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.
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?
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.
The reason I ask Protocol (and I might be wrong on this) is that I very much doubt anyone retired who is in receipt of their personal pension sees that as income in the same sense as someone who is in receipt of a salary. This would be savings they have worked hard for all their life and are now in a position to enjoy. I really wouldn't be in favour of increasing the tax take on anyones pensionable income (although I might have to make an exception for politicians!) so for me I would be against any proposals to increase the rates on this income and therefore to me it does differ depending on the source of the income. I realise the threshold for these rates means someone would have a very decent pension built but the principle remains the same to me.
Single 1 pension age 66 Tax 5977 Prsi 0 USC 1839 Weekly net 542
.......
Single : earning age 60, Tax 4572, Prsi 1440 USC 1839 Weekly net 541.
Is there an error here? I reckon single age 60 should be paying more tax than single age 66?
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?