How much do people aged 66 or over pay in income tax?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I am not advocating any cuts to the State Pension, or med cards, or travel passes, or the HBP.

I am just asking that people 65+ with incomes like 500-1000+ per week be asked to pay a bit more income tax, to help pay for these benefits.

Paying less than 10% income taxes on 900 per week is not affordable, and not sensible.

My parents can't believe how generous the country is.

And all the time we borrow billions.

My unemployed relations, with no or very little income, pay full (or nearly full) fares on the buses, as they retrain.

My parents pay zero.
 
Quote {so much social benefits} .

I just cannot see the most of them receiving inordinate social benefits;
It was they who laid the foundations we now have.
I do think it was they; ie anyone over 55 who went on a borrowing binge in early 2000,s.
It was the 25 to 45 year olds who got suckerred into debt.
It was the 25 to 45 year olds who (knew) better.
Sadly that group are paying dearly.
 
Some calculations on tax payable for various situations with no variables. All 36000k income

Married ,1 earning, age 60: Tax 2250; PRSI 1440: USC 1839 Weekly net 586

Married, 2 earning, age 60: Tax 600; PRSI 1040; USC 1139 Weekly net 639

Married, 2 pension, age 66: Tax 0 Prsi. 0. USC 1839 Weekly net 657

Single 1 pension age 66 Tax 5977 Prsi 0 USC 1839 Weekly net 542

Widowed 1 pension age 66 Tax 5437 Prsi 0 USC 1839 Weekly net 552

Calculated on Deloitte calculated. The unmarried 66+ pensioned pay most tax , the married 66+ on pension pay nil . The married , both working, is based on 26000 +10000 hence the lower USC.

In light of the comments on this thread I thought it was revealing, taking the base figure of 36000 with no other considerations of child benefits, investments, interest etc.
 
Protocol said:
I would love to be able to afford this, but we can't.

Yes, they did pay 12-15% interest rates during hard times in 1980-1990, that's true.

But with still massive fiscal deficit of 5bn+, we can't afford to charge really, really low taxes on people aged 65+ earning 40-50k+, while at the same time giving them so much social benefits.
Click to expand...

it isn't only the over 70s who paid high interest rates - we're only in late 40s and paid mortgage interest rates of 15% in early 1990s. currently paying more than average industrial wage in payroll taxes plus have to bear full cost of kids in school and college with no medical cards, etc. meanwhile. my parents and their friends really do have a high life between very good pensions and all the allowances/extras. they'd grumble a bit if some of the allowances were taken off them, but no where near struggle like we do to balance everything
 
I am amazed at the begrudgery in some of the posts.

Do some of the posters think that if the 66+s were taxed by another 5_10%, that their own lot would be improved?

Each generation pays its taxes - -rather heavily for many years. Pensioners paid tax on income from employment and most pay tax again on pension.

I don't know if there is data available on taxes contributed by pensioners ? Perhaps with the more integrated systems currently on stream this could be extrapolated
 
110 Quests agreed!

These were the rates of income tax on taxable income in 1972/73, the year I started working:

First 2,500 @ 35%
Next 2,000 @ 50%
Next 2,000 @ 65%
Balance @ 80%

Married couples shared these rate bands, i.e., there were no double rate bands.

There were no exemptions for people on low income.

We also paid a stamp, the forerunner of PRSI.

Personal tax reliefs were paltry.

Mortgage interest rates were something like 16% and you could not obtain a mortgage unless you already had a sizeable deposit.

Homeowners also paid rates.

Young people then as now had to find work and support themselves and their families.


No one nowadays is required to pay such taxation or mortgage interest rates.


This is not the first time that Ireland has been in recession.

This is not the first recession where the private sector has turned on the public sector.

However, this is the first recession that I can remember where younger people have turned on older folk who didn’t have it so good.

This may be a flippant and disgraceful first, which may set a precedent for future generations.
 
I don't think that I am "turning on older folk".

I am simply asking that the fiscal adjustment be spread evenly across the population, that's all.

State Pension = no cuts

Child Benefit = three cuts

That is a simple fact.

Note, I am NOT calling for a cut to State Pension, or med cards, or the HBP.

I am saying that 8% income tax on 900 pw / 3900 pm / 47k pa is too low.

That's all.

I ask a simple question:

Is it fair that people over 65, in receipt of med cards, travel passes, and HBP, pay under 10% tax on incomes of 40-45k?

Please answer that question.

Bear in mind that all other welfare payments have been cut twice, and that Child Benefit has been cut three times.
 
thesimpsons said:
it isn't only the over 70s who paid high interest rates - we're only in late 40s and paid mortgage interest rates of 15% in early 1990s. currently paying more than average industrial wage in payroll taxes plus have to bear full cost of kids in school and college with no medical cards, etc. meanwhile. my parents and their friends really do have a high life between very good pensions and all the allowances/extras. they'd grumble a bit if some of the allowances were taken off them, but no where near struggle like we do to balance everything
Click to expand...

Exactly.

My parents openly admit that they've never had it so good.

They suggest that they should pay something for public transport.

They don't really know how much tax they pay, but I remind them of sub-10% on 40-45k income.
 
Sophrosyne said:
110 Quests agreed!

However, this is the first recession that I can remember where younger people have turned on older folk who didn’t have it so good.

This may be a flippant and disgraceful first, which may set a precedent for future generations.
Click to expand...

I'm not turning on anyone.

I am simply pointing out that public policy over the past six years has favoured one group over another.

This is backed up by tons of data.

I am asking that the fiscal pain be spread more evenly.
 
You are taking a position from the now and deliberately ignoring what what obtained before.

Explain "tons of data"
 
Last edited:
Sophrosyne said:
You are taking a position from the now and deliberating ignoring what what obtained before.
Click to expand...

I accept that people paid 35-65% marginal tax rates in the past.

In return for their sacrifices then, I would love to be able to protect them from the fiscal adjustment / pain ongoing during recent years.

But we can't afford it. Our fiscal deficits are huge:

2012 = 13,444m or 13.4bn
2013 = 11,778m or 11.8bn
2014 = est 7bn
 
Just so I understand the scenario here, is income from a personal pension for 65+ recipients taxed differently from income earned (for those not yet retired)? If say a 66 year old is still working and earning a wage, are they only paying 8% income tax on the salary?
 
Over 65s pay less income taxes in several ways:

(1) the income tax exemption of 18k single / 36k married.

This exemption only applies to those over 65.


(2) the Age tax credit for people aged 65+ of 245 single / 490 married

(3) exempt from 41% DIRT on deposit interest if income less than 18k single / 36k married

(4) lower USC rates
 
This is just another example of the transfer of wealth and debt between the older cohort and the younger and middle aged.

Those in their 50's with small mortgages or none made out like bandits in the boom and are now getting a double benefit whilst the rest of us get a double disbenefit.
 
There are few enough pensoners getting above 30,000 a year.


From the (little) I know, 50% of the retired couples have no pension provision other than Contributory/non-contributory old age pension.
Means 50 % of them have circa 400 per week.
I do not in any way consider what this 50% get as unreasonable.
They may get TV etc but that adds little enough.

For those who have managed to have private pension, it is estimated that average pot they have is circa 200,000.
Today that 200,000 will buy pension of 10,000 a year BUT if index linked that drops to 5,000.
Means (sensible) average couple who worked 40 years end up @ under 30,000 per annum.

I would very much agree that any couple on pension(s) k50+ could pay more, indeed i would think that they may have (used) system over the years to shelter income tax.

To threads; I do take on board that comments are not pensioner bashing but it comes accross that way. It is hard to be fair?
 
Ceist Beag said:
Just so I understand the scenario here, is income from a personal pension for 65+ recipients taxed differently from income earned (for those not yet retired)? If say a 66 year old is still working and earning a wage, are they only paying 8% income tax on the salary?
Click to expand...

That 8% is specific to my parents situation, but yes, over 65+ workers will pay less tax, yes.
 
Bear in mind that all other welfare payments have been cut twice, and that Child Benefit has been cut three times.
Click to expand...
Sorry but this is where any argument is flawed. Just because something is cut a few times more than others doesn't make it non-equitable. Ask yourself, why were they cut ? This is like the old public service argument. It's nothing to do with lowering handouts, it's the fact that they were raised so high in the first place.
 
Protocol said:
That 8% is specific to my parents situation, but yes, over 65+ workers will pay less tax, yes.
Click to expand...

Sorry that's not the question I asked Protocol. To clarify:

Retired 66 year old has an annual income of 36K from their personal pension - what rate of income tax do they pay?
Employed 66 year old has an annual income of 36K from their salary - what rate of income tax do they pay?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top