Sunday Independent writing rubbish about CAT

NoRegretsCoyote said:
Are we talking income or wealth? They are not the same.

Anyway the median net income for a two-adult household under 65 is €50k according to CSO. For dual-earning couples €137k gross is about 90th percentile for all dual-income couples as per Revenue statistics.

What you choose to describe as 'wealthy' is a value judgement. Most people mix with people very like them and this skews their perception of what average is.

I am just bringing some actual statistics on averages and distributions to the discussion.
Click to expand...

Can you please post a link to that stat?

i.e. that the median income for two people is €50k

When you say net, do you mean net of tax?

It seems too low. If they’re accurate, there is something odd in those stats that’s driving them. Do people on social welfare skew it wildly for example? Pre Covid, there were 300,000 people on social welfare.
 
You can play around [broken link removed]. Go to table SIA16, select households with two adults under 65, and median nominal household disposable income for 2018. The result is €50,255. A similar household with kids gets €56,445.

Net here means all income less taxes plus transfers.

If it intuitively seems too low it is probably because you mix with people like yourself who have incomes well above average.
 
NoRegretsCoyote said:
You can play around [broken link removed]. Go to table SIA16, select households with two adults under 65, and median nominal household disposable income for 2018. The result is €50,255. A similar household with kids gets €56,445.

Net here means all income less taxes plus transfers.

If it intuitively seems too low it is probably because you mix with people like yourself who have incomes well above average.
Click to expand...

“disposable income”?

Sure then €50k is a lot of money!
 
Gordon Gekko said:
“disposable income”?

Sure then €50k is a lot of money!
Click to expand...

To the CSO it’s Disposable income, to the individual it’s net income.

CSO Definition:
Disposable income

Tax and social insurance contributions are also summed to household level and subtracted from the gross household income to calculate the total disposable household income. The components of disposable household income are gross household income less:

Employer’s social insurance contributions

Regular inter-household cash transfer paid

Tax (including USC) on income and social insurance contributions

Tax deducted at source from individual private pension plan.

Gordon Gekko said:
Yet the Left spend their time moaning...
Click to expand...
Typical tactic of “the right” to make up their own definitions to suit their own narrative o_O:p
 
Protocol said:
The number is way, way higher.

Pre COVID, approx 45% of pop were on welfare, recipients or beneficiaries.

I'd guess 2m.
Click to expand...

We’re talking about under 65s, so OAPs aren’t relevant, and we also need to exclude Childrens Allowance. What’s relevant is the number of people under 65 whose only income is social welfare; pre-Covid, 300k seems reasonable. Clearly the number isn’t 2m.
 
Under 65s, ok.

The DSP website has been amended, so give me a chance to get the data.

I will now make a guess of 800k recipients, and over 1m beneficiaries.

Give me 30 mins.
 
Thirsty said:
So do you believe we should also remove the inheritance of a social housing tenancy?
Click to expand...
Absolutely and it's really important to punch down not up, isn't it?
Gordon Gekko said:
We’re talking about under 65s, so OAPs aren’t relevant, and we also need to exclude Childrens Allowance. What’s relevant is the number of people under 65 whose only income is social welfare; pre-Covid, 300k seems reasonable. Clearly the number isn’t 2m.
Click to expand...
Good man gordon, when the facts don't suit then change the question.
 
dereko1969 said:
Absolutely and it's really important to punch down not up, isn't it?

Good man gordon, when the facts don't suit then change the question.
Click to expand...

What is that supposed to mean?

The point is that people whose only income is social welfare skew the figures.

We get social welfare in the form of Children’s Allowance, for example, but we’re not relevant.
 
End of 2018 data

Recipients
Pensions, for information = 629k

Working-age income supports, e.g. JSA, OPFP, SWA = 276k
Working-age employment supports = 43k

CA, DA, IB, IP = 353,000

WFP = 54k, of course all of these people have a job


Total recipients = 1.34m, of which
Social Insurance = 709k
Social Assistance = 631k

Stripping out Pensions, we have 711,000 recipients on welfare.

This excludes beneficiaries, i.e. their dependent spouses and children.
 
2018 data

Recipients and beneficiaries data - note this is wider than the previous post

Pensions, for information = 709k

Working-age income supports, e.g. JSA, JSB OPFP, SWA, MB = 540k
Working-age employment supports = 90k

CA, DA, IB, IP = 539,000


So far we have 1,169,000, that is recipients and beneficiaries, but excludes pensions, WFP, Child Benefit
 
Zenith63 said:
The purpose of an inheritance tax is to reduce the effects of generational wealth, which I'd guess most would agree is pretty unhealthy for society. So the objection is that by reducing it, you're allowing the wealthy keep more money in their families and all the risks that entails. Personally though I don't think it serves this purpose well; even unsophisticated business people know to start companies in their childrens' names so there is no liability to inheritance tax when they pass away, we can only imagine how a sophisticated team working for a very wealthy person might find ways to work around it.

So personally I'd like to see the rate of inheritance tax increased but also the threshold increased significantly (maybe €1m?). That way the average punter isn't paying a tax aimed at the very weathly, while the very wealthy are mostly avoiding it.
Click to expand...

It's not that type of a tax. It's got nothing to do with screwing the wealthy. As a matter of public policy all states tax money when it is transferred, as it is difficult to avoid. The amount of inheritance tax paid depends on the amount of money begin transferred, the value of which which is set by the market place. As a fixed amount tax it does not effect consumer behaviour or economic activity, unlike income tax that impacts on work / leisure decisions or VAT that impacts on spending decisions. Politicians will say that the purpose an inheritance tax is to reduce the effects of generational wealth, but this is just guff and pandering to readers of the Irish Times and viewers of RTE. A 'right-wing' government will tax this way as much as or more than a 'left-wing' one. Except the right-wing one would probably be more honest and just say it does it as it needs the money to pay for running the state. When money moves the state taxes it. It's an efficient tax. It doesn't need political or sociological justification.
 
Personally I think the group thresholds are already pretty generous.

Three kids can inherit a €1m house from a parent, tax-free.

If there are going to be tax reductions, I would much rather see them being made to income tax.
 
Sarenco said:
Three kids can inherit a €1m house from a parent, tax-free.
Click to expand...
In Dublin though a 2 bed apartment would be over the threshold for a lone child, potentially meaning they have to sell it to cover the tax. Never mind if they inherited such a luxury as a 3-bed semi-d o_O
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top