The 50% and 30% tax rates?

[Realism]

Why 50%?

well, because that's the highest i think a modern state can go with tax rates. the simplicity that comes with a flat tax is one of its benefits. choosing a rate that is too low will mean less revenue. there wouldn't be much difference in evasion given flat tax at 50% or progressive rate of 50%. Thus I think a flat rate makes sense.

How much do you think you would you have to earn to start paying the flat 50% tax?

Everyone would pay a certain portion of their income at that rate; I would think €20000 perhaps would be a level for this - actually this really makes my idea of 50% to be really stupid doesn't it. No it's fine; what we have is that everyone's income above, say €15000, would be taxed at 50%.

[Realism]

Why 50%?

well, because that's the highest i think a modern state can go with tax rates. the simplicity that comes with a flat tax is one of its benefits. choosing a rate that is too low will mean less revenue. there wouldn't be much difference in evasion given flat tax at 50% or progressive rate of 50%. Thus I think a flat rate makes sense.

I must say I agree entirely. We have all seen the destructive consequences for the Exchequer in recent years as tax rates have been lowered...

If we raise taxes to 50%, government income will duly go up. Won't they? Won't they?

It doesn't have to be an increase in taxation, this 50% rate.

[Realism]

Conor sees my proposal as an increase. But it's just simplification. A flat-tax means one rate. But it doesn't mean everyone pays that percentage of their income. I think this could really go down well with the majority of Irish taxpayers, it doesn't have to be an increase in taxation. But by choosing the rate of 50% the state will not lose out in terms of revenue. Neither will the poor taxpayer be paying over the odds for public services.

[Conor]

Conor sees my proposal as an increase.

[smiffy]

Conor sees my proposal as an increase. But it's just simplification. A flat-tax means one rate. But it doesn't mean everyone pays that percentage of their income. I think this could really go down well with the majority of Irish taxpayers, it doesn't have to be an increase in taxation. But by choosing the rate of 50% the state will not lose out in terms of revenue. Neither will the poor taxpayer be paying over the odds for public services.

Maybe I am just a D-O-P-E, but am I missing something here?

Based on current system, then 50% is an increase (an increase in the rate anyway). If you're arguing that it wouldn't be an increase in the amount paid in tax, then you need to put a bit more meat on the bones of your proposal.

I'm assuming you're talking about some form of basic income system (could be wrong, though). If so, can you suggest some figures, and explain why such a proposal would be progressive. I don't accept the geraghd argument that flat rates would simplify the system. Calculating tax based on different rates isn't very hard. The complexity in the tax system stems from the various exemptions and allowances, different standards applied to different types of taxpayer, and the massive resources needed to effectively collect the tax. None of these would go away by simply merging the rates.

[Realism]

Conor sees my proposal as an increase. But it's just simplification. A flat-tax means one rate. But it doesn't mean everyone pays that percentage of their income. I think this could really go down well with the majority of Irish taxpayers, it doesn't have to be an increase in taxation. But by choosing the rate of 50% the state will not lose out in terms of revenue. Neither will the poor taxpayer be paying over the odds for public services.

Maybe I am just a D-O-P-E, but am I missing something here?

Based on current system, then 50% is an increase (an increase in the rate anyway). If you're arguing that it wouldn't be an increase in the amount paid in tax, then you need to put a bit more meat on the bones of your proposal.

I'm assuming you're talking about some form of basic income system (could be wrong, though). If so, can you suggest some figures, and explain why such a proposal would be progressive. I don't accept the geraghd argument that flat rates would simplify the system. Calculating tax based on different rates isn't very hard. The complexity in the tax system stems from the various exemptions and allowances, different standards applied to different types of taxpayer, and the massive resources needed to effectively collect the tax. None of these would go away by simply merging the rates.

Fair enough.

[qtman]

Conor sees my proposal as an increase. But it's just simplification. A flat-tax means one rate. But it doesn't mean everyone pays that percentage of their income. I think this could really go down well with the majority of Irish taxpayers, it doesn't have to be an increase in taxation. But by choosing the rate of 50% the state will not lose out in terms of revenue. Neither will the poor taxpayer be paying over the odds for public services.

Maybe I am just a D-O-P-E, but am I missing something here?

Based on current system, then 50% is an increase (an increase in the rate anyway). If you're arguing that it wouldn't be an increase in the amount paid in tax, then you need to put a bit more meat on the bones of your proposal.

What you're missing is that the neo-cons believe that the the 2 most important characteristics of a tax system should be:

1. it should encourage people who would otherwise evade tax to pay.
2. it should be simple to understand

Equity and social justice don't come into it.

[mjcoughlan]

:
it should be simple to understand

Not only should it be simple to understand but the tax system simple and efficient to administer. A complex tax system, such as the one that we have here, is expensive to administer and there is little point in having a tax system that eats up a larger proportion of the revenue raised than is necessary.

[qtman]

A complex tax system, such as the one that we have here, is expensive to administer and there is little point in having a tax system that eats up a larger proportion of the revenue raised than is necessary.

What is your basis for making the claim that our tax system is expensive to administer?

And is it your point that the cost of administering our tax system is a higher priority that ensuring that it as as fair as possible?