The Budget

[Bogball XV]

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.

[INDIANA]

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.

[muppet]

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.

[INDIANA]

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.

[muppet]

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.

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.

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.

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%.

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.

Some here have an education to match your ego
Some of us here were also educated funny enough.

[INDIANA]

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.

[muppet]

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.

[bcarrier]

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.

[Bogball XV]

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.

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?