
The upshot is that the Government would have to borrow about €23bn this year if no further action was taken to address the crisis.
This is €5bn more than it believed it would have to borrow in January.
Mr Lenihan said the Government had already taken action to address the "unsustainable position" and would be taking further steps to "improve the immediate prospects for the public finances" in the emergency budget to be unveiled next Tuesday.
When is it? I know a few men in Newry worried about any VAT reduction. How likely is it?
if they actually looked at a lower level into more detail of payments and who is getting them , the gov might see that they can save multi millions by cutting out wasteful expenditure.
Middlemen and over bureacracy in dept of health and health service, getting more beds, treatment, doctors and nurses instead of middle management who are over staffed rather than operating a lean efficient model.
Same would hold for other departments I would imagine.
Social welfare, too many people getting paid money who no longer live in the state, plus their dependants getting welfare. Clearly this is beyond their entitlement , but there are plenty of ex self employed people that need welfare that dont currently qualify that should get something - this would mean the money gained in taking back what shouldnt be paid out is less because of paying some money towards ex-self emloyed.
Business sector people shoul dbe enrolled to help create a financial model - eg ben dunne, he knows how to make cash - he also suggests cutting vat and so on as a high percentage of nothing is a lot less of a small percentate of lots of sales/revenue.
the problem is that the gov do not have business acumen.
I think the successful businessmen and women of Ireland should be tapped for their ideas on how to increase revenue by generating sales in the economy.
Obv stopping the exodus north is a priority.
Ensuring that no additional employer prsi etc occurs as this makes being a viable operating business and employer impossible if increased. Reduction is better long term and would generate good will and consumer/business confidence - and confidence will breed more confidence and restore business avtivity to the marketplace.
imo
Well any rumours ?
VAT meant to be going down. Levy's up.
Will this save what's left of the economy?
Have heard that Tax Free Lump sum payments from pension funds could now be taxed.
Reading in the Irisn news today that dole for a single man is €204 per week when it works out at about €54 in the North-no wonder there is so much dole tourism going on!!
Expecting petrol to go up 20c per litre.
Call me a pessimist if you want, but i think the few cosmetic changes made today will have fcuk all difference in the long run. Yeah, levies will double, VAT might be reduced, a few public sector contract staff will be fcuked out and a few infrastructural projects will be shelved, the biggest decision announced today will be the bad bank (which as explained elsewhere will leave us about 40Bn down).
In the budget next november they'll cut welfare (as it will be crippling the state by that time), widen the tax net, up the tax rates, reduce pension relief (more good long term thinking), offer redundancies to public and civil servants, tax child benefit etc etc, but it'll hardly matter as we'll be begging the EU to buy our treasury bonds by that stage (apparently they've been very good and have been buying them up so far). But, if we want the EU to bail us out, we'll have to play by their rules, do you think they pay out 200 quid a week in dole? Are their public sector workers paid anywhere near what ours are? Does their head of state and politicians earn what ours do? I think not!!
They'll bail us out, but we'll have to give up a lot in return - it won't be a bad thing for us in the long run, moving towards Berlin and away from Boston will improve the quality of life of all of us in the long term.
Quote from: Boolerhead Mel on April 07, 2009, 11:59:10 AM
Reading in the Irisn news today that dole for a single man is €204 per week when it works out at about €54 in the North-no wonder there is so much dole tourism going on!!
Always said that the welfare system in the "south" was always far too high, it's not worth your average working class man "working"! as he/she can earn the same if not more on benefits!
If the dole isn't going to be cut then at least get the one's on it out cleaning up their local areas, collecting rubbish, painting, cleaning canals/rivers etc...
Eddie Hobbs is Twittering about a bank bail out:
http://twitter.com/EddieHobbs (http://twitter.com/EddieHobbs)
QuoteExpecting petrol to go up 20c per litre.
This would be unwise, making it more expensive in the North would not raise that much revenue as 10-20% of sales would disappear with tremendous dislocation.
Petrol will be up a few cents, but diesel will get a bigger rap perhaps 15c, as it is more expensive in the North.
On of th biggest problems/worries is that the Dept of Finance's budgeting/forecasting appears to be done by 5 year old children.
Income levy will be increased but the govt need to be careful. The €204 a week (plus possibly rent etc) for sitting on your hole will start looking attractive to people working hard and getting taxed proportionately too much. We don't want that. The richer people in society (earning 6 figure sums) need to be hit hard, simply because they can afford to be. Second homes should be taxed. FF qill not do this though. They will hit petrol because they have leeway (i.e. it will still be cheaper in the ROI than over the border) and reduce VAT to pretend they have some sort of stimulus plan. ::)
All in all I just hope they get the figures right or November will be absolute carnage, if we survive 'til then. With us having to go on bended knee I don't see our coveted 12.5% CT rate lasting much longer.
I had a house rented to a family, cheap school system,free healthcare, rent allowance, fuel allowance,childrens allowance,neither parent worked or wanted to work,sc**bag tells me its the best country in the world because he was going to scotland to watch a soccer club in action after lying in bed till midday.
No country can afford to carry as many passengers as Ireland is trying to.The dole is england is about 50 pound a week, now I know anyone can fall on hard times but there is too many people getting money for nothing, not even trying. And when they finally left they left 1100 euro of a gas bill for other bord gais customers to pick up and change the name for the next time.
My blood boils.
Quote from: magpie seanie on April 07, 2009, 01:05:40 PM
They will hit petrol because they have leeway (i.e. it will still be cheaper in the ROI than over the border) and reduce VAT to pretend they have some sort of stimulus plan. ::)
Better head for the pumps on the Bundoran Road later on, while it's still going relatively cheap. Typical, it's been settled for a while and now they'll hike it up.
Quote from: magpie seanie on April 07, 2009, 01:05:40 PM
On of th biggest problems/worries is that the Dept of Finance's budgeting/forecasting appears to be done by 5 year old children.
Income levy will be increased but the govt need to be careful. The €204 a week (plus possibly rent etc) for sitting on your hole will start looking attractive to people working hard and getting taxed proportionately too much. We don't want that. The richer people in society (earning 6 figure sums) need to be hit hard, simply because they can afford to be. Second homes should be taxed. FF qill not do this though. They will hit petrol because they have leeway (i.e. it will still be cheaper in the ROI than over the border) and reduce VAT to pretend they have some sort of stimulus plan. ::)
All in all I just hope they get the figures right or November will be absolute carnage, if we survive 'til then. With us having to go on bended knee I don't see our coveted 12.5% CT rate lasting much longer.
Agree with most of that Seanie, their forecasting has been unbelievably bad and I mean unbelievably. With petrol they've actually got very little leeway now, I was nearly considering putting fuel in up north there recently as there's so little in it - but I wonder do they realise that?
They should leave the dole as it is but reduce it for anyone who is on the dole beyond a certain length of time, say 6 months.
I think they may scrap the PRSI ceiling which will effectively be a 5% taxon income over €50k or so. They will then double the current levies and bring more lower paid workers into the tax net.
They should lower VAT but the 5 year olds that Seanie mentioned will find it difficult to think intelligently so they may not do it.
Most people I know are using the 'you can't tax your way out of recession' line. It is a valid argument.
However those in the know are using the 'you should tax your way out of bankrupcy' line. I am assured it is that bad.
Quote from: muppet on April 07, 2009, 02:47:59 PM
They should leave the dole as it is but reduce it for anyone who is on the dole beyond a certain length of time, say 6 months.
I would normally agree with such measures as a good way to encourage people to get up off their arses and to go out find work but I think it would be very unfair in the current situation.
5c on Diesel and an additional 2% Pay levy.
Lot of waffle so far. ???
Edit: Here we go...
No pay cut for (public sector) Dail representatives.
May tax child benefit and may introduce a carbon tax.
early childcare benefits halved
Means testing child benefit and scrapping the early childcare supplement.
He'd better be hitting the middle and big earners hard.
Dole for the Under 20's halved
" we will look for efficiencies in the public service" you'll be looking a long time brian, a long time
Quote from: The Subbie on April 07, 2009, 04:27:07 PM
" we will look for efficiencies in the public service" you'll be looking a long time brian, a long time
should be looking for inefficiencies and cutting out the deadwood, plus stopping benefit for those no longer living inthe state.
The recession budget. A bit like that Hitchcock film "Lifeboat" where the survivors start eyeing each other, getting paranoid about who deserves what from the rations. Not to mention the fate of those in the water hanging on to the edge of the boat, regarded as the surplus weight.
Before that can happen, the government and media pummell you with propaganda including top target - scroungers, dole scroungers,hot line for snitches leading to prosecutions
Meanwhile the State coffers have been cleaned out along with about 20 years of future earnings. Where is the serious fraud squad, the hot lines for serious information, where are the prosecution deals being made in order to fry the bigger fish?
What's this - a 50% cut in the RTE budget by broadcasting the same thing on both channels?
Quote from: Donagh on April 07, 2009, 04:15:45 PM
Means testing child benefit and scrapping the early childcare supplement.
He'd better be hitting the middle and big earners hard.
That is a good hit on high earners - there's a fair few yummy mummies I know who throw the child benefit into an account for junior which isn't to be touched until s/he hits 18.
The early childcare supplement was a typical Bertie/biffo pre-election giveaway that was badly legislated in the first place (eu citizens living here but with children abroad were eligible initially), again yummy mummies I know didn't even know it existed.
That aside, there's fcuk all that wasn't already leaked - when things don't improve by November we can expect a savage budget. Call me a patriot, but I think it's time to get out!!
QuoteDole for the Under 20's halved
House burglaries, hand bag snatches and muggings doubled.
No real shocks but very little in terms of savings? Where are the cut backs?
Whats this health levy crap?
Quote
There will be a new scheme to allow civil servants over the age of 50 to retire. The scheme will begin in May. Those retiring will not be replaced unless sanctioned by the Department of Finance.
Rubbish, anyone decent will retire and get a job in the private sector or will be contracted back when they realised none of the wasters have retired . Same as last time
How can there be 80-90 bn of distressed assets ? WTF are they ?
Whos that talking now?
shes going on like nothing normal
Quote from: Rossie11 on April 07, 2009, 04:55:29 PM
Whats this health levy crap?
It was a tax introduced a few years ago to allow Mary Harney waste money. I think the rates were 2% and 2.5% for over €100,000. It is basically an income tax that is called something else so that they can say the income rate is still 41%. This is the rate they use to compare with other countires, but of course it is a farce.
alot of pain to go around here...
income Levy – from 1May
The income levy rates will be doubled to 2%, 4% and 6%.
The exemption threshold will be €15,028. The 4% rate will apply to income in excess of €75,036 and the 6% rate to income in excess of €174,980.
Health Levy – from 1 May
The health levy rates will double to 4% and 5%. The entry point to the higher rate will be €75,036.
PRSI – from 1 May
The PRSI ceiling will be increased from €52,000 to €75,036.
INCOME TAX
Mortgage Interest Relief
Mortgage interest relief will be discontinued for any mortgage over 7 years from 1 May.
Restriction in Interest Relief Rented Residential Property
The level at which interest re-payments can be claimed against tax for residential rental properties is being reduced from the existing 100% to 75%. This measure will apply to both new and existing mortgages. Commercial properties are not affected.
TAXATION ON SAVINGS
Deposit Interest Retention Tax and Taxes on Life Assurance Policies and Investment Funds
The rates of retention tax that apply to deposit interest, together with the rates of tax that apply to (a) life assurance policies and (b) investment funds, are being increased by 2 percentage points in each case and will now be 25% and 28% respectively. The increased rates will apply to payments, including deemed payments, made from midnight on 7 April 2009.
STAMP DUTY
Life Assurance Policies
A new levy on life assurance is being introduced at the rate of 1% on premiums. This new levy will apply to premiums received by an insurer on or after 1 June 2009.
Non-Life Insurance Policies - Change in Rate of Tax
The current non-life insurance levy of 2% is being increased by 1%. The new rate of 3% will apply to renewals and offers of insurance issued by an insurer on and from midnight on 7 April 2009 where premiums are received by the insurer on or after 1 June 2009.
Stamp Duty "Trade-in" scheme
Establishment of a Stamp Duty "trade-in" scheme, under which no stamp duty is payable by a person who accepts a traded-in property in exchange or part exchange for a new house/apartment. Stamp Duty will apply when the person subsequently sells on the 'swapped'/traded-in house. Full details will appear in the Finance Bill.
CAPITAL GAINS TAX
Rate
The capital gains tax rate is being increased from 22% to 25% in respect of disposals made from midnight on 7 April 2009.
CAPITAL ACQUISITIONS TAX
Rate
The capital acquisitions tax rate is being increased from 22% to 25% in respect of gifts or inheritances made from midnight on 7 April 2009.
Threshold
The current thresholds of €542,544 (Group A: parents to child), €54,254 (Group B: between related persons), and €27,127 (Group C: between non-related persons) are being reduced by 20% to €434,000, €43,400 and €21,700 respectively. This reduction applies in respect of gifts or inheritances taken from midnight on 7 April 2009.
CAPITAL GAINS TAX, INCOME TAX AND CORPORATION TAX
Income and losses from dealing in residential development land
1. The special 20% rate applied to the trading profits from dealing in or developing residential development land is being abolished. The income will be charged at the person's relevant marginal rates of income tax or the 25% rate of corporation tax. This change will apply as regards Income Tax for the year of assessment 2009 and subsequent years and as regards Corporation Tax for accounting periods ending on or after 1 January 2009 (with accounting periods straddling that date being deemed for this purpose to be separate accounting periods).
2. Where trading losses have been incurred from dealing in or developing residential development land in circumstances where, if trading profits had been made, they would have been eligible to be taxed at 20%, and a claim to use those losses has not been made to and received by the Revenue Commissioners before 7 April 2009, the losses from today will generally only be relievable (on a value basis) up to a maximum of 20%. Where any such loss is a terminal loss, the restriction will be implemented by "ring-fencing" the loss.
CAPITAL ALLOWANCES
There will be a new tax relief on capital expenditure incurred in the acquisition of Intellectual Property. The details will be contained in the Finance Bill.
Termination of Capital Allowances Scheme for Private Hospitals and Nursing homes. Transitional arrangements will be put in place for projects that are at an advanced stage of development. The Finance Bill will contain further details on this measure.
EXCISES
Increase in Mineral Oil Tax on Auto-diesel
The mineral oil tax on auto-diesel will be increased by 5 cent per litre (including VAT) with effect from midnight on 7 April 2009.
Tobacco Excise
The Excise Duty on a packet of 20 cigarettes will be increased by 25 cent (including VAT) with a pro-rata increase on other tobacco products, with effect from midnight on 7 April 2009.
VAT
Introduction of VAT Margin Scheme for second-hand cars
A Margin Scheme is being introduced whereby, with effect from 1 July 2009, dealers will be taxed on their margin in regard to second-hand cars they acquire and resell after that date. Second-hand cars acquired before 1 July 2009 and resold after that date will be taxed on their resale price. However, where such a second-hand car is resold before 31 December 2009 the payment of the VAT due on the resale price of the car may be spread in equal amounts over the following three VAT periods. It is not possible to write off the VAT input credit dealers have already received when they purchased the second-hand cars. The precise details will be contained in the Finance Bill.
SOCIAL WELFARE
The personal rate of Jobseeker's Allowance and basic Supplementary Allowance will be reduced for new claimants under 20 years of age to €100 per week from the first week of May 2009.
The Qualified Adult rate payable to a Jobseeker's Allowance/ basic Supplementary Welfare Allowance claimant aged under 20 years will also be €100 per week. These reduced personal and Qualified Adult rates of payment will not apply where a claimant is entitled to an increase for a Qualified Child.
Removal of provision for a Christmas bonus payment in 2009.
Savings from general control measures.
Changes to rent supplement eligibility and payment regime.
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Reduction in Overseas Development Aid
HEALTH & CHILDREN
Early Childcare Supplement monthly payment to be halved to €41.50 per child with effect from 1 May 2009 and abolished at end-2009. It will be replaced in January 2010 with a pre-school Early Childhood and Education Scheme (ECCE) for all children between the ages of 3 years 3 months and 4 years 6 months. A capitation grant will be payable to service providers who provide free pre-school services.
A total reduction of €61m in the provision for:
* the cost of pay awards;
* new developments provided for in the HSE Service Plan to address demographic pressures; and
* the costs in 2009 of the Constitutional Referendum on Children's Rights to take account of the later than expected timetable.
Taken from Dept. of Finance.
No reall mention of cut backs in public spending at all. >:(
This budget has cost me a fortune. I don't mind giving my bit but I have a problem with them wasting it away. The Health levy is the best example of this. Everyone paying 4% or 5% of their salaries just on Health is absolutely ludicrous when you consider the service we get in return.
Quote from: muppet on April 07, 2009, 06:32:20 PM
No reall mention of cut backs in public spending at all. >:(
This budget has cost me a fortune. I don't mind giving my bit but I have a problem with them wasting it away. The Health levy is the best example of this. Everyone paying 4% or 5% of their salaries just on Health is absolutely ludicrous when you consider the service we get in return.
dont get me started ??? i'm going to bed
What will the new price of a packet of cigarettes be? How does this compare to the North?
Quote from: gaa.boy on April 07, 2009, 06:46:12 PM
What will the new price of a packet of cigarettes be? How does this compare to the North?
I'd say it would be more expensive to buy The North. Only just though. ;D
packet of 20lambert&butler was £5.22 in shop this evening,think saw same ones at 7 euros in the south a while ago.im available for smuggling just pm me ;)
Quote from: muppet on April 07, 2009, 06:32:20 PM
No reall mention of cut backs in public spending at all. >:(
This budget has cost me a fortune. I don't mind giving my bit but I have a problem with them wasting it away. The Health levy is the best example of this. Everyone paying 4% or 5% of their salaries just on Health is absolutely ludicrous when you consider the service we get in return.
that's if anybody believed for a second that the money was ring fenced for the health service ;)
As for public sector cut backs, of course these are required, but for the time being I'd be happy to see some scheme whereby those public servants who are, ahem, underemployed were shifted to areas where they might contribute something.
Tough budget, but they should have done this last November (and much much more), when you think about it we are in a terrible situation. We have to cut 20bn per annum from our expenditure over the next 5 years, how are they going to achieve that? What will our debt be by the end of that? It doesn't look pretty lads.
Quote from: Gnevin on April 07, 2009, 05:08:18 PM
Quote
There will be a new scheme to allow civil servants over the age of 50 to retire. The scheme will begin in May. Those retiring will not be replaced unless sanctioned by the Department of Finance.
Rubbish, anyone decent will retire and get a job in the private sector or will be contracted back when they realised none of the wasters have retired . Same as last time
What the hell would we in the private sector need to higher ex civil servants for. They wouldn't last 2 minutes in the real world. Them boys have been living in a different planet to the rest of us.
Since my missus got made redundant my wage is supporting me, the wife and the baby. This budget has taken another €2000 minimum out of my pocket. Increasing the price of Diesel after getting everyone to change to "green" diesel cars is another joke especially for us out in rural Ireland with no option but to drive. I don't believe this government has a mandate to rule and if they had any respect for democracy they'd give the people the chance to give them that mandate or not.
Quote from: mylestheslasher on April 07, 2009, 09:39:49 PM
Quote from: Gnevin on April 07, 2009, 05:08:18 PM
Quote
There will be a new scheme to allow civil servants over the age of 50 to retire. The scheme will begin in May. Those retiring will not be replaced unless sanctioned by the Department of Finance.
Rubbish, anyone decent will retire and get a job in the private sector or will be contracted back when they realised none of the wasters have retired . Same as last time
What the hell would we in the private sector need to higher ex civil servants for. They wouldn't last 2 minutes in the real world. Them boys have been living in a different planet to the rest of us.
Since my missus got made redundant my wage is supporting me, the wife and the baby. This budget has taken another €2000 minimum out of my pocket. Increasing the price of Diesel after getting everyone to change to "green" diesel cars is another joke especially for us out in rural Ireland with no option but to drive. I don't believe this government has a mandate to rule and if they had any respect for democracy they'd give the people the chance to give them that mandate or not.
In fairness you're still getting more miles to your gallon of diesel and it's still cheaper than petrol.
If there was an election who would you vote for and why? I wouldn't for one minute vote for FF (but then I've never been enamoured with them), but I don't see what any other party would come up with - any ideas anyone?? (and something a wee bit more constructive than sack all public servants would be good)
Quote from: mylestheslasher on April 07, 2009, 09:39:49 PM
Quote from: Gnevin on April 07, 2009, 05:08:18 PM
Quote
There will be a new scheme to allow civil servants over the age of 50 to retire. The scheme will begin in May. Those retiring will not be replaced unless sanctioned by the Department of Finance.
Rubbish, anyone decent will retire and get a job in the private sector or will be contracted back when they realised none of the wasters have retired . Same as last time
What the hell would we in the private sector need to higher ex civil servants for. They wouldn't last 2 minutes in the real world. Them boys have been living in a different planet to the rest of us.
Since my missus got made redundant my wage is supporting me, the wife and the baby. This budget has taken another €2000 minimum out of my pocket. Increasing the price of Diesel after getting everyone to change to "green" diesel cars is another joke especially for us out in rural Ireland with no option but to drive. I don't believe this government has a mandate to rule and if they had any respect for democracy they'd give the people the chance to give them that mandate or not.
Every civil servant isn't a waster, private sector companies have to interface with the public sector and ex civil servants can contribute a lot .
[/quote]
What the hell would we in the private sector need to higher ex civil servants for. They wouldn't last 2 minutes in the real world. Them boys have been living in a different planet to the rest of us.
[/quote]
Every civil servant isn't a waster, private sector companies have to interface with the public sector and ex civil servants can contribute a lot .
[/quote]
would have to agree strongly with myles and disagree strongly with gnevin, now gnevin usually is spot on in a lot of issues here buy now your way off radar man, i deal with a lot of civil servants and would agree that not all are wasters but IN THE MAIN we get fcuk all value from them, lot of clock watchers, not my job merchants, lets have a meeting to prioritise going forward prcks that really would get torn asunder if asked to act in any capacity within a commercially agressive private business.
As regards needing ex civil servants to interface with public bodies almost every private firm in this country interfaces with thier public body equivilants many many times during the course of an average year and manage just fine without a sprinkling of moondust from padraic who used to work for the department nudge nudge wink wink, thats what has this place all fcuked in the first place.
No accountability at all at any level except maybe maybe director general who has to stand in front of public accounts committe, if he overspends gets moved to one side to sit it out on the sidelines till the €165k pension kicks in.
bit of a rant but i'm a pissed off subbie at the minute this budget is going to take a nice few shekels out of my hand
As someone who used to work in the private sector and now has a short term contract with a state body, i'd say the pbulic sector doesn't work as hard, theres defo a more relaxed feeling, no stress, everyone takes the tea break kinda stuff but to be fair its tough to get somethings done, i'm trying to get a programme up and running and have to get it approved thru about 5 loops, the worst being the department and the leagal team, every bit of money thats spent has to be accounted for, thus the strenuous methos of getting approval, not all CS are wasters but gthey have a lot stricter guidelines to adhere to
Quote from: The Subbie on April 07, 2009, 10:16:53 PM
What the hell would we in the private sector need to higher ex civil servants for. They wouldn't last 2 minutes in the real world. Them boys have been living in a different planet to the rest of us.
[/quote]
Every civil servant isn't a waster, private sector companies have to interface with the public sector and ex civil servants can contribute a lot .
[/quote]
would have to agree strongly with myles and disagree strongly with gnevin, now gnevin usually is spot on in a lot of issues here buy now your way off radar man, i deal with a lot of civil servants and would agree that not all are wasters but IN THE MAIN we get fcuk all value from them, lot of clock watchers, not my job merchants, lets have a meeting to prioritise going forward prcks that really would get torn asunder if asked to act in any capacity within a commercially agressive private business.
As regards needing ex civil servants to interface with public bodies almost every private firm in this country interfaces with thier public body equivilants many many times during the course of an average year and manage just fine without a sprinkling of moondust from padraic who used to work for the department nudge nudge wink wink, thats what has this place all fcuked in the first place.
No accountability at all at any level except maybe maybe director general who has to stand in front of public accounts committe, if he overspends gets moved to one side to sit it out on the sidelines till the €165k pension kicks in.
bit of a rant but i'm a pissed off subbie at the minute this budget is going to take a nice few shekels out of my hand
[/quote]
Not all the Civil Servants are useless but I've yet to meet one that I would employ. I've met many many IDA and Enterprise Ireland guys and while they have obviously had some success attracting companies to come to Ireland, it is when you talk to them that you realise that most of them don't have a clue about the cut and thrust of the private sector. If it takes them weeks to get anything done due to red tape well that is surely their problem (i.e. Civil Servants) to resolve. Lots of red tape is normally what happens when people are to gutless to make decisions so they involve everyone in the place to share the potential blame.
Thats my point, its not how people are too gutless to make decisions, its because its public sector money certain procedures have to be gone through, it stops the buddyism thats plagued ireland
Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote from: The Subbie on April 07, 2009, 10:16:53 PM
What the hell would we in the private sector need to higher ex civil servants for. They wouldn't last 2 minutes in the real world. Them boys have been living in a different planet to the rest of us.
Every civil servant isn't a waster, private sector companies have to interface with the public sector and ex civil servants can contribute a lot .
would have to agree strongly with myles and disagree strongly with gnevin, now gnevin usually is spot on in a lot of issues here buy now your way off radar man, i deal with a lot of civil servants and would agree that not all are wasters but IN THE MAIN we get fcuk all value from them, lot of clock watchers, not my job merchants, lets have a meeting to prioritise going forward prcks that really would get torn asunder if asked to act in any capacity within a commercially agressive private business.
As regards needing ex civil servants to interface with public bodies almost every private firm in this country interfaces with thier public body equivilants many many times during the course of an average year and manage just fine without a sprinkling of moondust from padraic who used to work for the department nudge nudge wink wink, thats what has this place all fcuked in the first place.
No accountability at all at any level except maybe maybe director general who has to stand in front of public accounts committe, if he overspends gets moved to one side to sit it out on the sidelines till the €165k pension kicks in.
bit of a rant but i'm a pissed off subbie at the minute this budget is going to take a nice few shekels out of my hand
Now don't get me wrong . There are a huge , huge amount of wasters, clock watchers and lifers who would be totally lost in the real world. How ever I am speaking from personal experience in relation to this. The last round of early retirements lead to all the good ones leaving and either becoming consultant back the civil service or working in the private sector as a sort of "inside man"
This Government is completely rudderless, devoid of any orginal thought and completely out of touch with the people. The budget is an example of this. I disagree with hitting lower paid people which has happened. Cutting expenditure on infrastructural products to balance the books is real robbing Peter to pay Paul stuff. Not tackling the real problems as usual - they just went for the low hanging fruit.
However, the most disgusting aspect of this budget relates to the banks. We take on the bad debts and a Government Agency ::) will be set up to collect the money on behalf of the taxpayer. Meanwhile, 99.9% of the pricks that lent the money are till in situ with their jobs secured by our (increased tax monies). Im f**king pissed off.
Quote from: Mayo4Sam on April 07, 2009, 10:50:43 PM
Thats my point, its not how people are too gutless to make decisions, its because its public sector money certain procedures have to be gone through, it stops the buddyism thats plagued ireland
Its stopped f**k all apart from value for money if you ask me! I have the power in my job to hire who I like to do jobs but when my boss is always demanding we reduce costs I have to go with the cheapest that can do the job right. I am answerable to my boss. If I don't get any improvements I get the boot. My suppliers have to follow suit. I get an annual review and thats where my performance is evaluated. Its simple really and oceans of red tape are not required.
magickingdom Well done! I was listening to the budget speech on the radio, and fell asleep during it. The information on the news and given by RTE was very badly presented. It does/did little to explain certain points. You managed to lay it out clearly there but I'm at a loss to understand certain things such as the Health Levy. What is this? There are some points about current accounts and insurance policies that I don't understand either.
It was said on the radio that you can get jailed for not having a TV licence yet all these top bankers and builders who screwed us are allowed to walk around scott free, aided by a crooked government. Roll on the local elections until we kick this shower of governing thieves out of office. I want a general election in September!
1- Lads you have to put the banking issue aside- if they don't solve that the economy will never recover. I wouldn't knock them for that. They have finally taken some action on this.
2- I disagree with them on the levies on the middle incomes. If you're a middle-class family with 2 kids you get hit with
- levies
-reduced mortgage interest
- reduced child benefit
They are getting hammered from all angles. Totally inequitable.
3- The entire tax system needs to be reformed. The high earners still not getting hit. How people over 100k only pay 27% tax should be outlawed (or 32%) now.
4- I worry whats coming down the line. Property tax, carbon tax etc.
I only agree with them on the banking system measures. I think the remainder of the measures are inequitable because the tax exiles and those huge public sector pensions will rest easy.
Quote from: INDIANA on April 08, 2009, 12:54:39 AM
1- Lads you have to put the banking issue aside- if they don't solve that the economy will never recover. I wouldn't knock them for that. They have finally taken some action on this.
Jappers INDIANA get yer head out of the sand they made a waffle of a PROPOSAL about banking. They will waffle loads more before they actually put in a system that works. I'd trust this to work about as much as I'd trust Cork players never to strike again!
Quote from: INDIANA on April 08, 2009, 12:54:39 AM
1- Lads you have to put the banking issue aside- if they don't solve that the economy will never recover. I wouldn't knock them for that. They have finally taken some action on this.
2- I disagree with them on the levies on the middle incomes. If you're a middle-class family with 2 kids you get hit with
- levies
-reduced mortgage interest
- reduced child benefit
They are getting hammered from all angles. Totally inequitable.
3- The entire tax system needs to be reformed. The high earners still not getting hit. How people over 100k only pay 27% tax should be outlawed (or 32%) now.
4- I worry whats coming down the line. Property tax, carbon tax etc.
I only agree with them on the banking system measures. I think the remainder of the measures are inequitable because the tax exiles and those huge public sector pensions will rest easy.
What are you talking about?
41% PAYE + 5% Health levy + 6% Income levy + 5% PRSI (up to €75,000).
Up tp today 33% of workers paid no tax at all while those earning over €100,000 paid over 50% of all income tax. Obviously those who earn most should pay most but it is sickening to hear the whinging of those who contribute nothing demanding those who bankroll everything pay even more.
QuoteHowever, the most disgusting aspect of this budget relates to the banks. We take on the bad debts and a Government Agency Roll Eyes will be set up to collect the money on behalf of the taxpayer. Meanwhile, 99.9% of the pricks that lent the money are till in situ with their jobs secured by our (increased tax monies). Im f**king pissed off.
spot on Seanie - Should have just nationalised them all but yet again FF pander to their buddies
Quote from: muppet on April 08, 2009, 01:36:34 AM
Quote from: INDIANA on April 08, 2009, 12:54:39 AM
1- Lads you have to put the banking issue aside- if they don't solve that the economy will never recover. I wouldn't knock them for that. They have finally taken some action on this.
2- I disagree with them on the levies on the middle incomes. If you're a middle-class family with 2 kids you get hit with
- levies
-reduced mortgage interest
- reduced child benefit
They are getting hammered from all angles. Totally inequitable.
3- The entire tax system needs to be reformed. The high earners still not getting hit. How people over 100k only pay 27% tax should be outlawed (or 32%) now.
4- I worry whats coming down the line. Property tax, carbon tax etc.
I only agree with them on the banking system measures. I think the remainder of the measures are inequitable because the tax exiles and those huge public sector pensions will rest easy.
What are you talking about?
41% PAYE + 5% Health levy + 6% Income levy + 5% PRSI (up to €75,000).
Up tp today 33% of workers paid no tax at all while those earning over €100,000 paid over 50% of all income tax. Obviously those who earn most should pay most but it is sickening to hear the whinging of those who contribute nothing demanding those who bankroll everything pay even more.
That is bullshit muppet. The statistics are there for public consumption- due to tax reliefs for high earners they are not paying there fair share of tax. That is a statistical fact. Rarely have I heard such an uneducated comment. If you want me to put up the mathematics on it- I will only be too glad to do so. Every single day I see these people availing of mickey mouse tax reliefs created by Mc Creevy where as a family on 60-70k are scrimping to try and make ends meet with a couple of kids. These people were hammered yesterday in one of the worst budgets I've ever seen.
Genuine question Indiana
What do you consider a high earner?
85k ( most people would)
100k
150k
500k?
While im aware of the tax relief's (avoidance!) for the super rich, for people on 100k i dont know of any. And there would have been lots of people earning that the last few years ( say in construction) earning 100k plus.
For clarity i think you should put up the maths because i would be of a similar opinion to muppet.
I'll put the maths up at lunchtime with a few scenarios. Phone is hopping after yesterday's shambles unfortunately. But to give you a short answer anyone earning 110k plus is nowhere near as badly affected as those on 55k -85k.
The only people over 110k who are affected by this are those that bought houses they couldn't afford, car loans-holiday homes etc. These people get advised not to do these things- and they still do it. I don't have any sympathy for them.
If you are a family on about 80k a year . that budget is a bloodbath- . Interest relief reduced, child benefit cut, 4% extra tax.
With a property tax and a carbon tax inevitable in the next budget. Carnage.
Nothing done to stimulate job creation- unbelievable.
Quote from: INDIANA on April 08, 2009, 09:29:57 AM
I'll put the maths up at lunchtime with a few scenarios. Phone is hopping after yesterday's shambles unfortunately. But to give you a short answer anyone earning 110k plus is nowhere near as badly affected as those on 55k -85k.
The only people over 110k who are affected by this are those that bought houses they couldn't afford, car loans-holiday homes etc. These people get advised not to do these things- and they still do it. I don't have any sympathy for them.
If you are a family on about 80k a year . that budget is a bloodbath- . Interest relief reduced, child benefit cut, 4% extra tax.
With a property tax and a carbon tax inevitable in the next budget. Carnage.
Nothing done to stimulate job creation- unbelievable.
I'm not in that group myself but the statement is true. That is the portion of society that got creamed yesterday. On a rough calculation a colleague of mine who fits that demographic is hit twice as bad as myself and my wife.
Nothing has been done to stimulate anything. Its basically batten down the hatches and hope Obama can turn the US economy round and in turn ours.
Quote from: INDIANA on April 08, 2009, 09:29:57 AM
I'll put the maths up at lunchtime with a few scenarios. Phone is hopping after yesterday's shambles unfortunately. But to give you a short answer anyone earning 110k plus is nowhere near as badly affected as those on 55k -85k.
The only people over 110k who are affected by this are those that bought houses they couldn't afford, car loans-holiday homes etc. These people get advised not to do these things- and they still do it. I don't have any sympathy for them.
If you are a family on about 80k a year . that budget is a bloodbath- . Interest relief reduced, child benefit cut, 4% extra tax.
With a property tax and a carbon tax inevitable in the next budget. Carnage.
Nothing done to stimulate job creation- unbelievable.
If your a family on 40k is it not a bloodbath budget as well, they would also see their Interest relief reduced , child Benefit Cut , taxes go up, as far as i can see its a bloodbath budget fullstop.
If you're interested in seeing what the next pay check will bring please follow the link below and input your details for an estimate:
http://www.deloitte.ie/tc/
I would fall into the "hammered" net.
Wife a nurse (already hit with pension levy), 16mth and another baby on way in July. Wife was hoping to take unpaid leave when maternity leave up in December but that unlikely.
Got hit all sides, just under 3 yrs left on Mortgage. At least I don;t smoke or drive a diesel motor.
Most disappointing is the lack of stimulation. Nothing to keep people of dole, nothing to start shifting the surplus new builds (not a dig out for developers but there is a ball of VAT for the Gov to be earned on unsold houses) and nothing to stimulate spending or keep money in the state.
Have been talking to alot of people all morning and one local independent cllr was livid!! Said it was a political budget aimed at securing votes at the local elections.
Quote from: INDIANA on April 08, 2009, 12:54:39 AM
I only agree with them on the banking system measures. I think the remainder of the measures are inequitable because the tax exiles and those huge public sector pensions will rest easy.
Banking measures are appalling.This is from bloomberg this morning ...
The difference in yield, or spread, between Irish and German 10-year notes widened to 215 basis points today from 204 yesterday. The spread widened from 40 basis points a year ago as investors demanded higher premiums to lend to smaller European economies amid the global financial turmoil.
"The bond markets are paying more attention to the bad loan rescue package," said Padhraic Garvey, head of investment- grade debt strategy at ING Group in Amsterdam. The loans are the "worst stuff" on the banks' books and "this is effectively going to be taken over by the Irish government." Everyone will suffer for no gain if they dont get this right and at every turn they seem to be digging a bigger hole. We are lead to believe most of the bad loans are property related.
As I have argued before he could have improved bank collateral levels on completed unsold residential property by 13.5% by suspending VAT on new homes....the effect on land values would have been greater maybe 50% He would have lost a future tax receipt (until the market could take it again) but not have had to make so much additional borrowing now... this is what the markets are penalising ireland for. Either they dont understand how property is valued or most of these impaired loans are on overseas property and it would have no effect. Maybe both.
Dan Boyle thinks state will make money out of this but I have no faith in any state agency managing up to 90Bn of property loans ...another fecking quango.
But the impact for 10-15, maybe 25 years out will be extraordinary – even if they negotiate a massive price reduction on the dodgy loan book.
Also anyone see the bank shares this morning? E: Ok ..maybe the banks understated the dodgy loans earlier - who would jump into bank shares..AIB down 20%, BoI down 33%..the game is up for these guys
The real hoot from yesterday was the look on Cowen and Lenihan's faces when Joan Burton said "...whatever loss the banks incur on the book value of their loans in the transfer to the new agency, they will be able to offset that loss against tax paid over the last number of years..not alone that, but the developers who take a writedown on the value of the assets those loans were taken out for will also be abel to offset those losses against their tax bills paid over the last few years" !!!
The figures for the tax to be repaid to these boys is not quantifiable is at this stage..but JB reckoned that it would be a min. of a billion, but could run to any fig...! She asked that the Govt rush through emergency legislation last night to block off this rebate avenue for any loans that would be involved in the Toxic Agency, but did they even take the idea on board – the answer is the same James Gogarty got from Mike Bailey when Gogarty asked if they would get a receipt from Ray Bourke..."Will we **** !!!"
If the NAMA forces say a 40% discount to buy bank loans of €90 billion, it would purchase the assets for €54 billion. This would double the national debt to €108 billion.
Fine Gael finance spokesman Richard Bruton said: "Fianna Fáil has taken a massive €90 billion gamble on behalf of the taxpayer in bailing out the very property speculators and banks that dragged our economy over a cliff in the last few years."
As other contributors have said - nothing at all to try and stimulate job growth - FT this morning was pretty succint about it:
As for the "young, well educated, flexible workforce," the Financial Times Lex columnist writes today: "After the party, the bill. Ireland's second emergency budget in six months will have the country's "young, well-educated, flexible workforce" making a bee-line for the exit. Its construction-led recession – the economy could contract by 8 per cent this year and unemployment hit 12 per cent – has left consumers under severe strain...Mr Lenihan sees the future of the Irish economy in exports. They will be no panacea, at least in the short term: Ireland can hardly devalue its currency to stimulate demand. By pulling this hard on the tax lever, Mr Lenihan may cause Irish history to repeat itself. Ireland may only succeed in exporting its best hope of recovery: its talent."
I think I said about 6 months ago on another thread that if I was back in my mid 20's I'd be outta here quicker than you could say where's me coat - I'm now seriously considering going anyway because on the face of it my kids will be gone within the next 5/7 years anyway
Latest good News:
Moody's has this morning announced the downgrade of 12 Irish banks, including, AIB, BOI, IL&P, EBS, Irish Nationwide, Ulster Bank, HBOS and KBC.
The Bank Financial Strength Raging (BFSR) on each bank has been downgraded by at least one notch, with most moving to D. AIB, BOI and EBS's ratings are on "developing outlook", while IL&P and Ulster are on review for possible downgrade and HBOS and INW are on negative outlook. It would appear that some of the change in ratings is attributable to an increase in the weighting of capital and future earnings prospects in its BFSR methodology, although Moody's does highlight that its expectations for loan losses have "considerably increased" due to the "continuing deterioration in the outlook for commercial real estate prices, the likelihood of more corporate defaults as the Irish economy enters a deep recession, and the current erosion in residential loan performance", including buyto let. It now expects "significantly higher credit losses than previously anticipated" as a result of
this and the global economic crisis. It has affirmed the most important bank deposit and senior debt ratings (which are on negative outlook), but has downgraded subordinated and hybrid debt ratings
Quote from: INDIANA on April 08, 2009, 12:54:39 AM
1- Lads you have to put the banking issue aside- if they don't solve that the economy will never recover. I wouldn't knock them for that. They have finally taken some action on this.
Unfortunately this is their 3rd attempt at doing something on this issue and yet again it's doomed to failure. The only fair solution is to nationalise the banks.
How is this supposed to get the banks lending again anyway? Look at the current situation we're in, disposable income has been cut massively in our economy, worldwide credit has disappeared, what sort of a business is a good proposition to lend to at the minute and where will the banks get the money to lend even if opportunities arose?
The current solution, like every other one I've seen mooted does nothing for the thusfar hidden catastrophe awaiting us, that is the residential property mortgage crisis. Throughout the country we have people with very large amounts of negative equity (which won't recover in the lifetimes of the mortgage holders), we have jobs haemorraging and disposable income falling through the floor, how will these people ever pay these loans? More to the point, why would these people ever pay these loans? They see that the developers and bankers are being bailed out, everyone but them basically - it can't and won't happen. The government will have to come up with a debt forgiveness scheme, and that can only be done when we own the banks.
Lex makes a very good point.
Expect and exodus of talent and high earners .....It seems to go over most heads that those who pay most tax are also most mobile in terms of where they choose to reside/ set up their businesses. I am not even talking about moving to Monaco...there are six counties on the island with a significantly lower tax rates for self employed high/middle earners. Tech jobs etc will go North too.
Higher tax rates = less tax collected.
Quote from: INDIANA on April 08, 2009, 08:40:57 AM
Quote from: muppet on April 08, 2009, 01:36:34 AM
Quote from: INDIANA on April 08, 2009, 12:54:39 AM
1- Lads you have to put the banking issue aside- if they don't solve that the economy will never recover. I wouldn't knock them for that. They have finally taken some action on this.
2- I disagree with them on the levies on the middle incomes. If you're a middle-class family with 2 kids you get hit with
- levies
-reduced mortgage interest
- reduced child benefit
They are getting hammered from all angles. Totally inequitable.
3- The entire tax system needs to be reformed. The high earners still not getting hit. How people over 100k only pay 27% tax should be outlawed (or 32%) now.
4- I worry whats coming down the line. Property tax, carbon tax etc.
I only agree with them on the banking system measures. I think the remainder of the measures are inequitable because the tax exiles and those huge public sector pensions will rest easy.
What are you talking about?
41% PAYE + 5% Health levy + 6% Income levy + 5% PRSI (up to €75,000).
Up tp today 33% of workers paid no tax at all while those earning over €100,000 paid over 50% of all income tax. Obviously those who earn most should pay most but it is sickening to hear the whinging of those who contribute nothing demanding those who bankroll everything pay even more.
That is bullshit muppet. The statistics are there for public consumption- due to tax reliefs for high earners they are not paying there fair share of tax. That is a statistical fact. Rarely have I heard such an uneducated comment. If you want me to put up the mathematics on it- I will only be too glad to do so. Every single day I see these people availing of mickey mouse tax reliefs created by Mc Creevy where as a family on 60-70k are scrimping to try and make ends meet with a couple of kids. These people were hammered yesterday in one of the worst budgets I've ever seen.
http://archives.tcm.ie/businesspost/2009/02/08/story39389.asp (http://archives.tcm.ie/businesspost/2009/02/08/story39389.asp)
"Statistics from the Revenue Commissioners show that, contrary to some assertions, Irish income tax is highly progressive. Current figures show that half of all income tax - €6.5 billion - is paid by the top 6.5 per cent of taxpayers.
A third of all income tax is paid by the top 2.5 per cent of taxpayers, numbering just 60,000 out of the total 2.4 million income earners. Some 38 per cent of all income earners are under the tax threshold and pay no income tax at all."
"Rarely have I heard (on the internet ::)) such an uneducated comment."
My family is down over €1,000 a month as a result of yesterday. I don't enjoy reading idiots saying we don't contribute.
I am looking forward to reading your statistical facts.
I suspect the fact reads something as follows:
< €30,000 - less than 5% of income goes in income tax
< €75,000 - less than 20% of income goes in inome tax
> €75,000 - Less than 27% of income goes in income tax
Quote from: Bogball XV on April 08, 2009, 11:41:26 AM
Quote from: INDIANA on April 08, 2009, 12:54:39 AM
1- Lads you have to put the banking issue aside- if they don't solve that the economy will never recover. I wouldn't knock them for that. They have finally taken some action on this.
Unfortunately this is their 3rd attempt at doing something on this issue and yet again it's doomed to failure. The only fair solution is to nationalise the banks.
How is this supposed to get the banks lending again anyway? Look at the current situation we're in, disposable income has been cut massively in our economy, worldwide credit has disappeared, what sort of a business is a good proposition to lend to at the minute and where will the banks get the money to lend even if opportunities arose?
The current solution, like every other one I've seen mooted does nothing for the thusfar hidden catastrophe awaiting us, that is the residential property mortgage crisis. Throughout the country we have people with very large amounts of negative equity (which won't recover in the lifetimes of the mortgage holders), we have jobs haemorraging and disposable income falling through the floor, how will these people ever pay these loans? More to the point, why would these people ever pay these loans? They see that the developers and bankers are being bailed out, everyone but them basically - it can't and won't happen. The government will have to come up with a debt forgiveness scheme, and that can only be done when we own the banks.
I can see where the banks are getting bailed out but can someone explain to me how are the developers getting bailed out.
Are they not having to pay back the money they borrowed from the banks or is the government paying this also
I would say alot of the developers are going bankrupt, changing their business name and leaving the debt with the banks.
There is no point in me putting up the various tax relief schemes these people invest in because people wouldn't understand them. But people who earn in excess of a gross salary of 100k per annum invest in these schemes and make substantially less of a contribution to the revenue. I can't believe you've never heard of these schemes (As a result the contribution of these people is essentially up until yesterday is 27%.
I'm not getting hammered to extent of the 55k -85 k group. I'm fortunate in that respect. But I'm in more of a position to take a hit then other members of society. Thats what called an equitable tax system -not the sham of a one we have,
There is a certain level of arrogance among people in the 100k bracket who don't want to pay any tax. I deal with these people regularly unfortunately. The reality is the excess income they earn covers any of these tax increases more than adequately. People in the most vunerable bracket - don't have the excess income to cover yesterday's budget- thats it makes it grossly unfair in my view.
they've hit the vunerable while leaving the high earners alone.
And of course the property developers- who get their bad loans taken off them- and get tax relief too- nice work if you can get it.
same as people who bought house at the height of the market and are now in negative equity
Quote from: INDIANA on April 08, 2009, 01:29:20 PM
There is no point in me putting up the various tax relief schemes these people invest in because people wouldn't understand them. But people who earn in excess of a gross salary of 100k per annum invest in these schemes and make substantially less of a contribution to the revenue. I can't believe you've never heard of these schemes (As a result the contribution of these people is essentially up until yesterday is 27%.
I'm not getting hammered to extent of the 55k -85 k group. I'm fortunate in that respect. But I'm in more of a position to take a hit then other members of society. Thats what called an equitable tax system -not the sham of a one we have,
There is a certain level of arrogance among people in the 100k bracket who don't want to pay any tax. I deal with these people regularly unfortunately. The reality is the excess income they earn covers any of these tax increases more than adequately. People in the most vunerable bracket - don't have the excess income to cover yesterday's budget- thats it makes it grossly unfair in my view.
they've hit the vunerable while leaving the high earners alone.
And of course the property developers- who get their bad loans taken off them- and get tax relief too- nice work if you can get it.
Humour us. Some here have an education to match your ego. Let's see some 'facts' Einstein.
FFS indiana if there are schemes i am missing out on i need to be told!!!
ones i've had to deal with
accelerated capital allowances on private hospitals/hotels - anything from 50 to 100%
forestry schemes- can be full 100% of restricted depending on the level of investment
urban renewal relief- initial allowance of up to 50%
film relief -limit of 31750
bes expansion scheme-same as above
section 23 relief
horse racing studs (popular among certain circles)
anyone in the 55k to 85k ain't going to be investing in these. Nice though if you've got the income- nice deduction if you've got the money.
http://www.worldsgreatestbusinessmind.com/20090406-Brian-Lenihan-create.html (http://www.worldsgreatestbusinessmind.com/20090406-Brian-Lenihan-create.html)
Looks like we were all wrong lads - He is the greatest
Quote from: INDIANA on April 08, 2009, 01:41:26 PM
ones i've had to deal with
accelerated capital allowances on private hospitals/hotels - anything from 50 to 100%
forestry schemes- can be full 100% of restricted depending on the level of investment
urban renewal relief- initial allowance of up to 50%
film relief -limit of 31750
bes expansion scheme-same as above
section 23 relief
horse racing studs (popular among certain circles)
anyone in the 55k to 85k ain't going to be investing in these. Nice though if you've got the income- nice deduction if you've got the money.
For the benefit of everyone other than Indiana I am not suggesting high earners should pay less. I am merely correcting his nonsense with facts.
I know many people on over €100,000 p/a. A few have section 23 properties, none AFAIK are involved in any of the others. I also know poeple earning less than €100,000 with section 23 properties.
You still haven't addressed the 'fact' that over half of all income tax is paid by the top 6.5% of earners. How do you sit that with your claim that they don't pay their fair share? I'd also like to you to substantiate your 'rarely have I heard such an uneducated comment' when the facts quoted are against you and you still haven't provided any evidence for your claim.
This is taken from the Revenue Commissioners 2005 figures, the most recent available. (It has hardly got any fairer considering the new levy is higher for earners over €100,000).
Revenue Commissioners Statistical Reports 2007 (http://www.revenue.ie/en/about/publications/statistical/total-revenue-2007.pdf)
Muppet, I also 'understood' that even with the 'tax-relief' schemes in place, the income tax situation you described was true, i.e. 6.5% of the population paid/pay 50% of the income tax collected.
Quote from: muppet on April 08, 2009, 01:12:51 PM
"Statistics from the Revenue Commissioners show that, contrary to some assertions, Irish income tax is highly progressive. Current figures show that half of all income tax - €6.5 billion - is paid by the top 6.5 per cent of taxpayers.
A third of all income tax is paid by the top 2.5 per cent of taxpayers, numbering just 60,000 out of the total 2.4 million income earners. Some 38 per cent of all income earners are under the tax threshold and pay no income tax at all."
"Rarely have I heard (on the internet ::)) such an uneducated comment."
My family is down over €1,000 a month as a result of yesterday. I don't enjoy reading idiots saying we don't contribute.
I am looking forward to reading your statistical facts.
I suspect the fact reads something as follows:
< €30,000 - less than 5% of income goes in income tax
< €75,000 - less than 20% of income goes in inome tax
> €75,000 - Less than 27% of income goes in income tax
What the numbers fail to point out is that in this country only circa 30% of our total tax take is in the form of income tax. We have amongst the highest proportion in the EU (I think the highest) of our taxes in the form of indirect taxes (mainly consumption taxes), thus whilst it's fair to say that low earners don't pay income tax we can safely assume that they pay their fair share as presumably almost every cent earned is spent, therefore incurring vat at 21.5% and the many excise duties on alcohol and cigarettes.
Quote from: muppet on April 08, 2009, 02:19:38 PM
Quote from: INDIANA on April 08, 2009, 01:41:26 PM
ones i've had to deal with
accelerated capital allowances on private hospitals/hotels - anything from 50 to 100%
forestry schemes- can be full 100% of restricted depending on the level of investment
urban renewal relief- initial allowance of up to 50%
film relief -limit of 31750
bes expansion scheme-same as above
section 23 relief
horse racing studs (popular among certain circles)
anyone in the 55k to 85k ain't going to be investing in these. Nice though if you've got the income- nice deduction if you've got the money.
For the benefit of everyone other than Indiana I am not suggesting high earners should pay less. I am merely correcting his nonsense with facts.
I know many people on over €100,000 p/a. A few have section 23 properties, none AFAIK are involved in any of the others. I also know poeple earning less than €100,000 with section 23 properties.
I concur, there are very few decent tax breaks open to those on 100K odd - as you get higher up, yes there are many incentives, but circa 100K is rarely enough to get involved in a serious way in these breaks.
Another thing that people should realise is that tax incentives are entirely that, incentives - our problem is that the wrong things were incentivised, ie building 18 million hotels and 500 million apartments in Carrick on Shannon aren't that beneficial to the country in the long run, but a few schools might have been etc etc
Quote from: Bogball XV on April 08, 2009, 02:31:23 PM
Quote from: muppet on April 08, 2009, 01:12:51 PM
"Statistics from the Revenue Commissioners show that, contrary to some assertions, Irish income tax is highly progressive. Current figures show that half of all income tax - €6.5 billion - is paid by the top 6.5 per cent of taxpayers.
A third of all income tax is paid by the top 2.5 per cent of taxpayers, numbering just 60,000 out of the total 2.4 million income earners. Some 38 per cent of all income earners are under the tax threshold and pay no income tax at all."
"Rarely have I heard (on the internet ::)) such an uneducated comment."
My family is down over €1,000 a month as a result of yesterday. I don't enjoy reading idiots saying we don't contribute.
I am looking forward to reading your statistical facts.
I suspect the fact reads something as follows:
< €30,000 - less than 5% of income goes in income tax
< €75,000 - less than 20% of income goes in inome tax
> €75,000 - Less than 27% of income goes in income tax
What the numbers fail to point out is that in this country only circa 30% of our total tax take is in the form of income tax. We have amongst the highest proportion in the EU (I think the highest) of our taxes in the form of indirect taxes (mainly consumption taxes), thus whilst it's fair to say that low earners don't pay income tax we can safely assume that they pay their fair share as presumably almost every cent earned is spent, therefore incurring vat at 21.5% and the many excise duties on alcohol and cigarettes.
I agree, I did say 'income tax' rather than just tax WRT low earners.
They should look seriously at the reliefs. Lowering the relief on investment properties is a good start even if I take a personal hit. The Hotels situation is ridiculous.
Bit of a debate at work- can anyone clear it up?
Is the 4% levy on earnings over 75k on all your earnings or just the portion over 75k?
Quote from: muppet on April 08, 2009, 02:19:38 PM
Quote from: INDIANA on April 08, 2009, 01:41:26 PM
ones i've had to deal with
accelerated capital allowances on private hospitals/hotels - anything from 50 to 100%
forestry schemes- can be full 100% of restricted depending on the level of investment
urban renewal relief- initial allowance of up to 50%
film relief -limit of 31750
bes expansion scheme-same as above
section 23 relief
horse racing studs (popular among certain circles)
anyone in the 55k to 85k ain't going to be investing in these. Nice though if you've got the income- nice deduction if you've got the money.
For the benefit of everyone other than Indiana I am not suggesting high earners should pay less. I am merely correcting his nonsense with facts.
I know many people on over €100,000 p/a. A few have section 23 properties, none AFAIK are involved in any of the others. I also know poeple earning less than €100,000 with section 23 properties.
You still haven't addressed the 'fact' that over half of all income tax is paid by the top 6.5% of earners. How do you sit that with your claim that they don't pay their fair share? I'd also like to you to substantiate your 'rarely have I heard such an uneducated comment' when the facts quoted are against you and you still haven't provided any evidence for your claim.
This is taken from the Revenue Commissioners 2005 figures, the most recent available. (It has hardly got any fairer considering the new levy is higher for earners over €100,000).
Revenue Commissioners Statistical Reports 2007 (http://www.revenue.ie/en/about/publications/statistical/total-revenue-2007.pdf)
Because the statistic you quote Muppet doesn't take into account what is paid into a company or into a company pension fund.
- Many high earners setup corporates (i know quite a few of these people) and pay tax at 12.5% instead of the marginal rate. This is easily done when not in full time employment. All they have to do is pay amounts of monies into the company pension scheme rather than extract it as dividends.
-some people have inherited significant wealth while earning low incomes. income tax is levied on income-not on wealth.These people completely escape the tax net. I see enough of them.
- some of the highest earners in this State paid no tax last year due to the above schemes. that is a statistical fact and is freely available.
Quote from: mc_grens on April 08, 2009, 03:21:01 PM
Bit of a debate at work- can anyone clear it up?
Is the 4% levy on earnings over 75k on all your earnings or just the portion over 75k?
Quoteincome Levy – from 1May
The income levy rates will be doubled to 2%, 4% and 6%.
The exemption threshold will be €15,028. The 4% rate will apply to income in excess of €75,036 and the 6% rate to income in excess of €174,980.
It is not clear but I'm pretty certain 'will apply to income in excess of €75,036' means that any income up to that will be at the lower rate. Maybe one of our accountants here can clarify?
Another thing that people should realise is that tax incentives are entirely that, incentives - our problem is that the wrong things were incentivised, ie building 18 million hotels and 500 million apartments in Carrick on Shannon aren't that beneficial to the country in the long run, but a few schools might have been etc etc
It is remarkable how much people will pay for something - when it has a tax relief sticker attached. When I have looked at these things it seems that actual purchase price = true value plus min of 80% of tax benefit. The people who bought these things are generally sitting on enormous losses because there was no underlying demand in the first place.
Quote from: INDIANA on April 08, 2009, 03:23:26 PM
Quote from: muppet on April 08, 2009, 02:19:38 PM
Quote from: INDIANA on April 08, 2009, 01:41:26 PM
ones i've had to deal with
accelerated capital allowances on private hospitals/hotels - anything from 50 to 100%
forestry schemes- can be full 100% of restricted depending on the level of investment
urban renewal relief- initial allowance of up to 50%
film relief -limit of 31750
bes expansion scheme-same as above
section 23 relief
horse racing studs (popular among certain circles)
anyone in the 55k to 85k ain't going to be investing in these. Nice though if you've got the income- nice deduction if you've got the money.
For the benefit of everyone other than Indiana I am not suggesting high earners should pay less. I am merely correcting his nonsense with facts.
I know many people on over €100,000 p/a. A few have section 23 properties, none AFAIK are involved in any of the others. I also know people earning less than €100,000 with section 23 properties.
You still haven't addressed the 'fact' that over half of all income tax is paid by the top 6.5% of earners. How do you sit that with your claim that they don't pay their fair share? I'd also like to you to substantiate your 'rarely have I heard such an uneducated comment' when the facts quoted are against you and you still haven't provided any evidence for your claim.
This is taken from the Revenue Commissioners 2005 figures, the most recent available. (It has hardly got any fairer considering the new levy is higher for earners over €100,000).
Revenue Commissioners Statistical Reports 2007 (http://www.revenue.ie/en/about/publications/statistical/total-revenue-2007.pdf)
Because the statistic you quote Muppet doesn't take into account what is paid into a company or into a company pension fund.
- Many high earners setup corporates (i know quite a few of these people) and pay tax at 12.5% instead of the marginal rate. This is easily done when not in full time employment. All they have to do is pay amounts of monies into the company pension scheme rather than extract it as dividends.
-some people have inherited significant wealth while earning low incomes. income tax is levied on income-not on wealth.These people completely escape the tax net. I see enough of them.
- some of the highest earners in this State paid no tax last year due to the above schemes. that is a statistical fact and is freely available.
You started by attacking all earners over €100,000. You announced a statistic, that you still haven't provided a source for, that only 27% of their salaries goes in tax. You never made a comparison with other earners, I suspect that 27% is the high point of the graph reducing to zero at the threshold, so the statistic is meaningless.
Now you are suggesting that some of those high earners escape tax by investing in pensions or setting up corporations. I know many >€100,000 earners and I know no one who has done this. BTW AFAIK pensions are capped at 66% of FRS so what would be the point in funding beyond that?
Your point about inheritance tax is irrelevant to this debate as you seem now to be attacking low earners who inherit money. Your point was about earners over €100,000.
Quotesome of the highest earners in this State paid no tax last year due to the above schemes. that is a statistical fact and is freely available.
That has been widely reported. I suspect it applies to a small minority but it is true nonetheless. Of the >€100,000 salary earners known personally to board members I would guess hardly any pay no tax.
Quote from: muppet on April 08, 2009, 03:24:09 PM
Quote from: mc_grens on April 08, 2009, 03:21:01 PM
Bit of a debate at work- can anyone clear it up?
Is the 4% levy on earnings over 75k on all your earnings or just the portion over 75k?
Quoteincome Levy – from 1May
The income levy rates will be doubled to 2%, 4% and 6%.
The exemption threshold will be €15,028. The 4% rate will apply to income in excess of €75,036 and the 6% rate to income in excess of €174,980.
It is not clear but I'm pretty certain 'will apply to income in excess of €75,036' means that any income up to that will be at the lower rate. Maybe one of our accountants here can clarify?
only on the excess, rates are banded.
you know no-one who owns a company and pays top up payments into a pension scheme rather than extracting profits of the trade as a cash dividend? and thus avoiding paying tax at the marginal rate on the cash? Are you serious. Good god please don't ever put me in touch with your taxation advisors. Fairly common practice (in Dublin anyway)- and very effective-might I add.
Quote from: INDIANA on April 08, 2009, 04:45:47 PM
you know no-one who owns a company and pays top up payments into a pension scheme rather than extracting profits of the trade as a cash dividend? and thus avoiding paying tax at the marginal rate on the cash? Are you serious. Good god please don't ever put me in touch with your taxation advisors. Fairly common practice (in Dublin anyway)- and very effective-might I add.
No I don't.
Also is it not true that you will be taxed fully on any pension funded beyond 66% of the FRS?
Quote from: INDIANA on April 08, 2009, 04:45:47 PM
you know no-one who owns a company and pays top up payments into a pension scheme rather than extracting profits of the trade as a cash dividend? and thus avoiding paying tax at the marginal rate on the cash? Are you serious. Good god please don't ever put me in touch with your taxation advisors. Fairly common practice (in Dublin anyway)- and very effective-might I add.
Common partice in my part of the woods. The level of payment into a pension fund can be restricted depending on level of salary and age of course but its still attractive.
Common partice in my part of the woods. The level of payment into a pension fund can be restricted depending on level of salary and age of course but its still attractive.
Thank you.
Quote from: INDIANA on April 08, 2009, 05:23:13 PM
Common partice in my part of the woods. The level of payment into a pension fund can be restricted depending on level of salary and age of course but its still attractive.
Thank you.
Still not a source or link in sight. ::)
Quote from: INDIANA on April 08, 2009, 05:23:13 PM
Common partice in my part of the woods. The level of payment into a pension fund can be restricted depending on level of salary and age of course but its still attractive.
Thank you.
Also, with the right pension you can use it to buy shares, property, deposits, etc all at your control. Self-Administered schemes have become very popular in recent years.
Quote from: muppet on April 08, 2009, 05:30:37 PM
Quote from: INDIANA on April 08, 2009, 05:23:13 PM
Common partice in my part of the woods. The level of payment into a pension fund can be restricted depending on level of salary and age of course but its still attractive.
Thank you.
Still not a source or link in sight. ::)
Muppet, you are living up to your name. ;) I'm an accountant/tax advisor in Monaghan with clients in many counties. Its pretty basic adavice and its no big deal, it would be of the first things we would talk to a self-employed director about.
It is by far and away the most tax efficient way to move surplus funds out of your company.
Quote from: bingobus on April 08, 2009, 05:35:07 PM
Quote from: muppet on April 08, 2009, 05:30:37 PM
Quote from: INDIANA on April 08, 2009, 05:23:13 PM
Common partice in my part of the woods. The level of payment into a pension fund can be restricted depending on level of salary and age of course but its still attractive.
Thank you.
Still not a source or link in sight. ::)
Muppet, you are living up to your name. ;) I'm an accountant/tax advisor in Monaghan with clients in many counties. Its pretty basic adavice and its no big deal, it would be of the first things we would talk to a self-employed director about.
It is by far and away the most tax efficient way to move surplus funds out of your company.
Bingobus this debate has been running for a while.
The gist of it is that Indiana claimed that high earners don't pay their fair share.
I pointed out that the top 6.5% of earners pay over 50% of all income tax. I provided evidence to prove this.
All you have done is shown how some people who own companies could reduce their tax bill. How many of these people do you think there are? It doesn't change the fact that the highest earning 6.5% pay over 50% of all income tax, therefore to suggest they don't pay their fair share is nothing more that the usual begrudgery.
Quote from: muppet on April 08, 2009, 05:43:21 PM
Quote from: bingobus on April 08, 2009, 05:35:07 PM
Quote from: muppet on April 08, 2009, 05:30:37 PM
Quote from: INDIANA on April 08, 2009, 05:23:13 PM
Common partice in my part of the woods. The level of payment into a pension fund can be restricted depending on level of salary and age of course but its still attractive.
Thank you.
Still not a source or link in sight. ::)
Muppet, you are living up to your name. ;) I'm an accountant/tax advisor in Monaghan with clients in many counties. Its pretty basic adavice and its no big deal, it would be of the first things we would talk to a self-employed director about.
It is by far and away the most tax efficient way to move surplus funds out of your company.
Bingobus this debate has been running for a while.
The gist of it is that Indiana claimed that high earners don't pay their fair share.
I pointed out that the top 6.5% of earners pay over 50% of all income tax. I provided evidence to prove this.
All you have done is shown how some people who own companies could reduce their tax bill. How many of these people do you think there are? It doesn't change the fact that the highest earning 6.5% pay over 50% of all income tax, therefore to suggest they don't pay their fair share is nothing more that the usual begrudgery.
I took it that his argument was that higher earners have more options in which to avoid tax..
In addition to the company paying a person for them, a director/self employed person could then pay a AVC based on his annual salary when filing his own personal tax return. This will further reduce his tax bill and will often give him a part refund of the PAYE he has paid or is due to pay.
When doing the annual incoem tax returns we would always calculate the savings that can be made by paying a AVC. Again basic stuff but is mainly only of benefit to higher earner (top tax rate) or people with funds to do it.
Quote from: bingobus on April 08, 2009, 06:02:48 PM
Quote from: muppet on April 08, 2009, 05:43:21 PM
Quote from: bingobus on April 08, 2009, 05:35:07 PM
Quote from: muppet on April 08, 2009, 05:30:37 PM
Quote from: INDIANA on April 08, 2009, 05:23:13 PM
Common partice in my part of the woods. The level of payment into a pension fund can be restricted depending on level of salary and age of course but its still attractive.
Thank you.
Still not a source or link in sight. ::)
Muppet, you are living up to your name. ;) I'm an accountant/tax advisor in Monaghan with clients in many counties. Its pretty basic adavice and its no big deal, it would be of the first things we would talk to a self-employed director about.
It is by far and away the most tax efficient way to move surplus funds out of your company.
Bingobus this debate has been running for a while.
The gist of it is that Indiana claimed that high earners don't pay their fair share.
I pointed out that the top 6.5% of earners pay over 50% of all income tax. I provided evidence to prove this.
All you have done is shown how some people who own companies could reduce their tax bill. How many of these people do you think there are? It doesn't change the fact that the highest earning 6.5% pay over 50% of all income tax, therefore to suggest they don't pay their fair share is nothing more that the usual begrudgery.
I took it that his argument was that higher earners have more options in which to avoid tax..
In addition to the company paying a person for them, a director/self employed person could then pay a AVC based on his annual salary when filing his own personal tax return. This will further reduce his tax bill and will often give him a part refund of the PAYE he has paid or is due to pay.
When doing the annual incoem tax returns we would always calculate the savings that can be made by paying a AVC. Again basic stuff but is mainly only of benefit to higher earner (top tax rate) or people with funds to do it.
Does it change the fact that 6.5% of earners pay >50% of tax?
What percentage of income does your 6.5 % buddies earn Muppet?
Ye Mayo shower have far too much money anyway.
Quote from: bingobus on April 08, 2009, 05:35:07 PM
Quote from: muppet on April 08, 2009, 05:30:37 PM
Quote from: INDIANA on April 08, 2009, 05:23:13 PM
Common partice in my part of the woods. The level of payment into a pension fund can be restricted depending on level of salary and age of course but its still attractive.
Thank you.
Still not a source or link in sight. ::)
Muppet, you are living up to your name. ;) I'm an accountant/tax advisor in Monaghan with clients in many counties. Its pretty basic adavice and its no big deal, it would be of the first things we would talk to a self-employed director about.
It is by far and away the most tax efficient way to move surplus funds out of your company.
I think everybody is getting a wee bit confused here - if you own your own company there's obviously a lot more leeway to avoid paying tax straight away, Muppet is (or at least my take on it was) talking primarily about employees and their ability to avoid paying tax - there are very few schemes open to them, pension payments are the only real one.
On a related issue, is paying tax into a pension scheme not just a delay of paying tax rather than an avoidance? And given that for the forseeable future our tax rates are rising (and with returns being so poor currently) might it actually be the wrong advice, particularly for someone approaching retirement? I'm just curious on this and have little knowledge of pension rules etc (or tax avoidance schemes, more's the pity ;))
QuoteIf you are a family on about 80k a year . that budget is a bloodbath- . Interest relief reduced, child benefit cut, 4% extra tax.
Good! FFS a family on 80k a year can pay for their own Children!
Lads, how silly does the SSIA scheme look with hindsight.
It took government money out of the coffers, and helped fuel the asset bubble.
I am surprised that there hasn't been much mention of this over the past few months.
What sort of values would the government have "lost" on the SSIA scheme?
Quote from: Smokin Joe on April 08, 2009, 08:37:49 PM
Lads, how silly does the SSIA scheme look with hindsight.
It took government money out of the coffers, and helped fuel the asset bubble.
I am surprised that there hasn't been much mention of this over the past few months.
What sort of values would the government have "lost" on the SSIA scheme?
tiny in the overall scale of things Joe, I hardly even remember exactly what it was - basically a 20% giveaway on 20K max I think - 4K to each participant I think.
Quote from: muppet on April 08, 2009, 06:04:28 PM
Quote from: bingobus on April 08, 2009, 06:02:48 PM
Quote from: muppet on April 08, 2009, 05:43:21 PM
Quote from: bingobus on April 08, 2009, 05:35:07 PM
Quote from: muppet on April 08, 2009, 05:30:37 PM
Quote from: INDIANA on April 08, 2009, 05:23:13 PM
Common partice in my part of the woods. The level of payment into a pension fund can be restricted depending on level of salary and age of course but its still attractive.
Thank you.
Still not a source or link in sight. ::)
Muppet, you are living up to your name. ;) I'm an accountant/tax advisor in Monaghan with clients in many counties. Its pretty basic adavice and its no big deal, it would be of the first things we would talk to a self-employed director about.
It is by far and away the most tax efficient way to move surplus funds out of your company.
Bingobus this debate has been running for a while.
The gist of it is that Indiana claimed that high earners don't pay their fair share.
I pointed out that the top 6.5% of earners pay over 50% of all income tax. I provided evidence to prove this.
All you have done is shown how some people who own companies could reduce their tax bill. How many of these people do you think there are? It doesn't change the fact that the highest earning 6.5% pay over 50% of all income tax, therefore to suggest they don't pay their fair share is nothing more that the usual begrudgery.
I took it that his argument was that higher earners have more options in which to avoid tax..
In addition to the company paying a person for them, a director/self employed person could then pay a AVC based on his annual salary when filing his own personal tax return. This will further reduce his tax bill and will often give him a part refund of the PAYE he has paid or is due to pay.
When doing the annual incoem tax returns we would always calculate the savings that can be made by paying a AVC. Again basic stuff but is mainly only of benefit to higher earner (top tax rate) or people with funds to do it.
Does it change the fact that 6.5% of earners pay >50% of tax?
As you have conviently ignored the salient point again- that statistic doesn't include the tax break that has been described at length above. So that statistic in all essence is fundamentally flawed. Especially when someone can take a large tax free sum out of the above pension scheme tax free. You're only going to be able to avail of this if you have the disposable income to do so. ie 100k plus. Have you any idea how many small company directors are out there? Thousands. That is one basic tax planning issue that avoids paying income tax and it is only available to people with a fair bit of disposable income.
History shows that income tax revenues were stable at around 38pc of the total from the late 1980s until the property boom taxes reduced them to a low of 29pc of revenues by 2007. Now who do you think was availing of these tax reliefs. Joe Bloggs who works in Dunnes? That statistic above doesn't include those tax reliefs either.
Sorry I forgot- you're allegedly the only one with an education around here according to yourself. And you have the temerity to call me egotistical. Pot and kettle.
You started this by saying "The entire tax system needs to be reformed. The high earners still not getting hit."
You said "That is bullshit muppet. The statistics are there for public consumption- due to tax reliefs for high earners they are not paying there fair share of tax. That is a statistical fact."
Where are these statistics?
You said "Rarely have I heard such an uneducated comment" and "There is no point in me putting up the various tax relief schemes these people invest in because people wouldn't understand them."
You brought education or the lack thereof into the argument.
You said "If you want me to put up the mathematics on it- I will only be too glad to do so."
You have provided nothing but information on company owners.
Do you realise there are high earners who are not company owners?
You haven't provided a single link or document to support your claims.
It is a fact that the top 6.5% of earners pay 1/2 of all income tax regardless of your unsupported claim. The report I linked are the only facts produced by either of us. It details actual tax paid. Your schemes dont change that fact.
You said "Sorry I forgot- you're allegedly the only one with an education around here according to yourself."
Where did I say anything like that? I said there were educated people on this site. I didn't say I was one of them.
One simple example was given to you by 2 accountants as to how to be a high earner and avoid income tax and you've washed over it because its suits you. None of it is contained in that statistic.
I named several other reliefs earlier in the day which you again convieniently forgot but because you and your mates never heard of them. Extraordinary ignorance for alleged high earners. Even small accountancy practices would have experience of something like the BES Scheme. Again I'll state just look at the tax take over a 10 year period I've named and ask yourself how many earners in the 40-80k bracket put us in that pickle when tax revenues decreased by nearly 10%.
Some here have an education to match your ego
Some of us here were also educated funny enough.
Quote from: INDIANA on April 08, 2009, 11:30:12 PM
One simple example was given to you by 2 accountants as to how to be a high earner and avoid income tax and you've washed over it because its suits you. None of it is contained in that statistic.
Very few PAYE workers use accountants. You seem to think that company owners are the only earners over €100,000. They are not. It is ironic that you claim these company owners don't pay enough tax while you are the one showing them how not to pay it.
QuoteI named several other reliefs earlier in the day which you again convieniently forgot but because you and your mates never heard of them. Extraordinary ignorance for alleged high earners. Even small accountancy practices would have experience of something like the BES Scheme.
I said I know earners who earn over €100,000 who don't participate in schemes such as Stud Farming or Private Hospital building. Is that such a shock? You are an accountant and this is your area of expertise but you call anyone outside that as having extraordinary ignorance. Says a lot about you.
QuoteAgain I'll state just look at the tax take over a 10 year period I've named and ask yourself how many earners in the 40-80k bracket put us in that pickle when tax revenues decreased by nearly 10%.
This row was about your claim that high earners weren't hit enough. How many times do I have to state the following fact: 6.5% pay >50% of all income tax. That is a fact. I have provided a link to support it. If you and your buddies manage to show company owners (how many do you think there are) how to put some income into a pension so what? It doesn't change the fact that Revenue Commission yield >50% of income tax from high earners, does it? That is a long way from your original claim.
Quote
Some here have an education to match your ego
Some of us here were also educated funny enough.
They pay 50% of tax revenue that doesn't take into account tax reliefs like the aforementioned. And they pay 50% of a tax take that is 10% less than it used be 10 years ag0- and a 10% deficit that they are largely responsible for. Now if you can't see that -in your own words it says a lot about you because that statistic is an anachronism and the Government knows it. Then the stupid bastards get rid of the one tax relief like private hospitals which actually did the economy some good.
In my view people over 100k don't pay enough because I've seen first hand how they have been able to minimise their tax liabilities well beyond middle-income earners.
You're entitled to your views but they sound broadly similar to all the economists who have appeared out of the woodwork in the last 10 years.
Quote from: INDIANA on April 09, 2009, 12:25:53 AM
They pay 50% of tax revenue that doesn't take into account tax reliefs like the aforementioned. And they pay 50% of a tax take that is 10% less than it used be 10 years ag0- and a 10% deficit that they are largely responsible for. Now if you can't see that -in your own words it says a lot about you because that statistic is an anachronism and the Government knows it. Then the stupid b**tards get rid of the one tax relief like private hospitals which actually did the economy some good.
In my view people over 100k don't pay enough because I've seen first hand how they have been able to minimise their tax liabilities well beyond middle-income earners.
You're entitled to your views but they sound broadly similar to all the economists who have appeared out of the woodwork in the last 10 years.
I don't need an economist to form my opinion or me thank you.
I have no problem with scrapping of reliefs as I've said already here. In fact I have welcomed the reduction on interest relief investment property.
You still haven't supported your 'stastical facts' with any links. Prove your claim that the 50% tax take from the top 6.5% is 10% less than before.
Indiana - do you believe increasing tax rates will increase the tax take ?
My instinct is that the opposite happens - reducing corporation tax increased the amount of tax collected - same thing happened when CGT got reduced.
On the otherhand increasing VAT may have cost money by shoppers moving North.
Quote from: INDIANA on April 09, 2009, 12:25:53 AMIn my view people over 100k don't pay enough because I've seen first hand how they have been able to minimise their tax liabilities well beyond middle-income earners.
Do Paye workers earning over 100k pay their fair share then?
If we're talking about company owners surely they'll manipulate their income to suit the prevailing tax rate anyway, so if the reliefs weren't there, they just take less salary?