How about a Christmas Bonus for taxpayers?

[Baby boomer]

Well, why not? Almost every year, we are treated to the "good news story" of the Christmas Bonus for long term social welfare recipients. And it has already been pre-announced that this year it will be extended to hundreds of thousands of short term recipients too. In the middle of a pandemic with public finances under unprecedented pressure!

Of course, the much used and abused taxpayer will be called upon to manfully shoulder the burden of paying for this largesse. Again. While also suffering the sneaky stealth increase of a failure to index bands and limits. Again.

So this Christmas Bonus is actually an increase in the net transfer payment from taxpayers to welfare recipients. Perhaps in exceptionally good times this could be justified, but now? Seriously?

So, a modest proposal. Pay a "Christmas Bonus" to taxpayers too. How? Simply award an extra months tax credit and tax band to all taxpayers. This can be done electronically by employers in the December or November payroll. For the self employed, they can make the appropriate amendment to their pay and file return in November/December.

This should be a permanent feature of the tax and benefit system. If the public finances are going well in a particular year, we all get something. If not, we don't. This would be a more healthy and mature approach than the handout mentality engendered by the current "bonus" given exclusively to long-term welfare recipients.

 

[Purple]

Governments get elected by bribing people with their own money. No matter how you skin it the State need to get the money it spends.

Your proposal though is far better than things like child benefit payments; the State takes some of your money then gives it back to you less their administration fee. At least your proposal involved them not talking your money in the first place.

 

[Baby boomer]

Governments get elected by bribing people with their own money. No matter how you spam it the State need to get the money it spends.

That's exactly the problem! The nature of government, and particularly Irish governments, is that they first decide on a spending plan and then extract the tax required. This is easily done as the government has essentially got unlimited powers to levy taxes. The default mindset is that tax money must be spent and there's no real thought given to returning unneeded funds to taxpayers. How much better would things be if government just had to make do with taxes on hand AND return any surplus to taxpayers as a Christmas Bonus at the end of the year? We would avoid the inevitable overhead that goes with government spending our money, not the mention the huge waste and inefficiency.

 

[Purple]

That's exactly the problem! The nature of government, and particularly Irish governments, is that they first decide on a spending plan and then extract the tax required. This is easily done as the government has essentially got unlimited powers to levy taxes. The default mindset is that tax money must be spent and there's no real thought given to returning unneeded funds to taxpayers. How much better would things be if government just had to make do with taxes on hand AND return any surplus to taxpayers as a Christmas Bonus at the end of the year? We would avoid the inevitable overhead that goes with government spending our money, not the mention the huge waste and inefficiency.

That would require a public discourse that demands efficiency and accountability and the systems to provide for it. That is absent everywhere in the State sector and nearly everywhere in large private sector organisations. I don't think we are particularly worse than many other countries, with the notable exception of our health service which is rotten and bloated from top to bottom.

 

[Laszlo1979]

Well, why not? Almost every year, we are treated to the "good news story" of the Christmas Bonus for long term social welfare recipients. And it has already been pre-announced that this year it will be extended to hundreds of thousands of short term recipients too. In the middle of a pandemic with public finances under unprecedented pressure!

Of course, the much used and abused taxpayer will be called upon to manfully shoulder the burden of paying for this largesse. Again. While also suffering the sneaky stealth increase of a failure to index bands and limits. Again.

So this Christmas Bonus is actually an increase in the net transfer payment from taxpayers to welfare recipients. Perhaps in exceptionally good times this could be justified, but now? Seriously?

So, a modest proposal. Pay a "Christmas Bonus" to taxpayers too. How? Simply award an extra months tax credit and tax band to all taxpayers. This can be done electronically by employers in the December or November payroll. For the self employed, they can make the appropriate amendment to their pay and file return in November/December.

This should be a permanent feature of the tax and benefit system. If the public finances are going well in a particular year, we all get something. If not, we don't. This would be a more healthy and mature approach than the handout mentality engendered by the current "bonus" given exclusively to long-term welfare recipients.

I am so happy that someone had this question, as I started to think it’s only in my mind. I don’t want to sound greedy, and I’m very happy that I actually have a job, I can’t help but thinking that the government being extremely generous with the money we all paying in. People need help, it is true. But frustrating that after months of news of 350 pw payments they will receive extra and we won’t. And before I am being schooled about how people getting less than what they have earned before, a lot getting more. Let alone the university students Covid bonus, that sounds a bit overboard for me. It is just a bit of a moaning, as I still prefer my circumstances, but certainly something one might think as a slightly unfair distribution.

 

[ArthurMcB]

Here here laszlo, spot on.

The working man pays to the hilt and get nothin much back.

 

[Deiseblue]

I’m a taxpayer and I’m getting the Christmas bonus - OAP contributory allied to my occupational pension like many others and presumably those in receipt of PUP bonus payments would have paid tax during the calendar year to date.

 

[MrEarl]

While it may not happen here, I've little doubt that this suggestion would draw endless abuse, if posted on Boards etc.

I think it's a great idea btw and would be entirely in favour of it - if only to acknowledge the heavier tax burden that those who are still working, will have to carry, for the years to come...

 

[FANTANA]

I dunno, I’ll get a bonus from work in January and half will go to tax. I’m okay with this, part of living in Ireland. If the worst thing to happen to me in a 100 year pandemic is a few lockdowns and some worse off people than me get a small Christmas bonus then I’m pretty blessed and who am I to begrudge.

 

[SparkRite]

Great positive outlook to have @FANTANA .
I'm not being sarcastic (for a change), I mean it.

 

[MrEarl]

I dunno, I’ll get a bonus from work in January and half will go to tax. I’m okay with this, part of living in Ireland. If the worst thing to happen to me in a 100 year pandemic is a few lockdowns and some worse off people than me get a small Christmas bonus then I’m pretty blessed and who am I to begrudge.

Nice sentiment, but perhaps some people won't be getting a bonus

 

[Paul O Mahoney]

I'd take a reduction in USC for a month in December it's going to be spent anyway on stuff attracting 21% vat.
Remember the good old days when there was a limit on PRSI.....

 

[Purple]

Here here laszlo, spot on.

The working man pays to the hilt and get nothin much back.

Yea, the thing is that most working people are net recipients from the State. Only the top 30% of earners are net contributors. If you have a load of kids then you have to be well into the top 10% before you are a net contributor. We all like to think that we are paying lots of tax and getting nothing much back but the reality is we have a very narrow tax base with high marginal tax rates and the so called squeezed middle may well be squeezed but they are paying low rates of tax and getting more back than they put in.
I'm not saying it should be any different, I'm just pointing out the fact that middle income families pay very low rates of direct and indirect taxes and consume high levels of public services.

 

[ArthurMcB]

Cant be right purple...if you oaying a fortune in tax...and getting next to nout back how are you a net gainer? Makes no sense. What big tax money are you getting from the gove?

 

[Pinoy adventure]

Where do I sign up ?
I'd love a bonus

 

[ArthurMcB]

Im all for more money for the workin man, less money for the unworking man

 

[Purple]

Cant be right purple...if you oaying a fortune in tax...and getting next to nout back how are you a net gainer? Makes no sense. What big tax money are you getting from the gove?

They are providing schooling for my four children. They provide roads and police and when I flush the toilet my poo goes away. They provide a healthcare system and when it gets dark the streetlights come on. Though I'm not a middle income earners so I'm not part of the squeezed middle.

If we take it that the squeezed middle is households earning say €70k-€120k a year they are paying somewhere between €14k and €42k a year in tax. The real cost to the State of putting a child through school is around €8k a year so if you have 3 kids that's €24k of your taxes gone before you take anything else into account. Children's allowance gives you another €1680 per child (€5040 for the family with 3 kids). There's no way a family like that with a household income of €100k a year are net contributors.

 

[ArthurMcB]

But doesnt the above apply to everyone? Theyre givens.
My point is that if 70% or so are net recipients then the bottom 40% or so of that must be massive net recipients if theyre paying little or no tax.

 

[Purple]

But doesnt the above apply to everyone? Theyre givens.

Sure, but the "I pay lots of tax and get nothing back" line is just not true. Most people get back more than they put in. I'm happy with that arrangement, taxes are the price of civilisation.

My point is that if 70% or so are net recipients then the bottom 40% or so of that must be massive net recipients if theyre paying little or no tax.

Yes, they get even more back but they pay VAT and duties so everyone pays some taxes.

Single people on high incomes, now they do pay in far more than they get back.

 

[Itchy]

I am so happy that someone had this question, as I started to think it’s only in my mind. I don’t want to sound greedy, and I’m very happy that I actually have a job, I can’t help but thinking that the government being extremely generous with the money we all paying in. People need help, it is true. But frustrating that after months of news of 350 pw payments they will receive extra and we won’t. And before I am being schooled about how people getting less than what they have earned before, a lot getting more. Let alone the university students Covid bonus, that sounds a bit overboard for me. It is just a bit of a moaning, as I still prefer my circumstances, but certainly something one might think as a slightly unfair distribution.

The working man pays to the hilt and get nothin much back.

Cant be right purple...if you oaying a fortune in tax...and getting next to nout back how are you a net gainer? Makes no sense. What big tax money are you getting from the gove?

But doesnt the above apply to everyone? Theyre givens.
My point is that if 70% or so are net recipients then the bottom 40% or so of that must be massive net recipients if theyre paying little or no tax.

These posts are a real demonstration of the lack of understanding of relative v. absolute wealth. Its more important to make more than other people rather than to make more. Were taking about an extra payment to those without an income rather than examining the impact, say a property/wealth tax, would have for "the working man". There is misconception that middle/lower income people would benefit from a tax cut where they can see money in the pocket. Where for example they would more than likely benefit/get more value from an improved state service.

But what's the point of a better service when you "get nothin much back" anyway?