The 6% of High Income Earners

[Middleaged]

I think if we said that 47% of all income tax was paid by those people that represesent 6% of the income earners in Ireland.

No-one is denying that the other 53% of income tax is being paid by the majority of earners.

Additionally 100% of earners do not contribute 100% of income tax as 32.4% of earners pay nothing at all due to fact that they don't earn enough under the present tax regime.

You could however say that 100% of tax is contributed by 67.6% of earners, we could go on for ever on this but lets not.

[Fear Dorcha]

So, correct me if I misunderstand this but its professionals on the 40-60k salaries who contribute the largest amount after the 100-150k workers? I cant really understand the statistics involved here. Also, after the 100k-150k earners you have the 125k-200k earners? Is this a mistake or am I the one who's mistaken?

That was a typo. I had to input the figures manually as the article was not available online when I posted. Should have been 150 - 200k.

[Boggle]

0-20k 746k .1
20-30k 390k 2.1
30-40k 327k 4.9
40-60k 413k 15.7
60-80k 212k 15.2
80-100k 107k 11.9
100-150k 96k 17.1
125-200k 25k 7.4
200-500k 24k 12.8
500k-1m 4k 5.2
+1m 1.5k 7.4

Are there any tables which depict what percentage on average that eash group pays in tax?

Basically what I'm saying is that its one thing to say that those on .5m-1m contribute 5.2% of income tax but what percentage of their pay to they actually lose to tax? It is still possible that espite contributing 5.2% of tax, individually they pay a low overall %-age of tax than, say, someone on 40-60k.

(May have missed it if it was posted earlier)

[Middleaged]

Are there any tables which depict what percentage on average that eash group pays in tax?

Basically what I'm saying is that its one thing to say that those on .5m-1m contribute 5.2% of income tax but what percentage of their pay to they actually lose to tax? It is still possible that espite contributing 5.2% of tax, individually they pay a low overall %-age of tax than, say, someone on 40-60k.

(May have missed it if it was posted earlier)

If you go back a few pages Leftfemme was kind enough to link to a story in the times last thursday there was a table included.

[Boggle]

Cheers for that Middleaged.

[Skin]

I think if we said that 47% of all income tax was paid by those people that represesent 6% of the income earners in Ireland.

No-one is denying that the other 53% of income tax is being paid by the majority of earners.

Additionally 100% of earners do not contribute 100% of income tax as 32.4% of earners pay nothing at all due to fact that they don't earn enough under the present tax regime.

You could however say that 100% of tax is contributed by 67.6% of earners, we could go on for ever on this but lets not.

Nobody said anything about 100% of earners contributing 100% of the income tax take. The statistic is (please go back a couple of pages and re-read) 100% of income tax contributors, contribute 100% of the income tax take.

FYI, when FF spouts that 6% of the top earners contribute 50% of the tax, then the other 94% only contribute 50% between them.
But what is actually happening here is that, as you have mentioned, 32.4% of earners who do not pay tax are being lumped in with the income tax contributors which gives rise further to the false notion that the top 6% are burdened with the heaviest contribution.
Really what should occur is that only those that contribute income tax should be included in the final % figure of income tax contributors. If this is done then it can be shown that the top 6% of earners pay far less than the muted 50% contribution.

If there was honesty about this, the real statisitic would be the top 6% of earners - earn x% of total income.
The top 6% of income tax contributors - contribute x% of the income tax take.

But FF have twisted the stats to lumber earners and contributors in the same category, againt this is just pure manipulation of the truth and should stop.

[Middleaged]

If there was honesty about this, the real statisitic would be the top 6% of earners - earn x% of total income.
The top 6% of income tax contributors - contribute x% of the income tax take.

Here's the honesty,

The top 6.38%(150,948 out of a total of 2,365,800) of high earner's (those earning €100k or more) earned in 2008, €28,767mln out of a total of €101,637mln.

This represents 28.30% of total income.

Those 6.38% paid €7,783mln of a TOTAL tax income of €15,574mln or 49.97% of TOTAL TAX TAKE.

Meanwhile 2,214,852 people who had income deemed to be taxable contributed €7,791mln.

These earners represent 93.62% of earners in Ireland and contriubute 50.03% of income tax take.

These are accepted figures of all major political parties and indeed form the basis of all strategic computations.

I'm not a member of FF

[Skin]

Here's the honesty,

The top 6.38%(150,948 out of a total of 2,365,800) of high earner's (those earning €100k or more) earned in 2008, €28,767mln out of a total of €101,637mln.

This represents 28.30% of total income.

Those 6.38% paid €7,783mln of a TOTAL tax income of €15,574mln or 49.97% of TOTAL TAX TAKE.

Meanwhile 2,214,852 people who had income deemed to be taxable contributed €7,791mln.

These earners represent 93.62% of earners in Ireland and contriubute 50.03% of income tax take.

These are accepted figures of all major political parties and indeed form the basis of all strategic computations.

I'm not a member of FF

Thanks for the figures and apologies if you thought I was labeling you FF, that was not my intention - the dishonesty is emanting from FF.

I am not disputing your figures, I have not at any point disputed the claim at any point in this debate that those figures are incorrect.
What this thread is about is the misleading propaganda spouted by FF. This misleading propaganda is to project the image that the top 6% of earners are over-burdened with the income tax laiblity while the other 94% should be thank their lucky stars that they only have to contribute 50% between the lot of them.

So here is it in simple form as the message does not seem to be getting through:-

Assume, there are 200 earners in the state who contribute a total of 1,000euro in income tax.
It is said that the top 6% of earners (12) contribute 50% of the tax (500euro)
Therefore the bottom 94% of earners (188) only contribute 50% of the tax between them (500euro). Sounds a bit lop-sided to me with the heaviest burden placed on the top earners.

But another statistic that could be said to be here is that the top 10% of earners (20) contribute 60% of the tax (600 euro) leaving the bottom 90% of earners (180) to contribute only 40% (400euro) between them. Still very lop-sided.

But a closer look at those statistics can show that it is possible for an individual, by virtue of the income they earn, to be at once, at the exact same time, an earner who falls in the category of being in the top 10% (burdened with being in the category for contributing 60% of the income tax take) and also an earner who falls into the category of being in the bottom 94% of earners only contributing 50% of the income tax take.

In the figures I provide, there are 8 earners who fall into both categories. So how can this be? How can a single worker with a single income be both a top earner contributing the lions share of the tax and at the same time be a bottom earner contributing a token amount of tax?

The answer is, a manipulation of figures to project an image that the wealthy are contributing more than their fair share. This is not the case, at the very most they are contributing their fair share but not any more than that.

[Skin]

I invite anyone with any common sense to imagine how the above reply would have been greeted by those who accused the government of not taxing the well off fairly.

Unfortunately, your understanding of the accusations against the government 'of not taxing the well off fairly' is limited.
There are many ways of taxing people as you well know, Income Tax, CGT, VAT, etc.

As far as income tax is concerned 41% is the rate applied to everyone over 35,000 (maybe its 36,500 now?..whatever!). Under the 35,000 threshold everyone benefits equally from the 20% tax rate, and below 18,000 there is no tax.

However, as stated, there are other forms of taxation, e.g CGT (I think its 22% now). This 22% rate is a single rate of tax applicable on disposals of capital regardless of the amount involved.
So lets look again.
A person who earns 40,000 euro is liable to pay 41% tax.
A person who disposes of an asset and makes a profit of 4,000,000 is liable to 22% tax.
Here is the question, of all the people who disposed of assets in the last year and availed of the 22% CGT, how many of them earned less that 40,000 compared to those who earned more than 40,000?

How many landlords (who can write off the tax liabilty on the rental income they receive against the interest they pay on the mortgage of the property) earn more than 35,000 from other incomes as opposed to earning less than 35,000?

How many eaners less than 18,000 are involved in property developments that have no tax liabilities? In receipt of public land to build private hospitals at no cost? etc...etc...

The accusations that the wealthy dont pay their fair share emantes from the fact that the more money you have, the greater the opportunity to reduce your tax liabilty - that is not fair.