Yes, they have a less progressive taxation system where low and middle earners are taxed far more heavily.It might. And note that for the majority of Swedish taxpayers the combined marginal rate of income tax and social security tax is just under 64%, so clearly this model is compatible with very high marginal rates of tax.
Should they be efficient?There's probably none with anything approaching an efficient one.
I'd also reduce FIS and other welfare rates. Nobody of working age should be better off (or as well off) not working.
Yes.Should they be efficient?
All of them.What working-age welfare rates would you reduce?
Social insurance rates or social assistance rates?
Social insurance
JSB
Illness Benefit
Maternity/paternity benefit
Carers benefit
Invalidy pension
Social assistance (means-tested)
JSA
DA
One Parent Family payment
Carers Allowance
It’s more subtle than that.We are massively generous on pensions.
Been quoted a price then when trying to pay of been given a 23% higher price if I don't pay cashmost of us at some stage have been quoted a price and then a price in cash by tradesmen/mechanics etc.
I'd have a sliding scale for long term social insurance, tying the starting rate to your income prior to unemployment and reducing it to a means tested benefit after 3 years. Means testing would involve selling off your assets to support yourself prior to receiving additional payments.
How many people are denied it based on their means?After that, the claimant may apply for means-tested JSA
Also, Illness Benefits lasts for a max two years.
Less progressive?I wouldn’t adjust the pension tax regime. I would make the personal tax system more progressive.
That's odd, the VAT on most tradesmen's services is 13.5%.Been quoted a price then when trying to pay of been given a 23% higher price if I don't pay cash
For some services, true efficiency would be not to have them.
You've caught me forgetting the details there. Got quoted a price for a new kitchen in the showroom. Went ahead with it. When they were finishing up, I get a call at work from my wife who was at home on maternity leave saying the foreman is telling her the price quoted is the cash price and she needs to go to the bank to avoid paying more for VAT.That's odd, the VAT on most tradesmen's services is 13.5%.
Might have been a doctor, accountant or lawyer.That's odd, the VAT on most tradesmen's services is 13.5%.
The doc should be zero but "thirty three and a third" would be a nice easily-calculated add-on for the deserving accountant.Might have been a doctor, accountant or lawyer
You are just looking at the earnings figures before welfare transfers and concluding that welfare payments level the playing field, full stop no need to look any further. However you have completely ignored my main arguments ,the disincentives to work by all these government interventions. If so many people are disincentivised to work or work alot less by our welfare and taxation system the productivity of the domestic economy goes down and the prices of everything goes up. This is borne out by what is happening on the ground. Now the cso might produce statistics about the high "productivity " of Irish work force but again that figure is grossly distorted by the multinational transfers to Ireland from rest of world. In effect Ireland gets the benefit for alot of tye productivity of the global multinationalsThe problem with this theory is that the distribution of household income in Ireland, after tax and transfer payments, is about average for Europe.
Yes, we have a more-than-averagely progressive tax system. But we also have a more-than-averagely skewed wage structure — i.e. a greater gap bewteen the top and bottom earners, before tax and transfer payments, than is normal. The one offsets the other, and the combined effect of the two is that the distribution of household disposable income in Ireland is close to the European average.
If the 53k properties were available in the private market it would reduce the impact on rents remember supply v demand in economics. They are not because they are fulfilling a social service ie housing those who can't house themselves.HAP may or may not be distorting the market, but it certainly isn't true that "those who house themselves via renting is as a result of State in action". There may be 53k rental units in respect of which HAP is paid, but that's only about 10% of all rental units and the occupants of the other 90% do not benefit from that. Indeed, if HAP is distorting the market they suffer from that. Renters, as a class, are not advantged by HAP.
I'm also amused by the characterisation of homebuyers as "sacrificing" themselves. They are buying assets that will make them much better off. How is paying for those assets a "sacrifice"? It would be a sacrifice if they were spending their money to provide assets for other people; spending their money to provide assets for themselves is in no sense a sacrifice.
We are massively generous on pensions. This is unarguable. It may be that this has the effect of "defusing the pensions time bomb", but all this really means is that pensions are signficantly funded by income tax payers (via the enormously valuable income tax reliefs given to pension funds) rather than by social insurance payers (via a higher social welfare pension). These are, of course, largely the same group of people.
If so many people are disincentivised to work or work alot less by our welfare and taxation system the productivity of the domestic economy goes down and the prices of everything goes up. This is borne out by what is happening on the ground.
Now the cso might produce statistics about the high "productivity " of Irish work force but again that figure is grossly distorted by the multinational transfers to Ireland from rest of world. In effect Ireland gets the benefit for alot of tye productivity of the global multinationals
Those who avail of the "generous tax breaks" will end up paying it back via higher income tax when drawing down their pension by ending up in the higher tax bracket.
Pensions are generous tax break and they benefit more higher income tax payers. It is much easier to be able to contribute to a pension when your basic needs are covered with a substantial income. As a couple, while our income are higher than they use to be, we pay less tax than we were before because we don't "need" in the short-term the additional income to finance our daily life.Those who avail of the "generous tax breaks" will end up paying it back via higher income tax when drawing down their pension by ending up in the higher tax bracket.
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?