So how come the tax base keeps getting narrowed and the burden keeps being placed more and more on high earners, more than any other country in the developed world?i doubt its a political phrase , something only earns a political term if it holds value , the squeezed middle are constantly ignored , the very well off always have the ear of goverment and the so called disadvantaged have armies of QUANGO,s , the media is also concerned with the so called disadvantaged as human interest and hard luck stories make better copy than a hum drum middle class couple who leave their house in the suburbs each morning to go to work , , both the quangocrats and media see the squeezed middle as a cow to be milked in order to fund various projects
the hated middle class etc
So how come the tax base keeps getting narrowed and the burden keeps being placed more and more on high earners, more than any other country in the developed world?
If we are quoting definitions, I find this line from Wikipedia quite close to what I thing you really believe, i.e. that it's a pity we don't live in a communist country:
The term "utopian socialism" was introduced by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in The Communist Manifesto in 1848
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utopian_socialism
A single person earning 100k (which is good going to be fair, but takes a lot of work to get there) will pay almost exactly 40k a year in tax. 40 grand in tax!!!
33.8k @ 20% = 6,760 !!!How much tax is paid at the 20% rate?
Very clever, I see what you are doing! Rather than it being a pity we don't have a communist utopia (which I (and I suspect others) would think to be utopic for believers in communism), you are now saying it's a pity we don't have utopia achieved by either communism or capitalism.
So how come the tax base keeps getting narrowed and the burden keeps being placed more and more on high earners, more than any other country in the developed world?
33.8k @ 20% = 6,760 !!!
No. Because of the way Revenue operates spreading across the year, when the person on 150K has earned 33.8K cumulatively in a year, they will have paid more tax than a person on 33.8K will pay in the full year.So would I be right in saying that someone on €33,800pa pays the same amount of tax as someone on say, €150,000pa, pays on the first €33,800 of their income?
So would I be right in saying that someone on €33,800pa pays the same amount of tax as someone on say, €150,000pa, pays on the first €33,800 of their income?
Thats waaaayyyyy!!! over my head, I just want people to be happy!
Thats waaaayyyyy!!! over my head, I just want people to be happy!
No. Because of the way Revenue operates spreading across the year, when the person on 150K has earned 33.8K cumulatively in a year, they will have paid more tax than a person on 33.8K will pay in the full year.
To make the calculations easier, look at someone on 6 times 33,800 = 202,800. By the end of February, they will have earned 33,600 and paid 15,490 in tax (46% of their salary). The person on 33,800 will pay 5,905 tax in the whole year (18% of their salary).
Both will pay €6,760 in tax at the 20% rate on the first 33,800 they earn. It's after 33,800 that the higher earner gets walloped... 26,480 at the higher rate, 4 grand in PRSI and wait for it.....just over 5 grand in USC!
What's your point?But the lower doesn't get walloped, because he doesnt earn that income.
So the question is, which would you prefer, an income of €33,800 and not get walloped or €33,800+any amount thereafter, but have to pay a higher tax?
What's your point?
Should people who are good at their job and work hard be grateful that the state takes half of what they earn because hey, if they hadn't bothered their This post will be deleted if not edited to remove bad language working hard and acquiring those skills, often at great personal expense and personal sacrifice, they wouldn't earn as much?!
Sure be grateful you have have it to have it taken from you. Is that it?
Nonsense, we are one of the few countries in the world where the effective tax rate for top companies is close to the nominal tax rate. Should we do what France does and have a nominal rate of 33.3% but an effective rate of 7.4%? Or Belgium with a nominal rate of 34% but an effective rate of just 6.5%? Maybe with a nominal rate of 12.5% and an effective rate of around 12% we are the only honest one in the room.I asked a question. The question was which would you prefer?
I dont disagree that taxes are too high on income, I pay them myself. I just disagree with the notion being peddled here on this site, in not one, but at least two threads now, that lower income earners need to start paying more tax in order to facilitate a tax reduction for higher earners.
So which would you prefer?
I think corporation tax is the elephant in the room, that needs to be tackled. We have been peddled the 12.5% rate for years, but the effective rate is somewhere between 0.05% and 4%.
Yet, in a site that is apparently about money, this gets very little attention.
Nonsense, we are one of the few countries in the world where the effective tax rate for top companies is close to the nominal tax rate. Should we do what France does and have a nominal rate of 33.3% but an effective rate of 7.4%? Or Belgium with a nominal rate of 34% but an effective rate of just 6.5%? Maybe with a nominal rate of 12.5% and an effective rate of around 12% we are the only honest one in the room.
Lower income earners should pay more tax because it's the right thing to do.
Personally I would not reduce any taxes and I'd cut spending by a small amount in order to reduce debt, build up reserves and stop the economy over heating. I realise that there is a political imperative to appease the economically illiterate squeezed and most vulnerable masses and to keep the populists FF and the loony left out of power as they will be far worse than what we have now.