Indo - "There is no cost of living crisis for majority of people in Ireland says IBEC CEO"

Left's proposals for higher taxes on higher earners

I’m generally left leaning but the issue I have is the left position of higher taxes on higher earners doesn’t seem to consider where we are now. That would be the position regardless of where we were.

The low tax on lower incomes also creates issue around budget times particularly if there are tax cuts because there is often nothing for the low income person as well they pay very little.
 
List of crisis;
Cost of living crisis.
Healthcare recruitment and retention crisis.
Teaching recruitment and retention crisis.
Housing crisis.
Rental cost crisis.
...add as appropriate.

Then there's the epidemics:
Road deaths epidemic (despite it being less than 10% of what it was 40 years ago)
Suicide epidemic.
Drugs epidemic.
Rural crime epidemic (also a crisis)
Urban crime epidemic (not a crisis)
I'd agree with this in general on hyperbole, except it definitely is a rental crisis. I've never subscribed the housing crisis terminology because imo house prices haven't really been over the top (I think in the last year it has become doughy though). The reason people couldn't afford to buy wasn't house prices, it was because of rental prices and availability that didn't provide people security and the ability to save in such a way that they can build a life.

To my mind, once you get beyond a couple of years of tangible and quantifiable metrics to judge something objectively badly, then it is fair to call it a crisis. With something like healthcare, there are so many different metrics to judge it on but all my life of consuming media, there has been a "health crisis". And yet underneath all of that we have seen improvements across nearly every important healthcare statistics.

For renting, we have objective evidence of the issues it has caused. This isn't some rubbish of people taking a low point of 2010 and comparing to 2025, but actual hard data that shows there's an affordability and supply issue (OECD data published earlier vs. median salaries is the most potent).

Blaming millennials for avocado toast and concert tickets and then not owning a home is OTT. We can't ignore that this was the generation that went from the worst of the Global Financial Crisis in terms of employment and opportunities to massive rental inflation. There is scores of data points out there that shows how that age group have done worse in terms of incomes (in the US) and have massive arrested development (delayed family formation, late age of acquiring homes, less children) than what came before.

I do find it somewhat funny when we see 20 somethings as like coffin ship types though. Whilst I believe they are stuck in a terrible rental market, they do have significantly more options than those in the generation before them. They have so many more options in terms of state supports. Yes it's a lottery for some of them, but throw your name in young. At 22 you have years to plan something. I'd be more concerned on how that generation does versus AI than their longer term housing prospects.
 
I agree with your post in general.
I do find it somewhat funny when we see 20 somethings as like coffin ship types though. Whilst I believe they are stuck in a terrible rental market,
I agree on the rental market in particular.
they do have significantly more options than those in the generation before them. They have so many more options in terms of state supports.
I strongly disagree on this. I accept that they have plenty of extra State supports but I think that the necessity for those state supports to be there in the first place is indicative of disfunction.

Anthony Scaramucci has a great line about the advantages of living in the modern world; would you like to live in Manhattan on $120,000 now or live in Manhattan on $120,000 in 1925? In 2025 you'd have a low disposable income and live in a small apartment. In 1925 you'd be in the top 1% of earners and have a lavish lifestyle. You'd also have to put up with disease, dirt, smells, bad plumbing, no showers, no TV, no internet, bad healthcare, bad dentistry, very limited international travel, massive levels of State corruption, etc.

All that said there's an implicit contract between young people and their parents generation that if they work hard they will get their chance at the middle class norm of owing a home and being financially independent.
My generation (50's) and more particularly my parents generation broke that contract by mortgaging their future to avoid the consequences of our greed and ineptitude.
 
At around the median wage (of €50k) I think we come out close to par for what a social democratic country would expect, possibly a bit less. They have significantly more tax home than a Germany but about the same as Sweden. I think when you add up the quality of services and other stealth taxes that you'll find we are fairly in the middle, on balance.
This is often repeated but doesn't make it true, you can calculate it up using simple sums and conclude that Ireland takes similar tax as other oecd countries. However we have a prsi system that in theory offers universal health care but is not free at point of contact and compels most people on 50K a year to take out private health insurance which now costs 2000 euros per adult. You would also need to add on another 1000 euros to pay for doctor and dentist visits which are also not free unlike our contemporaries. Then you have high VAT and among the highest energy and utility costs (provided by inefficient state sector). These are all effective extra taxes that are never properly accounted for. Also MUP on alcohol etc etc,
 
All that said there's an implicit contract between young people and their parents generation that if they work hard they will get their chance at the middle class norm of owing a home and being financially independent.
My generation (50's) and more particularly my parents generation broke that contract by mortgaging their future to avoid the consequences of our greed and ineptitude.

I’m not sure that argument holds up for young people anymore. Say someone coming out of college today at 22. They would surly have memories of the crash and be well aware of the housing situation. They didn’t grow up in a time of continuous opportunity improvement.

I actually think those aged around 50 have had the best run.

Coming of age in 1990. There was a sense of optimism and continued improvement. Still some very good pensionable jobs about. Buying a house by the early 2000s when they turned 30 was very doable. Might even grab a 100% mortgage if they had no savings. Pretty well settled in a career and not a crazy mortgage by the time the of the crash. Could take advantage of the SSIAs.

Still young enough to embrace smart phones, cheap travel and improved health care.

Early retirement will be an option for many and they can expect that the state pension should still be functional once they get to retirement as the worst of the demographic collapse won’t have occurred.

Every gen will have its ups and downs and it’s hard to judge until you get to the end of the line but I think those say 50-55 at the moment hit the sweet spot.
 
I strongly disagree on this. I accept that they have plenty of extra State supports but I think that the necessity for those state supports to be there in the first place is indicative of disfunction.

Anthony Scaramucci has a great line about the advantages of living in the modern world; would you like to live in Manhattan on $120,000 now or live in Manhattan on $120,000 in 1925? In 2025 you'd have a low disposable income and live in a small apartment. In 1925 you'd be in the top 1% of earners and have a lavish lifestyle. You'd also have to put up with disease, dirt, smells, bad plumbing, no showers, no TV, no internet, bad healthcare, bad dentistry, very limited international travel, massive levels of State corruption, etc.

All that said there's an implicit contract between young people and their parents generation that if they work hard they will get their chance at the middle class norm of owing a home and being financially independent.
My generation (50's) and more particularly my parents generation broke that contract by mortgaging their future to avoid the consequences of our greed and ineptitude.
I am not disputing there is dysfunction.

But there simply are more options than there was 10 years ago for someone in their early 20s and arriving into the rental market.

Millennials are not in their 20s
I didn't say they were. I drew a distinction between the two as "generations".
 
I’m not sure that argument holds up for young people anymore. Say someone coming out of college today at 22. They would surly have memories of the crash and be well aware of the housing situation. They didn’t grow up in a time of continuous opportunity improvement.

I actually think those aged around 50 have had the best run

Coming of age in 1990. There was a sense of optimism and continued improvement. Still some very good pensionable jobs about. Buying a house by the early 2000s when they turned 30 was very doable. Might even grab a 100% mortgage if they had no savings. Pretty well settled in a career and not a crazy mortgage by the time the of the crash. Could take advantage of the SSIAs.

Still young enough to embrace smart phones, cheap travel and improved health care.

Early retirement will be an option for many and they can expect that the state pension should still be functional once they get to retirement as the worst of the demographic collapse won’t have occurred.

Every gen will have its ups and downs and it’s hard to judge until you get to the end of the line but I think those say 50-55 at the moment hit the sweet spot.

Yes, that's the point I'm making.
 
But there simply are more options than there was 10 years ago for someone in their early 20s and arriving into the rental market.
Other than being able to actually rent a place.
The supports are an attempt to mitigate the dysfunction in the market. It's better to remove the dysfunction and not have supports.

The State, to a very large degree, created the dysfunction by interfering in the supply side. Now they are doing the same thing on the demand side. It would be better if they just got out of the way, other than having efficient enforcement of minimum standards, and let the market function.
 
This is often repeated but doesn't make it true, you can calculate it up using simple sums and conclude that Ireland takes similar tax as other oecd countries. However we have a prsi system that in theory offers universal health care but is not free at point of contact and compels most people on 50K a year to take out private health insurance which now costs 2000 euros per adult. You would also need to add on another 1000 euros to pay for doctor and dentist visits which are also not free unlike our contemporaries. Then you have high VAT and among the highest energy and utility costs (provided by inefficient state sector). These are all effective extra taxes that are never properly accounted for. Also MUP on alcohol etc etc,

Yeah, but then the comparison with other countries starts to become difficult, or even invalid

For example, if take the cost of health insurance/medical treatment into account on the Irish side, then on the e.g. German side you have to take into account the social insurance contributions that are levied to support the German health system — these are much higher than in Ireland. You also have to take into account the point-of-use charges levied in Germany and other comparator countries — these are not as high in Ireland, but they're also mostly not zero, as in the UK.

When it comes to things like energy and utility costs it's a bit glib to say that the higher charges are due to "an inefficient state sector". This is only partly true; higher costs also result from the smaller size of the Irish market and the lower population density; you can't claim these as hidden taxes.

Comparing countries' tax systems on the macro level is quite easy — Ireland collects X% of GNI* in taxes, and this is broken down between income taxes, social security tases, capital taxes, property taxes, etc in ascertainable proportions, which can validly and meaningfully compared with the same analysis for other countries. But when you trie to break this down on a micro level it falls apart very quickly — for example, if you want to compare the tax treatment of an individual earning €50k in Ireland and Umbrellastan, the comparison may be hugely affected by whether you assume the individual is married or not. You also have to make decisions like "do we attribute any present value to the extremely generous tax concessions that Ireland provides for pensions, or do we treat these as not accruing until pensions are actually received? Or do we just ignore them?" And that's before we look at implicit taxes embedded in things like health insurance premiums, train fares, electricity costs, etc. This rapidly becomes more of an exercise in validating preconceptions than a genuine comparison of tax burdens.
 
compels most people on 50K a year to take out private health insurance which now costs 2000 euros per adult. You would also need to add on another 1000 euros to pay for doctor and dentist visits which are also not free
I think you're overpaying quite a bit there
 
Other than being able to actually rent a place.
The supports are an attempt to mitigate the dysfunction in the market. It's better to remove the dysfunction and not have supports.

The State, to a very large degree, created the dysfunction by interfering in the supply side. Now they are doing the same thing on the demand side. It would be better if they just got out of the way, other than having efficient enforcement of minimum standards, and let the market function.
I'd agree, but I also appreciate that we have this tangled web of things that make it one of the most regulated and interfered with markets we have. Attempts to change that run into opposition from various groups with competing interests (and many of whom would style themselves as free market types in other areas).

I personally would rather focus on pointing out the nonsense statements by people on "the Government leaving it to the market" et cetera. The focus should be to point out the really damaging regulations and stopping ones in advance that are clearly going to be destructive. The only way to make progress is to actually argue substantive points and not get into ideological things. Trade offs and efficacy of regulations need to be the discourse.

Of course, you could argue that we need some group to change the narrative and take the opposing position. I am dubious in Ireland though. We are a very centre left country.
 
Comparing countries' tax systems on the macro level is quite easy — Ireland collects X% of GNI* in taxes, and this is broken down between income taxes, social security tases, capital taxes, property taxes, etc in ascertainable proportions, which can validly and meaningfully compared with the same analysis for other countries. But when you trie to break this down on a micro level it falls apart very quickly — for example, if you want to compare the tax treatment of an individual earning €50k in Ireland and Umbrellastan
But comparing tax systems on the macro level is useless regarding Ireland because of the hugely distorting effect of multinationals on GDP ,even the makey up statistic GNI* is heavily influenced by multinationals which has no relevance in comparing the taxation and buying power of a middle income worker earning 50K. Our contemporaries are not countries like "Umbrellastan" but real live nations like Germany, France and UK so comparing how much tax we pay , how much benefits we receive and the buying power of that after tax income is highly relevant and important.
You keep referring to the tax relief on pensions here as some sort of bonanza that nobody else has, that's ridiculous every country offers tax relief on pensions, its not unique to Ireland, the only distinguishing feature on this is that it is virtually the only proper tax relief that is offered to that 50K wage earner, there are no ISA accounts he can avail of and he has to contend with deemed disposal if he was so bold to invest in an ETF.
 
You're not going to be able to compare tax between countries at all without relying on "makey-up" statistics like GDP or GNI*. One of the primary reasons these statistics are made up is to facilitate meaningful comparisons. Imperfect as they are, they're a lot better than nothing.

I accept the importance of comparing purchasing power, but your starting point — look at people with the same pre-tax income — could stand to be interrogated. One of the reasons we have a relatively progressive tax system in Ireland is that we have a relatively regressive distribution of pre-tax income. After taking account of the impact of tax and welfare payments, the distribution of household income in Ireland is at about the European average; before, our income is unusually skewed. If we interrogated why our gross income distribution is skewed and sought to address that, then maybe the poltiical pressures that give rise to such a progressive tax system would be abated.

A more justifiable comparison of the impact of taxation on individuals and families would not compare individuals/families in different countries on the same income. The fact of the matter is that if you're on 50K in Ireland and you went and did the same job in Germany, you probably wouldn't be on 50K. A more robust comparison would compare individuals/families at the same point on the income distribution spectrum — i.e. the taxation of a person on median income in Germany versus a person on median income in Ireland (or a person at the 25th percentile in both countries, or the 75th percentile, or whatever).

As for pension tax relief, while most countries provide some kind of relief, Irish relief is exceptionally generous. I know you're resistant to hearing this but it is true, and at comparison of tax systems that doesn't address this starts to look like a comparison that is set up to make the Irish system look bad. It's easy enough to compare two notional workers in Ireland and (say) Germany whose tax affairs are very simple and who don't get anything but the universally available deductions and allowances. But if, as you say, you want a real-world comparison then actually want one that reflect the deductions and allowances that people actually get. This is harder to do because it requires a lot of detailed data from both countries, not just about what deductions and reliefs are avaiable but on what deductions and reliefs are actually claimed, and how much is claimed, rather than just a simple comparison of basic tax bands and rates. but if you're intrested in the real-world impact of tax systems then it's the one you need.
 
And, in any case, lazily slapping (social and traditional) media driven labels on cohorts that only have an age range in common is a facile exercise.
Well it's clearly a thing. You can argue it is arbitrary but when you have a sustained period of years where common factors impact on an age range, it does become a thing. The trivialisation of it is ridiculous but there is a phenomenon around it.

The concept of Sibal Biyong is absolutely a thing in South Korea and is something we saw here. It's actually a more grown up way to talk about certain human behaviours. I do believe people will amend their behaviours where they see realistic end points, but that wasn't apparent for people for years. But it is very easy to spend €5k on a couple of holidays and a festival when to get a deposit as a single person you are spending 50% of your take home on rent and would need €40k-€60k for an apartment deposit in Dublin.
 
Last edited:
Well it's clearly a thing. You can argue it is arbitrary but when you have a sustained period of years where common factors impact on an age range, it does become a thing. The trivialisation of it is ridiculous but there is a phenomenon around it.
But the generations blend into each other. There is a continuum rather than defined periods.
It's also the case that young people now-a-days don't behave any differently to people 30 years ago. The issue is that a 50 year old now is looking at a 20 year without realising that they are just 30 years older but thinks they haven't changed.

The concept of Sibal Biyong is absolutely a thing in South Korea and is something we saw here. It's actually a more grown up way to talk about certain human behaviours. I do believe people will amend their behaviours where they see realistic end points, but that wasn't apparent for people for years. But it is very easy to spend €5k on a couple of holidays and a festival when to get a deposit as a single person you are spending 50% of your take home on rent and would need €40k-€60k for an apartment deposit in Dublin.
I agree with that. In the absence of hope for the future we look for comfort in the present.
 
A more justifiable comparison of the impact of taxation on individuals and families would not compare individuals/families in different countries on the same income. The fact of the matter is that if you're on 50K in Ireland and you went and did the same job in Germany, you probably wouldn't be on 50K. A more robust comparison would compare individuals/families at the same point on the income distribution spectrum — i.e. the taxation of a person on median income in Germany versus a person on median income in Ireland (or a person at the 25th percentile in both countries, or the 75th percentile, or whatever).
Well I think the comparison based on 50K is a good figure as that is close the average industrial wage here but you could also use median wage if you wanted. However Im going to have to eat my words somewhat especially with regard to comparing taxation with countries like France and Germany, those are indeed very high tax countries on income of 50K . Germany and France take off 35% tax on those incomes whereas Ireland takes 20% at the low end of the scale . I ran the figures on a tax calculator comparison tool and was very surprised actually, we are more like UK and Netherlands regarding income tax . Probably because we take many low income earners out of the tax net completely that also benefits those on incomes of 50K through the tax credits. I hate to admit but on an income tax basis Ireland is pretty good well until you start getting into very high incomes
 
I hate to admit but on an income tax basis Ireland is pretty good well until you start getting into very high incomes
The problem here is that high marginal tax rates above that point act as a disincentive to work but it's absolutely fair to say that average incomes are not heavily taxed in Ireland. When you look at lowish incomes we are very under taxed by Western European standards.
 
I actually think those aged around 50 have had the best run.
As a 47 year old who left school 30 years ago, I'm inclined to agree. People in my cohort could pick pretty much anything outside of medicine and pharmaceuticals as a career and get in the door with (speaking for myself) very mediocre college results and work experience and rapidly get up the ladder. Banks were, rightly or wrongly, handing out mortgage approvals with boxes of cornflakes which enabled me to buy my home at 24. With a bit of financial sacrifice between now and then I should have no difficulty retiring at 60.

Meanwhile the next generation of my family are mostly now in their early to mid 20s and have no realistic hope of buying their own home etc in the next few years. So let them enjoy their avocado on toast, their concerts, etc— it's some small compensation for being stuck at home due to the housing market screwing them.

The problem here is that high marginal tax rates above that point act as a disincentive to work but it's absolutely fair to say that average incomes are not heavily taxed in Ireland.
The median household income is around €58k which keeps half the households in the country in the lower tax brackets. For people at the higher rate there's also ample opportunity via pension contributions to push the effective standard rate cutoff out by another €15k or more. Our household for example has an income over €100k (putting us in the top 10% I think) and we've yet to pay any tax at the higher rate.

So I don't think that disincentive to work argument really stacks up in real life except for those people who are manifestly failing to invest for their pensions. And honestly it seems like the tax system should reward long term planning (which will take a burden from the State) but also actively punish those who fail to implement long term financial plans for their retirement.

But even without pension contributions to greatly reduce the tax burdens on higher earners, I've yet to meet anyone who refused the opportunity to earn higher wages because of tax rates. People I know focus on the headline figure, not the net.
  • I personally have moved towards not applying for promotions because of the impact they would have on my conditions of work: far less flexibility, and much higher levels of stress which would cost way too much in terms of inevitable adverse impacts on my person life. I don't know what number would need to be on the table for me to be tempted and I'm not sure if there even is a number that would make me commit to more than 12 months of sacrificing my current conditions of employment.
What actively disincentivises me from seeking higher paid employment is the fact that I own my own home, have no electricity bills and relatively low heating bills due to solar panels and renovations, and my mandatory mortgage payment is under €500 a month versus the €1,600 I'd have to pay monthly to buy my home as a FTB today— if I needed an extra €26k annually before tax etc just to pay my mortgage I'd probably have my tongue hanging out for a promotion regardless of the non-financial impact on my personal life. As it is I'm just way too comfortable financially where I'm at to be bothered.
 
Back
Top