Re: self employed when I dodged the taxman
Remember this discussion is about whether the govt should borrow more to fund increased capital expenditure, and I can't see what your (frankly, at this stage, tiresomely repetitive) tirades about BNR's, Ansbacher etc have to do with this question.
Indeed it
is about whether the Government should borrow to fund increased capital expenditure. And a very reasonable question to pose, too. darag broadened out the discussion by pointing out that if benchmarking was not paid, the Government could use that money instead to finance the capital expenditure programme. Quite relevant to the original question posed by garrettod, would you not agree? darag also brought the alleged "greed" of public servants (for looking for their benchmarking) into the debate.
I replied to this by pointing out that if one is seeking greed, it is exemplified more by the recently uncovered tax defaulters (is criminal too strong a word for you or what?) than by a public service pay claim. The former being illegal, criminal acts to enrich individuals; the latter the perfectly legal, legitimate pursuit of a sectional interest through a democratic process. I also pointed out the
extent of the tax evasion and noted that had it not occurred, that money might also have been used to fund our capital expenditure programme, at a time when it was particularly badly needed.
In summary, the argument went (paraphrazing somewhat!)
garrettod: should be borrow for capex?
darag: we wouldnt have to if we cancelled benchmarking and public servant are greedy for demanding it
observer: we wouldnt have to if tax evasion had not been so rampant and those guilty of it are the
real greedy ones in our society, nor public servants.
That, Tommy is what "
BNR's, Ansbacher etc have to do with this question"
And, yes of course, I know that many taxpayers have both PAYE and non-PAYE income; and that a lot of the reported PAYE tax figures are actually that of proprietory directors. I am using "
the PAYE sector" as a convenient shorthand for that sector who derive the vast bulk of their income from employment by other persons or non-owned companies. By "
self-employed", I mean those who run their own businesses or live on investment income, even though they might well technically come within the ambit of PAYE. I think most people instinctively understand this terminology and the distinction therein. As for your posited evader of tens/hundreds of thousands of euro being a public servant on the side, well, yes, perhaps the odd one was. But it sure as hell wasn't the public sector portion of income that was under-reported! It hardly makes a dent in my point that
"self-employed" income was under-reported; "
PAYE income" by and large was not. This was my major point and I believe it is relevant to the debate as I have argued above.
Now to more serious matters: You, a moderator, have accused me of issuing
tiresomely repetitive) tirades
on this topic.
May I respectfully point out:
1) it is many months since I posted on this topic
2) your comments are not in keeping with the spirit of this board, where one is encouraged to attack the views and not the contributors.
3) feel free to disagree with my opinions and refute them as best you can, but really, is "tiresome", "repetitive" and "tirade" the best you can come up with?
4) my argument is relevant to the topic as posed by garrettod and developed by darag and yourself.
All in all, I believe your response is unworthy of a respected contributor, yet alone a moderator of this board. I am second to none in my admiration of your contribution to this board and I have previously acknowledged the merit of your professional advice, freely given to many. However, whenever I raise the tax evasion topic, it seems to trigger some very strange responses from you. Even when I posted in the speeding and penalty points thread, you managed to have a go there regarding my views on tax evasion.
Ultimately, my views on tax evasion are fairly simple:
A) there was massive, widespread, institutionalised tax evasion throughout the 80's and well into the 90's
B) I am unconvinced that this is now totally behind us
C) The vast, vast bulk of the income on which tax was evaded was self-employed income
D) This represents a massive injustice to those who did not/do notevade tax and
is a very serious crime
E) the high return, even still, from Revenue Audits indicates that considerable extra resources should go into tax enforcement and audits
F) criminal prosecutions should almost always be brought for proven or admitted tax evasion
G) Tax evasion being a crime, the Criminal Assets Bureau should be used to combat it.
And finally (and belatedly!) to darags substantive point. A choice is proposed between benchmarking (benefitting some) and increased capex (benefitting all)
I believe this is a misguided approach. Firstly benchmarking is an award already delayed. It was:
- agreed to be done in 2000
- researched in 2001
- published in 2002
- paid over 2003, 2004 and 2005 (minor backdating to late 2001)
and designed merely to bring public servants in line with comparable employment elsewhere.
Effectively the real choice is between funding capex via borrowing (burden paid for by everyone) or renaging on benchmarking (burden exclusively borne by the public sector)
Which is fairer?