T McGibney
Registered User
- Messages
- 6,198
That too.
It's why I'm in favour of relentless and irreversible reductions in both it and VAT, with commensurately heavy reductions in public expenditure and state services.
That too.Income tax is an anti-working sick joke.
I'm in favour of relentless and irreversible reductions in State sector waste. We should be able to fund every service we have with far less money.That too.
It's why I'm in favour of relentless and irreversible reductions in both it and VAT, with commensurately heavy reductions in public expenditure and state services.
They impact some people. VAT increases impact all people and have a bigger impact on those who don't have much money.But people who own their own home don't have to pay rent or a mortgage.
People with no children don't have to pay childcare costs.
People who live near work or amenities don't have as many transport costs.
There is a big difference between gross income and what your descressionary income is. If you are wealthy but have a moderate income then you probably need a lower income than someone who is not wealthy but has a high income. VAT is fairer in that context.
Of course there's no scenario or model that is fair to anyone but our current system that ignores wealth and only taxes income is very inequitable.
There are plenty of people with high incomes who end up with very low descressionary income due to high rents and high childcare costs. They have no choice but to pay that rent and childcare but they are subjected to punitive income tax rates. They are the people who don't have much money.They impact some people. VAT increases impact all people and have a bigger impact on those who don't have much money.
People on high incomes have a lot more choices than those on low incomes. They are usually more skilled too and have greater opportunities available to them.There are plenty of people with high incomes who end up with very low descressionary income due to high rents and high childcare costs. They have no choice but to pay that rent and childcare but they are subjected to punitive income tax rates. They are the people who don't have much money.
Wealthy people on modest incomes can have a much higher descressionary income. The are subjected to a much lower rate of income tax. That is inequitable.
That's effectively what's been happening since about 2014. Budgets have seen successive increases in personal tax credits while VAT has stayed the same and other indirect taxes like excise have gone up.I agree that the "squeezed middle" are unfairly being hit hard with taxes and large outgoings. But increasing VAT while decreasing income tax is not something that any sane politician who wants to keep their job would ever do.
Not if most of their income is going on childcare and rent/mortgage costs.People on high incomes have a lot more choices than those on low incomes.
Not if they have childcare costs, long commutes and the associated costs. Plus if they avail of those "more choices" (work longer) then over half their extra income is taken in payroll taxes.They are usually more skilled too and have greater opportunities available to them.
I don't know if it's unfair but it's unbalanced.I agree that the "squeezed middle" are unfairly being hit hard with taxes and large outgoings.
I agree. People rarely vote for things that are in their own medium term interest.But increasing VAT while decreasing income tax is not something that any sane politician who wants to keep their job would ever do.
It would be a tax on the descressionary income of all people. Do you mean poorer people or low income people? They are not the same thing. There are plenty of rich people with low incomes.Indirect taxes like VAT are regressive, even with the zero-rating carve-outs that we already have. VAT disproportionately affects the lowest income earners and households — they pay a much higher percentage of their tax through VAT than higher earners — so any VAT increase would be a tax on the discretionary income of poorer people.
There is no VAT on most medicines or children's clothes. This isn't a gender based issue.VAT on health-related or child-related items would penalise women as they spend more on these items proportionally.
VAT increases affect everyone but they disproportionately affect both poorer people and lower income people.It would be a tax on the descressionary income of all people. Do you mean poorer people or low income people? They are not the same thing. There are plenty of rich people with low incomes.
There is currently no VAT on those items, the point is that adding VAT to those would affect women more in which case it would very much become a gender issue.There is no VAT on most medicines or children's clothes. This isn't a gender based issue.
Income tax increases disproportionately affect poorer people on high incomes. Low VAT rates disproportionately benefits rich people on low incomes.VAT increases affect everyone but they disproportionately affect both poorer people and lower income people.
It would effect all parents equally. Women make 80% of all spending decisions so no matter what changes you make to VAT will impact on women more.There is currently no VAT on those items, the point is that adding VAT to those would affect women more in which case it would very much become a gender issue.
Good point. Isn't it said that women buy most mens' underwear for example?Women make 80% of all spending decisions so no matter what changes you make to VAT will impact on women more.
You sound like P Flynn and the cost of running three households.Income tax increases disproportionately affect poorer people on high incomes. Low VAT rates disproportionately benefits rich people on low incomes.
No, just the one.You sound like P Flynn and the cost of running three households.
So can you choose not to pay your mortgage/rent and choose not to pay for childcare? Can you choose not to pay tax?If you are a high earner, you have options. Child care costs won't be there forever (although I do think that tax relief should be granted on creche fees).
So move to a home that is too small for your family or move further away and move your kids to a different school, have a longer commute and possibly higher childcare costs, be further away from parents, family and friends? Most people will sacrifice to stay near their social infrastructure. In many parts of the country there are no cheap homes.Lots of the high income going on mortgage. Is that because you have an expensive property? You can move to a cheaper one.
In most cases they are retired or older people who bought a home before 1990. They now have no mortgage, no childcare costs, pay almost no income tax and benefit from a net social transfer. Fair play to them and all that, I think that's great, but they are rich in that they have substantial net wealth.I would like to see these rich people on low incomes. Who are they? How did they generate wealth?
So they are people who have already had a working life and are now retired or retirement age?In most cases they are retired or older people who bought a home before 1990. They now have no mortgage, no childcare costs, pay almost no income tax and benefit from a net social transfer. Fair play to them and all that, I think that's great, but they are rich in that they have substantial net wealth.
I want to answer that. Those people have low incomes and no wealth. They are the people who need the help. If there's a social transfer going it should be b going to them but the group who I'm most concerned about is retired people who don't have wealth. They are the people who are paying rent from a low income with no chance of increasing that income. They are really vulnerable.What about the younger people earning low incomes, who have kids but haven't had a working lifetime of building up assets? *
* You don't have to answer that. We clearly have different views on this. There's only so many times we can repeat the same things.
Is the issue not lifestyle choice. This couple on 130k have plenty of options available to them.No, just the one.
So can you choose not to pay your mortgage/rent and choose not to pay for childcare? Can you choose not to pay tax?
A couple with 2 kids earning €130k a year with a €450k mortgage will have an income after tax (€40k), mortgage (€34k-€38k) and childcare costs(€20k-€24k) of around €30k a year.
A couple with no mortgage and no kids on €40k a year will have an income after tax, mortgage (and childcare costs of around €38k a year. They'll have around €35k less outgoings because they are rich; they own their own home and so don't have to pay for the use of someone else's wealth via a mortgage or rent.
So move to a home that is too small for your family or move further away and move your kids to a different school, have a longer commute and possibly higher childcare costs, be further away from parents, family and friends? Most people will sacrifice to stay near their social infrastructure. In many parts of the country there are no cheap homes.
In most cases they are retired or older people who bought a home before 1990. They now have no mortgage, no childcare costs, pay almost no income tax and benefit from a net social transfer. Fair play to them and all that, I think that's great, but they are rich in that they have substantial net wealth.
Yes, and the retired couple next door are much better placed to down size and use their wealth to generate income. They have far more options as they don't have children and have far lower fixed outgoings.Is the issue not lifestyle choice. This couple on 130k have plenty of options available to them.
Take career breaks, move to cheaper home, etc.
They have a lot of controls over there costs if they want to without having taxes reduced
Yes, that's the elephant in the room but most of the people working in these areas are now heroes and above any criticism, constructive or otherwise.Guess what I am saying is that we should fix the expense side. welfare system, HSE, etc.