Who speaks for the squeezed middle in the pre-budget submissions?

Status
Not open for further replies.
All of those points have been raised in the media already by Brendan and others. They won't get traction because they do not suit our left wing media's agenda and unless something is written by Reuters, the London Times or the English Daily Telegraph it won't make it into the Indo.

Part of the reason this point of view gains less coverage in the media, is because the people making these points are less skilled in media presentation. They tend to think developing the argument is a substitute for a catchy headline.

With all due respect to Brendan,

a general submission and then list 20 ideas for improving the long term financial stability of the country.

is never going to make the front page.

Whereas, "My car insurance premiums are going up to pay for uninsured dodgers" might.
 
I understand the point you are making, but the problem with a single idea is that people get bored listening to it. The problems are complex and they need complex solutions. Having said that, the media wants sound bites "Tax the rich to help the poor"

Brendan
I agree. A free media is more important in protecting the interests of the citizen than democracy. In my opinion we are as badly let down by our media as we are by our government and State Sector.
 
Here is one today on Bloomberg relating to a discussion in the UK

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...see-the-u-k-tear-itself-apart-cable-will-warn
We don't like that sort of thing here. We just want someone else to pay for everything. Property taxes, bin charges, water charges etc. are all forms of non-labour taxes which are not cyclical.
Personally I agree with him as because of the shift from returns on labour to returns on capital we need to shift the tax burden away from labour and onto capital. The problem is that capital is mobile so there is absolutely no point in Ireland doing this in isolation.
 
We just want someone else to pay for everything. Property taxes, bin charges, water charges

I disagree, I would imagine the compliance rate for payment of property and bin charges is relatively high.
Water charges were unique as it triggered a mass protest against further austerity. The public debate morphed into the pay for consumption v right to basic necessity v the calamity that was in setting up Irish Water. But inherent in those mass protests was a public fatigue with increasing unemployment, emigration, pay cuts, pay freezes, negative equity, increased taxes and charges.

we need to shift the tax burden away from labour and onto capital.

I agree.

The problem is that capital is mobile so there is absolutely no point in Ireland doing this in isolation.

I agree. A rise in wages (not restricted to Ireland) is required. Central Banks and governments need to engineer the conditions that facilitates economic forces to increase the return on wages over the return on capital - without crashing the world economy of course! :)
 
I agree. A rise in wages (not restricted to Ireland) is required. Central Banks and governments need to engineer the conditions that facilitates economic forces to increase the return on wages over the return on capital - without crashing the world economy of course! :)
The big question is how that can be done.
 
Back to the main topic

Who speaks for the tax paying workers?

I will probably do a Pre Budget Submission based on my earlier post.

It will be a personal submission, but maybe I will make it "on behalf of all taxpayers and workers"

Brendan
Back to the main topic, I think you'll be laughed at.

gnf_ireland in post no 1 of this thread, highlighted the issue of the squeezed middle particularly as discussed in a document on 'Perspectives on Ireland’s personal tax system' from the Irish Tax Institute. However, these concerns are not officially addressed at a policy level in Ireland.

Issues on personal income tax levels in Ireland have already been identified and IMHO analysed and discussed more cogently than in this thread by e.g. the Revenue Commissioners, the Tax Strategy Group of the Department of Finance, etc. The government's own Income Tax Reform Plan http://www.finance.gov.ie/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Income-Tax-Reform-Plan.pdf recognises that entry to income tax is at a high income level and that entry to the higher rate is at a relatively low level. Unfortunately the 'reform' part of the plan, which incidentally concludes that “Ireland has a comparatively low tax burden on labour, particularly at low and middle income levels”, is largely concerned with faffing about on the periphery with earned income credit; the home carers credit and extending mortgage interest relief, than delivering real tax reform.

The National Risk Assessment Strategy 2017 http://www.taoiseach.gov.ie/eng/Publications/Publications_2017/National%20Risk%20Assessment%202017%20-%20Overview%20of%20Strategic%20Risks.pdf says “In Ireland, taxation and social transfer policies have been effective in offsetting market income inequality. In 2015, transfers reduced the at-risk-of-poverty rate from 34.9% to 16.9%, representing a poverty reduction effect of 52%, and currently Ireland is the best performing EU Member State in this regard. Similarly, the ratio of total income received by the top income quintile compared to the bottom income quintile stood at 4.7 in 2015 down from 5.1 in 2012 at the height of the economic downturn. In recent years there has been some improvement in measures of poverty and inequality, with the Gini coefficient for disposable income falling below the EU average in 2015. However, measures of consistent poverty remain above the targets set for 2020.” So there you have it. Taxation policy is, inter alia, to 'offset market income inequality'. So it was a bit of a waste of time to study, get that qualification, work hard and produce marketable goods and services, because somebody else, and not you and your family, will benefit from your hard work and effort, but you will at least know that you live is an less unequal society. And that is why an Irish taxpayer on 55 grand pays more that in other wealthier countries, because it is public policy that he/she should do so.

Furthermore the Fiscal Advisory Council's pre-budget submission http://www.fiscalcouncil.ie/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Pre-Budget-2018-Statement.pdf does not address the issue of personal taxation or the concerns of the Irish Tax Institute, presumably because they do not regard them as important or real, but notes that “there is more scope for government expenditure to expand in line with the economy’s sustainable pace of growth, while gradually reducing debt levels.” So public policy would appear to be firmly set on increasing government expenditure, when it can get away with it, with issues concerning personal income tax payers not addressed in the FAC's report.

Additionally, the government's recent Economic Statement http://www.budget.gov.ie/Budgets/2018/Documents/SES/20170712-SES-final-version.pdf identifies 0.22 billion net for 'new taxation measures'. I think this means possible tax reductions, but the report goes on to say “Any additional expenditure measures and tax reduction proposals will require additional discretionary measures unless compensating expenditure reductions are identified. The forthcoming Tax Strategy Group papers will set out potential options for revenue increases and reductions.” http://www.finance.gov.ie/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/170712-Summer-Economic-Statement-2017.pdf. So it would appear that additional taxation has not been ruled out and tax reduction will come only where expenditure cuts are identified. And this by a strategy group that concludes that Ireland has a low tax burden on labour. This is not the same as saying for example, "we will, as a matter of policy, 'address the concerns of the squeezed middle' or change personal taxation in Ireland along the lines of the medium to long term approach proposed by the Irish Tax Institute".
 
Last edited:
And that is why an Irish taxpayer on 55 grand pays more that in other wealthier countries, because it is public policy that he/she should do so.

Are there any comparison sites to give these figures ? I randomly chose Germany and ran the deductions on €55k for a single person on the website below and came up with total deductions of €19400 (I skipped the Church Tax!). This includes state health insurance. What is the figure for a single taxpayer in Ireland ? My rough estimate is for about €16000 (tax, PRSI, USC), but open to correction.

http://www.brutto-netto-rechner.info/gehalt/gross_net_calculator_germany.php
 
So there you have it. Taxation policy is, inter alia, to 'offset market income inequality'. So it was a bit of a waste of time to study, get that qualification, work hard and produce marketable goods and services, because somebody else, and not you and your family, will benefit from your hard work and effort, but you will at least know that you live is an less unequal society. And that is why an Irish taxpayer on 55 grand pays more that in other wealthier countries, because it is public policy that he/she should do so.

It would appear however that you haven't considered the reasons why public policy is geared toward offsetting market income inequality.
 
Furthermore the Fiscal Advisory Council's pre-budget submission http://www.fiscalcouncil.ie/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Pre-Budget-2018-Statement.pdf does not address the issue of personal taxation or the concerns of the Irish Tax Institute, presumably because they do not regard them as important or real, but notes that “there is more scope for government expenditure to expand in line with the economy’s sustainable pace of growth, while gradually reducing debt levels.” So public policy would appear to be firmly set on increasing government expenditure, when it can get away with it, with issues concerning personal income tax payers not addressed in the FAC's report.

Bananas. During the crash people were advocating that the government stimulate the economy by increasing spending. The economy has recovered and we're nearly breaking even and now it looks like there are more calls for additional spending. Looks pro-cyclical rather than counter-cyclical. So, if I am reading this correctly, when the economy is in the dumps we should increase government spending to boost the economy and when the economy is fine we should boost increase spending again as we have the funds?

Can anyone tell me when the government should not increase spending?

Is it any wonder our national debt is 200,000,000,00 ???
 
Back to the main topic, I think you'll be laughed at.

Hi PMU

That would never stop me. I think a lot of people are afraid to speak out about the system because they will be laughed at or abused by the media or the poverty lobby.

I have the submission drafted.

I will try to get the issues debated it the media over the coming weeks.

Brendan
 
f I am reading this correctly, when the economy is in the dumps we should increase government spending to boost the economy and when the economy is fine we should boost increase spending again as we have the funds?

Brilliant Firefly

I will be amending my pre-Budget submission accordingly.

Brendan
 
I think a lot of people are afraid to speak out about the system because they will be laughed at or abused by the media or the poverty lobby.

I think that is true, and it would be a good thing to give them the tools to speak out. Not just on a forum like this which is sufficiently hidden away not to be exposed to being laughed at or abused.

Highlighting one irritating issue at a time, will be permitted by the media.
 
Back to the main topic, I think you'll be laughed at.

When I first came across this thread I genuinely thought it was some sort of poker-faced joke or spoof. Was it meant to be some sort of parody script for the annual PD old-boys nostalgia night? But then I remembered that the first time I came across FOX News several years ago, I thought it was a joke also - and that didn't didn't turn out too funny in the end. Hopefully that is not an omen.

Some posters have referenced "populism" as what they are up against! Not much sense of irony. A considerable part of this thread has consisted of the easy populism of the "stop robbing us of our tax money because we are uniquely victimized variety". It has several times been alluded to that the media (the FAKE NEWS media?) are in on some sort of conspiracy to keep viewpoints of this nature suppressed. I have read these views being very articulately expressed many times and rightly so as they are valid points in social debate - so please spare me the poor excluded victim vibe running through here. Is that closet Trotskyite, Denis O'Brien, keeping these views out of his media empire? Where is Dan O'Brien writing these days? And the Bakunite Murdoch's Sunday Times ? Do I not read Cormac Lucey there? Or is it an imposter? Is Brian Carey a suspect? (Perhaps in the secret pay of the "poverty industry"?).

t would appear however that you haven't considered the reasons why public policy is geared toward offsetting market income inequality.

Precisely, TheBigShort. There has been plenty on "cutting my unfair taxes because I shouldn't have to subsidise things I can't use or benefit from" variety (balanced regional development, broadband in rural villages, "poverty", etc -add your own ad infinitum -why not schools if I don't have children?), but nothing about the vision of the alternative society envisaged (presuming all of the posters accept the idea or value of society?). Fortunately many economists of international renown seem to be taking a much broader view of late and reckon that the winner takes all approach has poorer societal outcomes across the board, eg,

https://hbr.org/2016/01/income-inequality-makes-whole-countries-less-happy

https://www.citylab.com/equity/2015/12/income-inequality-makes-people-unhappy/416268/

We have the wrong discussion; it should be about value for money and efficiency, not increasing taxes and spending.

Purple, In fairness you did try to steer things away from a WhineFest - but it didn't last long, did it?

Finally, in case all of the FAKE NEWS MEDIA decline to publish the article, could I suggest you try Waterford Whispers?:D

http://waterfordwhispersnews.com/
 
Last edited:
Are there any comparison sites to give these figures ?
The figure of 55 grand comes from page 5 of the Irish Taxation Institute's document quoted by gnf_ireland in post no 1 of this thread. “At a salary level of €55,000, an Irish taxpayer pays more tax than in Sweden, Spain, Switzerland and the US. They pay over €800 more than a taxpayer in the UK.” https://taxinstitute.ie/Portals/0/The%20Budget%20Book%202017%20-%20Final%2016%20Sept.pdf.

It would appear however that you haven't considered the reasons why public policy is geared toward offsetting market income inequality.
This is a big debate. But there is all the difference in the world between having a welfare state that looks after society's unfortunates, which I and every other reasonable person supports and insists on, and policy that sets out to negate explicitly the benefits and distributions of a market economy.

I presume this comment is directed at the Fiscal Advisory Council , and not me?

That would never stop me.
The point I was making is that for acceptance, any submission must make sense within the current policy formation framework, e.g. the various official documents I quoted in my previous post. If a submission is regarded as a whinge document it will be dismissed. Your post no 9 is well argued as is the Taxation Institute's document.

However, for example, a possible criticism you might receive is “Well the government's Income Tax Strategy document concludes that Ireland has a comparatively low tax burden on labour, particularly at low and middle income levels”, so tax is low, so what's your problem?

Now you know and I know and most contributors to this thread know this is because as you have correctly pointed out in post no 9 that this is because a large no of low paid workers do not pay income tax, so taxation is low. However, if you then get into a debate on technical taxation issues it's like a debate on evolution, everybody switches off.

I think the most important point in post 9 is that “We also penalise people who try to provide for themselves.” A whinge on tax will be dismissed, but rejigging post 9 as a submission on what sort of society penalises those who help themselves may well indeed prove fruitful. After all why should society penalise those who set out not to be a burden on that society.
 
Last edited:
The figure of 55 grand comes from page 5 of the Irish Taxation Institute's document quoted by gnf_ireland in post no 1 of this thread. “At a salary level of €55,000, an Irish taxpayer pays more tax than in Sweden, Spain, Switzerland and the US.

Rights, thanks for that. And I am assuming that the comparison figures include social contributions? Also, does the US figure take account of State income tax rates or just federal rates? In New Jersey, for example, state income tax adds between 1.4% and 9% on a sliding scale.

So perhaps, you earlier post might more accurately have read :

And that is why an Irish taxpayer on 55 grand pays more than in SOME other wealthier countries,
 
Last edited:
But there is all the difference in the world between having a welfare state that looks after society's unfortunates, which I and every other reasonable person supports and insists on, and policy that sets out to negate explicitly the benefits and distributions of a market economy.

True, but a policy geared to offsetting market income inequality via a welfare state that looks after those less fortunate in society, which you, I and every other reasonable person support, is a world away from a policy that sets out to negate explicitly the benefits and distributions of a market economy.
 
PMU has eloquently set down the difficulties faced by those who make pre-budget submissions.

All lot of submissions will not be given a second glance because the proposals they contain are ill-defined, uncosted and insufficiently researched.

It is particularly difficult even for bodies such as the Institute of Taxation to formulate tax policies in the absence of the kind of detailed national and international statistics available to governmental advisors such as the Tax Strategy Group.
 
PMU has eloquently set down the difficulties faced by those who make pre-budget submissions.

To be fair, I don't expect Paschal to take my submission as a check-list and start cutting social welfare immediately.

But if everyone sits back and lets the poverty lobby call for even more expenditure when we already have €200 bn of national debt, they can't complain when we the Troika comes back in.

I want to offer the alternative view that there is an open-ended cheque book.

Brendan
 
But if everyone sits back and lets the poverty lobby call for even more expenditure when we already have €200 bn of national debt, they can't complain when we the Troika comes back in.

I want to offer the alternative view that there is an open-ended cheque book.

Making an alternative viewpoint known is fine Brendan. Like many posters, I don’t necessarily disagree with it.

I could shoot off a proposal myself but to be taken seriously, it would have to have credence; not just a
broad-spectrum personal stance.

Anything I say could be easily refuted by those who have information that I cannot access.

To be successful, I would need to stick to one or two points that I could prove beyond doubt.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top