They get the unpaid portion of the tax credit in cash. That's why it is called a refundable tax credit.What if you have lost your job and are not contributing tax?
I'll take your word for it.
But you're not comparing like with like - the mature person in your example has a proven track record whilst the younger person is just out of school. What if the younger person was 25 and a qualified teacher but the 55 year old never looked after kids before?
Then he is discriminating based on age. Do you agree with this?
Eh? The example you posted showed that people on low to medium incomes in Sweden pay far more tax, in return for better social services.
Why make the tax system more unfair in the utterly groundless hope that increases in spending will improve services? During the boom we say massive increases in spending in areas such as health and education. During the same period we saw no discernible improvement in the quality of, or outcomes from, those services. Since the crash there have been some minor cuts to the funding of those services. We have seen no discernible decline in the quality of, or outcomes from, those services.The example you posted also showed that higher income earners in Ireland pay less income tax, 6% less in fact.
So let's see if we can bridge a gap here. Let's impose a 6% increase on higher earners to kick start a tax reform program that provides better public services like in healthcare, maternity care, childcare, education etc. This in turn can relieve the associated costs in this country that have been left to the 'free market' profiteers imposing undue burdens on lower and middle incomes. To such a point that in some cases they are also welfare dependent.
In return for a more just and equitable system, low and middle income earners will be required to pay their 'fair share' of income tax.
Additional cancer treatments will save money in the longer term as it will reduce the cost of treating people with advanced cancer.Doesn't necessarily cost more money, I agree. But if you are talking about public services in the round, then realistically, investment in IT, new processes, implementation of new strategies and concepts etc, will, at some point need extra financial investment. That investment may produce savings in the long run, alternatively, depending on the actual service, it may simply just cost more money. For example, additional cancer screening services for provincial and rural towns will provide a better service for those populations, but cost more money in taxes for everyone.
Because they always oppose redundancies in the State sector. A good example is the 3000 unnecessary people employed in Irish Water who were moved from local councils. That’s a massive cost to the State. How many other examples are there of duplication or service and/or process throughout the State in the HSE, local government and semi-State sectors? The one thing they all have in common is they are Unionised and they have very low levels of labour flexibility.For sure, why wouldn't they?
I agree completely. The former “Commercial” Semi-State businesses (an oxymoron if ever there was one) need to be completely open to competition. The only thing worse than a State monopoly is a private sector monopoly.And if waste and inefficiency was got rid of in the private sector then prices could start to fall. The regulated industries of telecommunications, health insurance and energy providers would be a good place to start. Instead of the annual circus of finding the 'best quote' for the exact same service, surely 'the free market' would find the true value of the product and charge accordingly.
If you are right then he's not very good at running his business. Your Staff is your biggest asset and while you can train skills you cannot train an attitude. It is worth hiring the right attitude and being willing to pay a premium for it.The problem as I see it, is he tries to pay the same hourly rate as an inexperienced, unreliable 21yr old. He does this on the basis that the job is low skilled, and Labour supply is plentiful. He does not factor in a sufficient premium for having reliable experienced staff.
Yea, populist left wing politicians and a populist left wing media telling lies about who pays for what in the State. Putting money into your pension is not what it used to be and it was only ever deferred taxation, not a tax break.Anyone with common sense should know why the tax system is the way it is.
What is driving up the cost on people?I will agree with you that the tax man is investing along with you .You are missing the point that it is driving up the cost on people who cant do so right now and it will have long term cost to the state for the people who cannot afford to because of the system.
FG are well left of center and the biggest vest interest group in the country is ICTU.Yes and the most right wing party in this country right now are in power they are rolling over for vested interests to tickle there belly.
No. Because he does hire 20+ yrs olds. They are easier to hire. It is hard to find mature, reliable staff. It is his preference to hire mature reliable staff. They turn up on time, get on with the job, don't need as much supervision etc.
A colleague of mine, whose husband runs a small cafe is loathe to hire young people in their 20's. Always ringing in sick, wanting to swap shifts for one party or another. He prefers mature reliable staff.
Change the word "young" below for black, muslim, or women and change the word "old" for white, catholic or men and tell me is this is not discrimination!
You are getting ahead of yourself here. He doesn't discriminate against young people. He has about 6 teens and 20+ employees on his books.
He would prefer to have more mature staff. He considers them to be more reliable, better productivity, less supervision. That is his opinion.
He finds it hard to find these worker's. Probably due to the wages (more or less minimum wage) he offers. Perhaps he can't afford to offer higher wages, perhaps he is tight with his money. Either way it's his business and he gets what he pays for.
There is no discrimination case here. There would be if he refused to employ someone on the basis of what age they were.
What has the quality of services provided got to do with the way in which the burden for paying for those services is applied?
Why do you think paying people more money to do the same jobs will make them do those jobs better?
Still not buying it. Using words like prefer and considers to justify the stereoptyping based on age and actively trying to recruit one age profile over another is still discrimination.
How so?Everything.
Yes, I do.You keep pointing to the 'unfair' burden on high earners relative to low and medium earners. You also point to the lack of quality in our public services relative to places like Sweden.
I'm not sure what you are saying here. The two sentences don't see to be linked.But you dismiss the concept that to increase the tax burden on low and middle incomes will require a return on better services provided. But you are convinced that that would not occur
The return would be fairness and as more people contribute more people would look for value. At the moment most people are net recipients and many contribute nothing so as they are getting services for nothing they are not concerned with the value for money those services represent. When the next hair-brained socialist/populist scheme is proposed more people would ask themselves "I wonder what they's going to cost me?". That's no bad thing. It's also good for society when as many people as possible contribute as it strengthens the social contract and provides solidarity amongst us citizens.So you want to rebalance the tax system by increasing tax on low and medium earners, in return for what? Zero.
The return would be fairness and as more people contribute more people would look for value
At the moment we should have a fairer taxation system in which low and middle earners pay their fair share. Without any changes in services that should be addressed. Therefore we should balance our tax burden at the same relative levels they have in Sweden; pay tax at the same progressive levels they do there.But it still wouldn't be fair. You identity a country like Sweden and point to the tax regime AND the quality of public services.
Here you want to increase taxes on low and middle earners but claim, even if we did that, there will be NO improvement in services, so what is the point? What is the point in increasing taxes on lower earners if there is not a corresponding improvement in services? It would appear that this argument is wholly based on the (your) perception of what is fair and what is not.