Indo - "Almost one in four Irish earners is paying no income tax, says Revenue"

TomEdison said:
But we're getting distracted from the point of the thread which, remember, is that nearly one in four or, depending on which IT staffer you believe, nearly four in ten earners pays no income tax. A reduction in expenditure won't change this at all; they'd still be paying no income tax.

If you want to collect more revenue from this group you have to (a) raise income tax for this group, or (b) raise other taxes that this group already pays, or (c) both. There's no effective method of addressing this issue that doesn't involve tax increases.
Click to expand...
If you want to broaden the tax base then same should be done across the board and not just taxing those who already pay most of the taxes because of economic activity (ie income tax).

Remember the water charges? this was supposed to extend the tax base and we all know how that worked out. Its always easier to take tax before people get to choose if they are liable to it.

What about car tax? again its easy to say charge a set fee in car tax irrespective of usage a fairer way would be to include it in the fuel you use, the more you use the more you pay.

If we did not waste State expenditure we could extend the tax base in a fairer way. But as ever its easy to actually target those who are actually trying to provide for themselves be it earning higher wages, housing themselves, investing for their futures in terms of pension provision etc.

The State (namely the Govt) look for the easy options.
 
The Horseman said:
If we did not waste State expenditure we could extend the tax base in a fairer way.
Click to expand...
On a nitpick, the fairness of revenue collection and the efficiency of public expenditure are independent of one another. It's perfectly possible to collect tax is a scrupulously fair way and then waste the resulting revenue, or to have monstrously inefficient tax collection systems and highly efficient public expenditure.

The Horseman said:
But as ever its easy to actually target those who are actually trying to provide for themselves be it earning higher wages, housing themselves, investing for their futures in terms of pension provision etc.
Click to expand...
We're quite generous to people who house themselves, in the form of an enormously valuable CGT exemption for the principal private residence. We're less generous to people who house themselves by paying rent.

And we're conspicuously generous to those who put money into pensions; our tax treatment of this is among the most attractive in the world.

The Horseman said:
The State (namely the Govt) look for the easy options.
Click to expand...
Most states do; why wouldn't they? And, if your concern is with efficiency, that's a good thing; going for the easiest option is usually the most efficient way of collecting revenue (or, indeed, doing anything else).
 
When I started working summers at 14 I started paying PRSI straight away and then, before the end of the summer, I was paying income tax. That was before the minimum wage was a thing and before the Nanny State nonsense that is the working time act restricted how many hours a person could work so I was working 60 hours a week. It was great; I worked 10 weeks and I had money for the whole year.

I didn't feel hard done by because I paid a little tax. I did start to think about State expenditure as my money being spent. Paying income tax kind of gave me a stake in the game.

We have a chronic shortage of nurses and SNA's and plenty of other sectors face the same problem... and yet we have an abundance of trained SNA's and Nurses. They problem is that so many of them don't work fulltime. And they'd be mad to do so. If anyone thinks there isn't a link between the extremely progressive nature of our income tax system, combined with the high cost of childcare, and the massive under employment of skilled women in the workforce them they are delusional.

We need to reduce taxes on work (the creation of wealth) and increase taxes on retained wealth. We should also reduce government spending but that's a different (but related) issue.
 
TomEdison said:
If you want to collect more revenue from this group you have to (a) raise income tax for this group, or (b) raise other taxes that this group already pays, or (c) both.
Click to expand...
Or (d) stop governments spending like drunken sailors, and the concomitant waste that this inevitably entails.
 
TomEdison said:
If you want to collect more revenue from this group you have to (a) raise income tax for this group, or (b) raise other taxes that this group already pays, or (c) both. There's no effective method of addressing this issue that doesn't involve tax increases.
Click to expand...
T McGibney said:
Or (d) stop governments spending like drunken sailors, and the concomitant waste that this inevitably entails.
Click to expand...
Option (d) doesn't result in even one extra cent of revenue being collected from this group.
 
Purple said:
And the inflation of those assets, as well as their pension, due to QE after the financial crash.
Click to expand...
Indeed. Whether it's due to QE or not, it remains true that, the faster property prices and asset values generally grow, the more valuable the CGT exemption for the PPR, and the tax deferrals for pension funds, become.
 
Last edited:
T McGibney said:
Exactly. That's the desired outcome.
Click to expand...
Well, it may the option you desire. But the newspaper article, and the thread, are about the unbalanced nature of Irish revenue structure, as exemplified by the fact that 37% of "taxation units" pay zero income tax, and how to address this. If your position is that it's fine as it is and doesn't need to be addressed, you're probably in the minority on this board.
 
TomEdison said:
Indeed. the faster property prices grow, the more valuable the CGT exemption for the PPR becomes.
Click to expand...
QE and the resulting inflation of the value of my home and pension resulted in an increase in my net wealth of over €800,000. That was a tax free transfer of wealth from future generations of Irish citizens to me and older people like me.

The result is that they can't afford to buy a home and if they work hard what they earn is taxed at a marginal rate of over 50%. Meanwhile in a few years I can retire in comfort with a State pension that they won't get, a private pension that's twice as high as it should be and tax free assets that they'll never have.

I've worked hard all my life and I've earned about half of my wealth.
Young people will also work hard all their lives and they'll earn the other half of what I have.

I have more than a few moral reservations about that.
 
Ruffian said:
Musk is looking for new job,
Click to expand...
Do you think that the only way to reduce government expenditure is to use the Musk method?
Given that we have seen about the OPW and what we continue to see in the Healthcare Sector I don't think anyone can, with any degree of credibility, claim that there isn't massive waste and inefficiency in the State sector.

The bigger the State gets and the more it encroaches into the Private sector the worse the economy functions. The construction sector is a perfect example of that. The rules and structures in place and the grossly inefficient way in which the State implements them, is a, possible the, major reason for the cost and delays in housing delivery.

I don't understand how anyone thinks that more of the same is a good idea.
 
Purple said:
Not if the lone parent is a man.
In that case he had to go to court to get that allocation.
Click to expand...
You mean the Single Parent Child Carer tax credit?

Single Person Child Carer Credit (SPCCC)

This page provides an overview of the Single Person Child Carer Credit
www.revenue.ie www.revenue.ie
I've had that for years.
But maybe the fact that I had sole custody of our child was the reason that I was able to claim it?
I can't remember.
 
ClubMan said:
You mean the Single Parent Child Carer tax credit?

Single Person Child Carer Credit (SPCCC)

This page provides an overview of the Single Person Child Carer Credit
www.revenue.ie www.revenue.ie
I've had that for years.
But maybe the fact that I had sole custody of our child was the reason that I was able to claim it?
I can't remember.
Click to expand...
Yep. Even though the children live with me my Ex gets the single child tax credit and the children's allowance.
 
Purple said:
Yep. Even though the children live with me my Ex gets the single child tax credit and the children's allowance.
Click to expand...
I got both and still get the tax credit as he's in full time third level education. I guess that custody may be the deciding factor here though?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top