Total Irish tax burden almost unchanged in period 1995-2005

[Opus]

Hi hiker,

Face it Opus, you're winging it. the facts are with PAYE a worker has no choice, with VAT,VRT, CGT etc etc one always has a choice. Maybe not great one's but better than NO CHOICE.

I see so - you're replacing what you think is NO CHOICE with effectively NO CHOICE - that progress I guess even for you.

What about having a number of tax levels based on income - you concern for the common man and woman is touching but in using indirect taxation you do of course realise you are screwing them?

Explain to me why some people with very high income get away with paying no tax then - do you consider that fair?

Are you dim? If the PAYE worker is not paying for the State thru his wages where the hell do you think it comes from? Heaven?
Have you ever heard of Corporation Tax? Did you realise that the net taxtake on this tax has skyrocketed since labour costs have dropped and companies are making more profits.

Of course taxation is derived from a number of sources - here's the thing matey - these sources of tax were there before the PD's - Isn't that amazing? Of course the amounts derived from them have changed, but who still pays most taxes in Ireland? Joe and Josephine Public -THAT has not changed - ALL THAT HAS CHANGED IS THAT THE TAX SYSTEM HAS BEEN AMENDED TO BENEFIT THE WEALTHIER SECTIONS IN SOCIETY.

I'll let the PD's take what "credit" they want from that.

Come on Opus, wake up a smell the future. Your Labour Party's fatal attraction to taxing the crap out of defensless workers has passed its sell by date.

Ah yes, the nasty Labour Party is all to blame for this - just drop income tax rates and make up the difference through indirect taxation that you'll have to pay for in the main. For God's sake man grow up will you - this level of self-congratualtion on your part is pathetic.

Regards,

Opus.[/quote]

[hiker]

But the poorest most vulnerable people don't pay PAYE, they do however pay the indirect taxes that the PDs are so much in favour of. Consequence, the poorest people end up poorer, the rich get richer.

So are you saying that poor people are forced to pay VRT on a 4-wheel SUV?

Or Capital Gains Tax on their shares portfolio?

Or VAT on their €400K 4 bed home?

Are you saying that by taxing the lowest paid at 25% or 30% that they would'nt have to pay the above taxes on their purchases?
Do you see the absurdity of this arguement?

Lowest paid people DO NOT BUY large SUVs. They DO NOT BUY shares or stocks or property because they are poor.
So lets skip the crap the somehow poor people are somehow less well off because they pay lower personal taxation. There has always been poor people and less well off people. Whinging about it wont change it.
The way to tackle poverty is thru employment and education not taxation.

[hiker]

What about having a number of tax levels based on income

I would not object to creating a middle band in principle, say 30% for €35K up to $60K.

You keep banging on about indirect taxation as if it has never existed before the Progressive Democrats arrived.

Consumer Taxation is a far superior form of taxation than Employment Taxation. That is my opinion. You obviously do not agree and that is fair enough.

the people will choose next GE.

[Opus]

Hi hiker,

What about having a number of tax levels based on income

I would not object to creating a middle band in principle, say 30% for €35K up to $60K.

You keep banging on about indirect taxation as if it has never existed before the Progressive Democrats arrived.

Consumer Taxation is a far superior form of taxation than Employment Taxation. That is my opinion. You obviously do not agree and that is fair enough.

the people will choose next GE.

Finally!!

I bang on about indirect taxation because it is UNFAIR. I'm fully aware of the fact that it existed before the PDs - what the PDs did is to use it more and more as a source and the examples you have used are frankly disengenous. I suppose there is no chance of looking at examples WHERE you CAN'T choose not to consume?

Your assertion that consumer taxation is better than employment taxation is frankly a load of jeremy rollocks and THAT is my opinion - the fact that you don't wish to consider it reflects badly on you.

As you say the electorate as ever will decide.

Regards,

Opus.

[hiker]

I suppose there is no chance of looking at examples WHERE you CAN'T choose not to consume?

You cannot choose with energy. Gas and Electricity is at 13.5%. Not outragous.
You cannot choose with food. Zero rated on many goods.
You cannot choose on transport. VRT is a b-itch but you can choose the size of your car(or like me, choose a motorcycle).
21%VAT on Toll bridge receipts but you can choose an alternative route.
21% on Deisel and Petrol but you can choose public transport.

20%CGT on the profit of a property sale. 20% tax on profit of this type is not outragous since you never had it in your pocket. If you buy something thats same price then no tax is paid.


VAT @ 21% is IMO excessive. McCreevy reduced it by 1% some years ago and then put it back up again 12 month later.

[Sidewinder]

We all know that indirect taxes eg VAT motor etc. hit the wealthier hardest because they spend more. That is simple fact.

Is there anyone in the PDs that has ever studied economics? Seriously! PD mantras are full of hokey wibbling that the average Leaving Cert Economics student could drive an oil tanker through.

Indirect taxation is regressive because the lower paid end up paying more tax as a proportion of their income. This is Economics 101 stuff.

Sheesh.

[hiker]

[Indirect taxation is regressive because the lower paid end up paying more tax as a proportion of their income.

So in your example a lower paid person pays more in proprtion to a better paid person for a car, lets say.

In order to balance that equation you propose that a higher paid person should produse a P60 when buying that car upon which he/she will be charged an extra €2000(for example) in order to make the taxation paid proportional to a lower paid persons purchase.

Do this look like a crock of crap to you?
It does to me.

But wait, lets dress it up in different clothes.

Produce a P60 each year and let the Labour party just take it straight of your pocket. Saves a load of hassle, right?
If you work really hard and earn lots of money, well, we will just take even more off you, right!


Wrong.

[Opus]

Hi hiker,

You cannot choose with energy. Gas and Electricity is at 13.5%. Not outragous.
You cannot choose with food. Zero rated on many goods.
You cannot choose on transport. VRT is a b-itch but you can choose the size of your car(or like me, choose a motorcycle).
21%VAT on Toll bridge receipts but you can choose an alternative route.
21% on Deisel and Petrol but you can choose public transport.

20%CGT on the profit of a property sale. 20% tax on profit of this type is not outragous since you never had it in your pocket. If you buy something thats same price then no tax is paid.


VAT @ 21% is IMO excessive. McCreevy reduced it by 1% some years ago and then put it back up again 12 month later.

Finally, you cite an example that doesn't involve a SUV, a 400K house and other items that only people with a pretty good income can buy.

Let's look at energy (which, in due fairness to you is a good example)- if you examine the breakdown of expenditure by individuals you will find that people on lower incomes tend to spend more of their income as a proportion than the rest of the population. Check out the poverty studies by ESRI and others...

So what VAT does (at a modest level according to you of 13.5%) is that it HITS people on a lower income HARDER than the rest of the population. You see, this is what I mean by a REGRESSIVE form of taxation - Now do you see why I take exception to indirect taxes?

In addition if a tax cut is given at the top rate of tax it has NO effect with people on the lower rate of tax.. It's reasonable to presume that people on the higher rate are presumably paid more to start with... so the net effect is that because of these two policies.

1) Richer people are better off whilst,

2) Poorer people are worse off while roughly the same amount of tax is paid out.

Is it me or does anyone else see a problem with this from a social equity point of view? Anyone??


Regards,

Opus.

[hiker]

if you examine the breakdown of expenditure by individuals you will find that people on lower incomes tend to spend more of their income as a proportion than the rest of the population.

Of course they do. They do not earn as much so the percentage is higher.

You are saying that this is unfair.
Opus, this is life. Some people are always going to earn more than others because they are better educated, smarter, harder workers and a billion other reasons.

Its impossable to legislate these differences out of society even with the best will in the world.

in my philosophy I say let people get out there and do the best they can. For those who fall by the wayside there should be help from society but absolute equality of earnings and taxation is impossable.

[Sidewinder]

[Indirect taxation is regressive because the lower paid end up paying more tax as a proportion of their income.

So in your example a lower paid person pays more in proprtion to a better paid person for a car, lets say.

In order to balance that equation you propose that a higher paid person should produse a P60 when buying that car upon which he/she will be charged an extra €2000(for example) in order to make the taxation paid proportional to a lower paid persons purchase.

Do this look like a crock of crap to you?
It does to me.

But wait, lets dress it up in different clothes.

Produce a P60 each year and let the Labour party just take it straight of your pocket. Saves a load of hassle, right?
If you work really hard and earn lots of money, well, we will just take even more off you, right!

Wrong.

What are you wibbling on about? Normally yer quite sane. For a PD :wink:

If the tax burden shifts towards consumption taxes then the less-well-off end up being taxed at a higher average rate than the rich, as they by necessity have to spend a much, much higher proportion of their income just to get by, and most of what they spend has taxes, fees and charges attached. It's simple maths. This is basic stuff hiker, and all this waffle about SUVs and being forced to produce your P60 is just scaremongering hyperbole.

Consumption taxes have been recognised as socially regressive from the earliest days of taxation and economic theory. Go pick up a Begg,Fisher and Dornbusch FFS.