Irish Times editorial: "Broaden the tax base"

Brendan Burgess

Founder
Messages
54,802
While it's a welcome call, it's a pity that they didn't actually call a spade a spade and call for taxes to be raised on the lower paid.

Budget 2017: An opportunity to broaden the tax base

"At present 29 per cent of income earners pay no tax. The budget measures on Tuesday, with some cuts in income tax and the USC envisaged, should see that number increase. As the [broken link removed] has pointed out in its budget submission “Ireland has the most progressive [PERSONAL TAX]system in the EU”.

Those on a €75,000 salary in Ireland pay one fifth more in tax than their UK counterparts. Clearly, there is a need to broaden the tax base on grounds of equity, to improve competitiveness and to make the economy less vulnerable to economic shocks; one of the clear lessons for Ireland to emerge from the 2007 financial crisis"
 

And still, no proposals as to how taxes would actually be raised on the lower paid.
And no mention of the elephant in the room - increase the effective corporate tax rate.
 
And among those giving public expenditure a higher priority, most wanted more spending on health and child care, and increases in the State pension and social welfare payments.
Click to expand...
This tells me that most people surveyed are clueless about economics. They want increased spending on basically everything, and then don't want to pay taxes to pay for anything. Where do these eejits think money comes from?!!
Increase the state pension? Sure it's only the most generous in Europe already and totally unsustainable long term. Yeah, Hike it up!
Social welfare? Same story as above.
Child care? Yep, let's make the public further subsidise those who made a life choice to have kids. Existing free money (child benefit and home carer allowance) not enough....OK we'll pay your childcare too!!
Spend spend spend. Someone else will pay.
 
Last edited:
You were going well until you got to the bit about people making a 'life choice to have kids'.
No kids = no pension for you come retirement my friend!
 
I didn't say anything not having kids. I implied don't have them if you can't afford them then expect the state to pay for them. It's still a life choice. I did also say it's nonsense increasing the OAP. If we keep increasing it, all the kids in the world wouldn't cover the cost.
I am funding my own pension to not rely on same.
 
Last edited:
Delboy said:
You were going well until you got to the bit about people making a 'life choice to have kids'.
No kids = no pension for you come retirement my friend!
Click to expand...
Yeah because God forbid my PRSI contributions would be in ring-fenced into my own personal retirement account, where the amount I drawn down is a function of the amount I put in. Instead, we have a scenario where everyone gets pretty much the same, irrespective of how much they put in and their personal financial circumstances at retirement! This is all fine until the merry-go-round of "the next generation pays" comes to an abrupt end, as you alluded to, and which is indeed going to happen soon.
 
Last edited:

Its not so much the view that having kids, or not having kids for that matter, is a 'life choice' its statements like this;

username123 said:
This tells me that most people surveyed are clueless about economics.
Click to expand...

then followed by this;

username123 said:
I implied don't have them if you can't afford them then expect the state to pay for them.
Click to expand...

finishing with this;

username123 said:
I am funding my own pension to not rely on same
Click to expand...

that shows you dont really have a grasp of economics yourself.
So what if you are funding your own pension? Without population replacement your pension will be worthless, public or private. Without population replacement, the value of everything will decline rapidly.
Btw, does your private pension attract tax relief? If so, who is subsiding that?
 
As Miley might have said, 'Well Holy God!'. I thought the discourse on here would've gotten beyond 'no kids = no pension'. Are we really having children so we can saddle them with the cost of our pensions? If we demanded proper pension provision, there would be no need to expect future generations to pay for it. If someone wants to have children it's their choice but as the other thread here showed, the tax burden on childfree couples is exponentially higher than those with children.

Even the native Irish population would grow without migration, not having children is hardly threatening our existence. There'll be over 6 million living here by mid-century, no need to congratulate everyone for adding to the strain on services that we don't seem to be able to provide for the existing numbers.
 
rob oyle said:
Are we really having children so we can saddle them with the cost of our pensions?
Click to expand...

No, usually its because lots of couples like the idea of having a family. Its more a human nature thing rather than a financial strategy.

rob oyle said:
If someone wants to have children it's their choice but as the other thread here showed, the tax burden on childfree couples is exponentially higher than those with children.
Click to expand...

In what regard? With so many instances of both parents working the cost of childcare, the cost of feeding, clothing etc far outweighs anything given back in child benefit.
Of course, thats their choice, but if people stop having children, everything will be worthless very quickly.

rob oyle said:
not having children is hardly threatening our existence.
Click to expand...

Eh, it will threaten our existence.

rob oyle said:
There'll be over 6 million living here by mid-century,
Click to expand...

Only if people keep on having children.
 
I never claimed to be against population replacement... it would mean end of human race!! I stated we shouldn't be paying people to have children when they can't afford it and then justifying it by saying "they'll pay for your pension".
Regarding pensions, are you advocating removal of tax relief, making it more likely people won't contribute at all and thereby put even more burden on the kids then?
 
Last edited:
Why should I or anyone else have to pay someone to have sex and produce offspring so the state is the only one who can pay to keep them alive. I've no problem with children or with people who want to have a family, providing they can afford to support them. I often feel the country shouldn't be giving a so called children's allowance at all, very few see any of it.
 

It's called society.

On that basis, why am I supporting anyone? Why do I have to subsidise people who are either too stupid or too lazy to support themselves?

Being a member of society means supporting others.
 
Isn't that often the issue, that those in society who actually need the help seem to miss out? Many of those have no choice, compared with choosing to have kids. IMO there is a difference.
 
Last edited:
"It's called society". Really?

That's not an argument for or against, it's taking the moral ground, ie, a way out when your "spiel" doesn't have legs.
 
Delboy said:
Break that one down for me
Click to expand...
The UN's non-migration model for population projections shows our 'native stock' growing in number to over 5m this century and me not having children isn't going to end the existence of the Irish population. Is it OK not to have children and not to have to pay for those who choose to do so? I don't want other people's children to pay for my pension.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register