It’s Time for a Personal Taxes Campaign

So instead maybe we should use GNP as the denominator,

GNP = 226,749m

So the tax to GNP ratio is 28.6%, that is still low, well below the EU average of 40% approx.
 
GNP is also affected by MNC activities, so maybe we could use GNI*, the newly-developed indicator of the domestic economy.

GNI* = modified Gross National Income

2016 GNI* = 189,163m

So tax to GNI* is 34.3%.

This brings us closer to the EU average of 40% to GDP.

But still, even using this denominator, our overall level of taxes is still below average.
 
Because people on lower incomes don’t pay enough tax.

The burden is too focussed on a small group of productive people.
 
Brendan Burgess said:
It goes into the social insurance fund, most of which is spent on the contributory pension.
Click to expand...
Again, not true.

Roughly one-third of the expenditure from the social fund last year related to benefits other than contributory pensions and this was closer to one-half of expenditure back in 2009/2010/2011.

The self-employed, quite correctly, have no entitlement to many of these benefits. How could the self-employed receive a benefit for the loss of employment?

You seem to be arguing for the abolition of employers' PRSI and the imposition of a flat rate of PRSI @14.5% on all income, from whatever source. I really can't see how that would be fair or equitable.
 
Hi Sarenco

Not sure what "mistruths" I am pushing here. It seems that we are in violent agreement on the figures at least.

upload_2017-12-11_12-27-57.png


If one third went on benefits other than the contributory pension, then surely 2/3rds i.e. most went on the contributory pension?

I am arguing that people should get out what they put in, after some allowance for an insurance element.

A self-employed person declaring €20,000 a year and paying €800 PRSI a year should not get the same pension entitlement as someone on whose behalf €2,950 was contributed.

Brendan
 
Hi Brendan

While it varies from year to year, it is not generally true that most employer/employee PRSI contributions go to meet contributory pension payments - in general roughly half of such contributions go to meet working age benefits.

You also seem to be ignoring the fact that many self-employed folk make substantial PRSI contributions on behalf of their employees. I assume you are not arguing that the contributor (employer) in that case should "get out what they put in".

Again, I have no problem with an appropriate rebalancing of employer contributions on the one hand and employee/self-employed contributions on the other, with consistent minimum contribution levels and ceilings in both cases.
 
Sarenco said:
You also seem to be ignoring the fact that many self-employed folk make substantial PRSI contributions on behalf of their employees. I assume you are not arguing that the contributor (employer) in that case should "get out what they put in".
Click to expand...

Hi Sarenco

Are you suggesting that if an employer contributes 10% to a pension fund on behalf of his employee, the employer should benefit in some way?

The employer pays PRSI on behalf of the employee just as many employers pay pension contributions on their behalf.

Brendan
 
Brendan Burgess said:
Are you suggesting that if an employer contributes 10% to a pension fund on behalf of his employee, the employer should benefit in some way?
Click to expand...
No, I'm just pointing out the difficulty with your proposal that contributors should "get out what they put in" to the fund.
 
Taxes like CAT don't tend to grab the normal man's attention as usually only hits when they inherit - so seen as a pain but what else can people do! Low hanging fruit for government to grab. Interesting rates/bands didn't move in the budget..they'll be slow to move back up (even more so the bands when calculated in real terms to previous years)

Wonder if low CGT exemption limits puts people off shares (i.e. too low a trigger value to be worth the hassle of a complicated tax return)?

DIRT not a trendy issue currently as interest rates are low - again easy to ignore for the normal person in current climate.
 
Gordon Gekko said:
Paschal Donohue would be considered far more left wing than Michael Noonan, which is a shame.
Click to expand...

...but probably a good choice if you want to try and stay on side with some of the moderate lefties, in the hope of getting back into power after the next election etc.

A slightly more "right wing" Minister would be better to deal with the finances, as I think they'd be more likely to grab the bull by the horns on occasion.

Paschal is little more than the Ned Flanders character of the current Government imho ...highly unlikely to upset or offend anyone.
 
Last edited:
At 33% and a mere €1,270 exemption would I be right in saying Ireland has the second highest CGT in the world?
 
At the risk of broadening this debate, I have a particular bugbear about the differing treatment of younger v older people in the tax system. If you take couple, both 66 years, and each has a state pension (€12.5k), each has an occupational pension of 20k and each has a parttime job of 17.5k. Total household income = €100k.

Total state deductions = €21k approx

By contrast a couple aged 35 , each earning €50k, have total state deductions of €27k.

Surely our system should assist those in greater need - mortgage, childcare, commuting etc?
 
Taxpert said:
At the risk of broadening this debate, I have a particular bugbear about the differing treatment of younger v older people in the tax system. If you take couple, both 66 years, and each has a state pension (€12.5k), each has an occupational pension of 20k and each has a parttime job of 17.5k. Total household income = €100k.

Total state deductions = €21k approx
Click to expand...

Are you sure this 21% ATR is correct?

But yes, the elderly are undertaxed.

[broken link removed]
 
I presume you're referring to the 21k?

I think it's right.

Tax €19010
Prsi. 0
USC. €2,000 (est).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top