OECD advises Ireland to increase inheritance taxes

I note you made no response on the part of my post asking why those who are takers don't give anything back.

I did respond. I have highlighted that you and I are both takers, our tax contribution is what we give back.

Perhaps you could acknowledge that instead of claiming that you "get nothing" for your taxes paid, you do in fact get quite a lot? Substantially more than you could ever afford by yourself?
 
Of the 50 billion plus to run the country 21 billion goes on social welfare. That is a staggering percentage of our overall budget.

That's not a percentage at all.

You are bringing the political argument into it. How much should we spend, where, who should benefit etc.
Depending on which side of the political fence you sit at any given time may colour your perspective.

My only point in this discussion is to knock on the head any illusion that anyone pays tax and do not get any return on it. It is a false argument.
 
I did respond. I have highlighted that you and I are both takers, our tax contribution is what we give back.

Perhaps you could acknowledge that instead of claiming that you "get nothing" for your taxes paid, you do in fact get quite a lot? Substantially more than you could ever afford by yourself?
You did not and above suggests you won't. I don't get quite a lot as you describe. I note you omitted to answer how you would fund the shortfall in tax take if multinationals and higher earning people leave Ireland.

Consider insurance as an example. It works on the principle of the law of large numbers. Everybody contributes so no individual has to pay for a claim.

Extend this analogy to wider society. Not everyone gives (not solely financial but other ways) we have takers who constantly take and continue to take.

You are more interested in defending your stance on everybody is a taker rather than offer an opinion on those who who are takers and give nothing at all in return
 
You are more interested in defending your stance on everybody is a taker rather than offer an opinion on those who who are takers and give nothing at all in return

Your changing the discussion. To be clear this is what you said, which is what I responded to

Firstly I am one of those people who is in the high tax bracket and gets nothing from all the tax I pay

Then you repeated the point in answer to another poster
You appear to know that I actually do get something so please enlighten me as to what I don't realise I am getting.

It is clear that you believe you pay tax and get nothing in return for it.

Despite living in relatively politically stable, safe, first world country you seem incapable of understanding how upon this happened.
Your taxes are a contribution to sustaining those standards.
You can argue all you want how that money is to spent, who should benefit most etc, but it is wrong to suggest that you don't get anything in return for the taxes you pay or that your tax contribution is in any way sufficient by itself to sustaining the first world living standards that are provided to you.
 
That seems to imply an intent or action on behalf of the disponer in the accumulation of said wealth, that it was acquired through deliberate action, hard work, planning, intellect and foresight rather than just happening to buy a house in the 1970's or 80's.
Something that is purchased for €30k (€212k now, adjusted for inflation) and is now worth €650k can and should be considered a form of wealth and calling it such is simply accurate an is in no way loaded.
It's irrelevant how the person accumulated his/her wealth (assuming it was done legally). Someone could amass wealth through living a frugal life, investing and reinvesting their profits. Or somebody could equally end up with the same wealth by buying a home and having its value increase due to demand or inflation, which would have been unforeseen at the time of purchase. Or by winning the Lotto. Either way it's irrelevant.

The disposner has ended up with what the OECD calls 'wealth'. But this is a rather loaded term. It would be better described as 'life-time savings'. Owning a house and having some savings doesn't make you wealthy. It demonstrates you are normal. It shows you are a responsible person who saves and in a free society
it is your decison to pass on your savings to whoever you wish. Sometimes it's the Cats and Dogs Home, but normally it's your descendents and relatives. Taxation policy should not influence the redistributive decisions of disposers. The money is being redistributed. How it is redistributed is of no concern to the state.
 
Your changing the discussion. To be clear this is what you said, which is what I responded to



Then you repeated the point in answer to another poster


It is clear that you believe you pay tax and get nothing in return for it.

Despite living in relatively politically stable, safe, first world country you seem incapable of understanding how upon this happened.
Your taxes are a contribution to sustaining those standards.
You can argue all you want how that money is to spent, who should benefit most etc, but it is wrong to suggest that you don't get anything in return for the taxes you pay or that your tax contribution is in any way sufficient by itself to sustaining the first world living standards that are provided to you.
You are now cherry picking those points you want to respond on and ignoring those you don't want to respond to.

I will leave you to you opinion.
 
I think it's a fantastic argument.

I am putting it up to those people who regularly proclaim that their taxes pays for the schools, the hospitals, the roads, the welfare, blah...blah...

When in fact, their (and mine) taxes, on an individual basis relative to the grand scheme of actual public spending - pay for diddly-squat.
A near irrelevance. Your contribution is only relevant when combined with the contributions of the rest of the citizenry.

So drop the mega-phone, drop the pretentiousness, drop the self-entitlement, as an individual taxpayer you pay for next to nothing in the grand scheme of things. You, like me and everyone else, are a taker first and foremost.
What we pay in tax is our contribution back.
Well I think it’s a nonsensical argument.

If the State is getting a hell of a lot more from someone than they’re taking out, the State should look after that person.

Where does your nonsensical argument stop? What if someone’s paying €10m of income tax? What if we started looking at cohorts of people? For example, if we took away the Partners of the Big 4 accountancy practices and Big 5 legal practices, the country would have a problem. These people get to keep €45 of every extra €100 they make.

I don’t have a major issue with paying tax per se. What I do have an issue with is scroungers and fraudsters gaming the system and how tax revenues are wasted. And people telling me my contribution is meaningless just to suit their spurious argument.

I’d say if AAM contributors stopped paying tax, Pascal Donohue would notice.
 
For example why can't people on unemployment benefit jobseekers allowance work in the community as part of their benefit payment?

The long term unemployed rate in this country is about 1.4%. If you want these people to cut hedges or pick litter as a way of giving back, go for it.

People who are not long-term unemployed, is because they do go to work when it's available and do contribute their share.

What any of that has to do with your assertion that you pay tax and get nothing for it is beyond me.
 
What if someone’s paying €10m of income tax?

If someone is paying €10m in tax, how much are they earning? How many individuals are we talking about here? <100? <50?

They are paying the same percentage rate of tax on their marginal income as someone on €50k does. So what?

What I do have an issue with is scroungers and fraudsters gaming the system and how tax revenues are wasted. And people telling me my contribution is meaningless just to suit their spurious argument.

I have no issue going after fraudsters gaming the system. By all means we should.
Your tax contribution isn't meaningless as part of the overall tax take. It entitles you to have a say on what should be done with it. But only as part as a collective.

On its own, as an individual contribution it is a near irrelevance. It certainly doesn't by itself pay its way to live in a first world country. Its delusional to think anyone pays taxes but gets nothing in return for them as Horseman claims.
 
Last edited:
Firstly I am one of those people who is in the high tax bracket and gets nothing from all the tax I pay.
Do you have children? If so the State pays €7-€8k a year sending them to school. If you send them to a private school then thanks; you are subsidising the public school system but the State still pays about €4k a year towards their education.
When you flush the toilet does your poo go away?
Do you drive on roads and use footpaths?
Do you live in relative safety without fear of being attacked by bandits or someone moving into your house when you are at work?
Do the streetlights come on when it gets dark?
If you get sick do you go to a hospital or a doctor?
Do you interact with and derive any benefit from anyone who had been educated in this country?

If the answer to any of the above is "yes" then you get something back.
Your post speaks volumes about you. You expect people to give to finance the lifestyles of those who take more than they contribute and are not willing to give back (not necessarily financial).
Most people take more than they give. I don't but I pay loads in taxes. I consider taxes the price of civilisation.
Your views indicate you are on the left of politics and I am yet to hear a convincing argument of how these policies are going to be funded.
I'm a social liberal and an economic centralist. I think we raise more than enough in taxes but waste billions. If you want to save money then go after the structural waste within the health service and the endemic inefficiency in the State Sector generally. Go after the people who buy a house then rent it to their partner who lives there with their children while claiming HAPS. Go after the teachers and solicitors and doctors and plumbers and painters and carpenters and architects and everyone else who does nixers and insists on cash (like so many hospital consultants do). There's loads of black economy stuff going on and it should all be stopped.
And before you say tax the rich, tax the multinationals you do realise we are a small open economy who can't dictate trading terms to either sector. They can and will happily go elsewhere. They are here for a reason and if we lose their tax irrespective of how much they pay how do you suggest we fund this shortfall?
In any discussion about taxing the "rich" we need to define who the rich are. What people really mean is the people in the €2 million houses etc but many of them aren't on high incomes. We already tax high incomes too much so we can't increase marginal rates. So given that we live in a Republic and should seek to create a society with as much equality of opportunity as possible it is my opinion that we should tax wealth retention more and wealth creation less. I don't want to see more taxes, if anything I'd like to see less. What I would like to see is that shift from one to the other. At the moment holding onto wealth is easy but getting wealthy through hard work is very hard and will only get harder.

We certainly can't tax big capital disproportionately as it will just flow elsewhere but there is a global problem with the movement of wealth away from labour and into capital and that will impact on all of us. Personally I'll probably get better off as I'm on the right side of the divide but that doesn't make it right.
 
Last edited:
The long term unemployed rate in this country is about 1.4%.
Yea, but there's loads of people who are under employed and game the system. Let's not pretend otherwise. Let's also not pretend that they are all poor. Tax evasion and welfare fraud are, in essence, the same thing.
 
Last edited:
It's irrelevant how the person accumulated his/her wealth (assuming it was done legally). Someone could amass wealth through living a frugal life, investing and reinvesting their profits. Or somebody could equally end up with the same wealth by buying a home and having its value increase due to demand or inflation, which would have been unforeseen at the time of purchase. Or by winning the Lotto. Either way it's irrelevant.
Of course it's irrelevant. What is relevant is how hard it is to acquire wealth now relative to how hard it was 20, 30 or 40 years ago. With capital inflation rates consistently higher than labour inflation rates it will become increasingly hard to acquire wealth through hard work. Therefore, in my opinion, we should spread the tax burned away from labour to encourage hard work and wealth creation.
The disposner has ended up with what the OECD calls 'wealth'. But this is a rather loaded term. It would be better described as 'life-time savings'. Owning a house and having some savings doesn't make you wealthy. It demonstrates you are normal. It shows you are a responsible person who saves and in a free society
You can call it whatever you like but it's still wealth.
it is your decison to pass on your savings to whoever you wish. Sometimes it's the Cats and Dogs Home, but normally it's your descendents and relatives. Taxation policy should not influence the redistributive decisions of disposers. The money is being redistributed. How it is redistributed is of no concern to the state.
I agree completely. The State should restrict its interest to how it is taxed.
 
A
Yea, but there's loads of people who are under employed and game the system. Let's not pretend otherwise. Let's also not pretend that they are all poor. Tax evasion and welfare fraud re, in essence, the same thing.

Yeh, welfare fraud has consistently cost the state between €30m and €60m a year over the last decade. Social Welfare I think estimates that without its detection and monitoring systems in place that those amounts would increase tenfold.

Our taxes that we pay, pay for the detection and monitoring of social welfare fraud.

I'm sure a similar outcome would occur for tax evasion. If there was no chance of getting caught more people would do it.

Our taxes pay for systems that prevent and detect welfare and tax fraud. Obviously its not perfect, but my only point in all of this was to knock on the head the perception that some people pay taxes but get nothing at all in return.
 
Of course people get something in return; I think that undeniable.

The problem arises when people who pay a hell of a lot more than their fair share are asked for more instead of targeting waste or broader-based solutions.

For example, if someone is paying the same amount of tax as 25 teachers, it’s annoying to hear teachers constantly moaning, to observe how they betrayed the country and its children during Covid, and to hear people incessantly demand that higher earners pay more.
 
Of course people get something in return; I think that undeniable.

The problem arises when people who pay a hell of a lot more than their fair share are asked for more instead of targeting waste or broader-based solutions.

For example, if someone is paying the same amount of tax as 25 teachers, it’s annoying to hear teachers constantly moaning, to observe how they betrayed the country and its children during Covid, and to hear people incessantly demand that higher earners pay more.
Yes, so tax the rich, not high earners. The value of Defined benefit Pensions need to be included in any calculation around wealth as well which, coincidently, is probably the reason that the permanent government of the State, the Civil service, is not a fan of the idea.
 
Yes, so tax the rich, not high earners. The value of Defined benefit Pensions need to be included in any calculation around wealth as well which, coincidently, is probably the reason that the permanent government of the State, the Civil service, is not a fan of the idea.

No!

“Tax the rich!” or “Tax the wealthy!” are just Sinn Fein/IRA and Idiocy Before Profit slogans.

Efficiency should be the focus.

High earners and the wealthy are already paying somewhere between too much and the correct amount depending on one’s point of view.
 
No!

“Tax the rich!” or “Tax the wealthy!” are just Sinn Fein/IRA and Idiocy Before Profit slogans.

Efficiency should be the focus.

High earners and the wealthy are already paying somewhere between too much and the correct amount depending on one’s point of view.
I want to see a shift in taxation from high earners to the rich, from wealth creation to wealth retention. I do not want to see an increase in the overall tax take by the State.
The wealthy pay no tax based on their wealth. They pay tax based on their income. High earners, whether they are wealthy or not, pay very high rates of tax.
 
I want to see a shift in taxation from high earners to the rich, from wealth creation to wealth retention. I do not want to see an increase in the overall tax take by the State.
The wealthy pay no tax based on their wealth. They pay tax based on their income. High earners, whether they are wealthy or not, pay very high rates of tax.
Define wealth though.

If someone earns an extra €100k, they’ll end up with €45-48k.

That’s theirs. If they invest it, they’ll pay tax at rates of 33-55% on any returns. If they pass it on to someone, they’ll lose 33% of it.

What are you suggesting that the State should do to that person’s €45-48? It has already been subject to a massive proportion of tax.
 
It's irrelevant how the person accumulated his/her wealth (assuming it was done legally). Someone could amass wealth through living a frugal life, investing and reinvesting their profits. Or somebody could equally end up with the same wealth by buying a home and having its value increase due to demand or inflation, which would have been unforeseen at the time of purchase. Or by winning the Lotto. Either way it's irrelevant.
That's not the case though, it is relevant. If there is generational inherited wealth, that is negative for society. Generational wealth results in a rentier economy, discourages productivity and takes generations for productive labour to accumulate wealth. It is supremely relevant.
The disposner has ended up with what the OECD calls 'wealth'. But this is a rather loaded term. It would be better described as 'life-time savings'. Owning a house
and having some savings doesn't make you wealthy. It demonstrates you are normal. It shows you are a responsible person who saves and in a free society
it is your decison to pass on your savings to whoever you wish. Sometimes it's the Cats and Dogs Home, but normally it's your descendents and relatives. Taxation policy should not influence the redistributive decisions of disposers. The money is being redistributed. How it is redistributed is of no concern to the state.

The whole point of taxation is redistributive. The notion that you have the freedom to do what you wish with your wealth is not realistic, whether you are alive or dead. You cant just give a substantial amount of money to stranger, in life, without there being any implications. Of course you can consume your resources in your favour, your wife, your family when young. Even if you consume your wealth, you pay VAT. The state does not care what you buy, but its does care that act of consumption will . Officially, you can pay for your kids wedding and education. You cant even get them a car without it forming part of their lifetime allowance. You can give your wealth to whoever you wish, but the notion that their should be no taxation just because you die, is nonsensical. Particularly given the negatives for society as a whole.

I want to see a shift in taxation from high earners to the rich, from wealth creation to wealth retention. I do not want to see an increase in the overall tax take by the State.
The wealthy pay no tax based on their wealth. They pay tax based on their income. High earners, whether they are wealthy or not, pay very high rates of tax.

The Irish income tax system is very progressive. But, reshaping how we tax can improve opportunity for the entire population and capture more of the productive workforce that are currently shut out by the current system and forced to rely on state supports.
 
Back
Top