• Due to a glitch in the old vBulletin software, some users were "banned" when they tried to change their passwords at the end of February. This does not apply after the site was converted to Xenforo. If you were affected by this, please us viua the Contact us link in the footer.

Income Tax Rates V Cuts to Carers & Respite Care

  • Thread starter Deleted member 34539
  • Start date

D

Deleted member 34539

I have just been listening to Paschal Donohoe and Maureen O'Sullivan on the RTE1 'This Week' programme.
 
Last edited by a moderator:


making waves

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 2, 2010
Messages
19,271
The really interesting thing from that programme was that car retailers selling high-end cars have booming sales - why - because the rich are being protected while working class people are being hammered by austerity. The richest 10% of the population have seen their income INCREASE year on year since 2008 and they are using the money to buy beamers, jags and 4-wheel-drive gas-guzzlers.
 

bob3367

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 11, 2007
Messages
8,083
The really interesting thing from that programme was that car retailers selling high-end cars have booming sales - why - because the rich are being protected while working class people are being hammered by austerity. The richest 10% of the population have seen their income INCREASE year on year since 2008 and they are using the money to buy beamers, jags and 4-wheel-drive gas-guzzlers.
Thats because finance is so cheap, a new Audi 4 will cost you €349 per month.

If we were paying the same tax as we were in 2008 we would have €1600 more per month in net income, than we have now.

So stop talking shyte, any increases that we have is due to hard work, not less taxation.

Finally the A4 is simply superb.
 

Frank Galton

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 15, 2011
Messages
1,367
Colm McCarthy -- hardly a loony left denizen:

The Achilles tendon in budgetary strategy remains the TUPs, the three unwise promises made before the election. These were to protect public service pay rates, social welfare payments and to eschew increases in the two rates of income tax. A one per cent increase in the 20 per cent rate and in the 41 per cent rate would deliver almost €700m in a full year, create unbridled outrage for about a week and would have yielded 25 times the cash from the controversial cut in the respite allowance for carers. If you enter the ring with your hands tied behind your back, you can expect to ship a lot of punishment.
Colm McCarthy: Budget overshoot is on cards as is a dreaded second bailout - Analysis, Opinion - Independent.ie
 

making waves

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 2, 2010
Messages
19,271
Thats because finance is so cheap, a new Audi 4 will cost you €349 per month.

If we were paying the same tax as we were in 2008 we would have €1600 more per month in net income, than we have now.

So stop talking shyte, any increases that we have is due to hard work, not less taxation.
FACT - the richest 10% of the population have seen their income INCREASE year-on-year since the beginning of the economic collapse.
FACT - the remaining 90% of the population have seen their income DECREASE year-on-year since the beginning of the economic collapse.

Why - because the 90% are being forced to pay the gambling debts of the richest 10% while the richest 10% pay f*ck-all extra in tax and instead show off by spending (a small amount of) it on big cars etc. I am one of the people you constantly attack on here as being an 'overpaid, lazy' public servant - I drive a 12 year old car and will not be getting another one until it falls apart (then it will be the cheapest thing possible that goes).

The 'hard work' that the rich are engaged in is cutting jobs and cutting wages so their profits increase - with the mantra 'don't waste the opportunites of a good recession' to screw working people - and they are being faciliated by the government they have bank-rolled who preach about the dangers of increasing taxes on the rich while cutting respite grants and welfare for OAPs.

The government in this country are implementing a policy of welfare for the richest 10% (who are hiding all their wealth in the Caymens) and austerity for everyone else. Don't expect the 90% to continue bending over and taking it up the rear end from the likes of you.
 

Ryan Tubbs

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 20, 2012
Messages
3,660
Why is it always a choice between tax hikes and cuts to the "vulnerable"?

Why is it never a choice between cutting 1) public sector pay and benefits or 2) undeserving social welfare recipients and cuts to the vulnerable?

Socialists want the vulnerable to be protected. Just as long as it doesn't in any way affect their public sector or scroungers voting base.
 

Ryan Tubbs

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 20, 2012
Messages
3,660
FACT - the richest 10% of the population have seen their income INCREASE year-on-year since the beginning of the economic collapse.
FACT - the remaining 90% of the population have seen their income DECREASE year-on-year since the beginning of the economic collapse.
And what of ALL the available evidence (ESRI, OECD, Dept of Finance) which shows that the richest have paid by far the most in proportion to their income in new taxes since the recession began?

They produce actual evidence showing this, not just political slogans.
 

Analyzer

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2011
Messages
46,187
I have just been listening to Paschal Donohoe and Maureen O'Sullivan on the RTE1 'This Week' programme. Again, Paschal trots out the line that increasing rates of income tax will increase "the cost of creating a job" in Ireland. This is a fallacy and it is disingenuous and one that various TD's and Ministers regularly resort to in defence of refusing to impose pain on the better off - themselves included. The presenter, of course, didn't challenge Paschal's feeble assertion.

I have worked in various sectors, including the multinational one and employers do not give a toss about income tax rates - there is no cost to them. In the late nineties and early noughties income tax rates were significantly higher than they are today (top rate 48%), yet there was strong inward investment, high levels of job creation, economic growth and there was immigration - people were coming to Ireland to work!

I don't believe that most people in the 41% tax band would have had an issue with an additional 1 or 2% if it meant that carers and those being cared for, particularly children, had a dignified and less difficult existence. To suggest otherwise is, to be quite frank, convenient rot.

This budget is shameful and there is no other word for it. Any right-minded citizen could only be ashamed of the cuts to child benefit, respite grants and carers - the MOST vulnerable in our society - people who, day in day out, lovingly give of themselves to care for others. If they refused to do so, the cost to the State would be much greater. Cuts to Child Benefit expose the recent Children's Referendum for the cynical cod that is was.

Meanwhile, at Leinster House, TDs like Pashcal and Maureen get €1,000 per month for clocking in at work, are paid €92,000 per annum and a raft of other expenses - not forgetting, of course, the large pensions entitlements. To stand before people who have been savaged and are suffering must require a deficit of conscience or a high level of brazeness - or both.
The whole essence of this OP is disingeuous.

Tax on a wage in the mid 30s (which is average in Ireland) is at 52% not 41%. After that people get taxed 23% VAT on providing for themselves. The provider of goods and services also has to push up his pricing to make up for the demands of local authorities who are demanding local authority rates at punitive levels. (and this is reducing employment of women).

Maybe you are earning so much money that you are completely oblivious to all of this.

A better comparison would be "cost of sending Big Fill on another junket versus cost of reducing certain services".

Or cost of paying union fat cats in quango jobs fund versus cost of scaling back services.

"Willfull waste makes woeful want".
 

Tawdy

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 4, 2011
Messages
4,532
Why is it always a choice between tax hikes and cuts to the "vulnerable"?

Why is it never a choice between cutting 1) public sector pay and benefits or 2) undeserving social welfare recipients and cuts to the vulnerable?

Socialists want the vulnerable to be protected. Just as long as it doesn't in any way affect their public sector or scroungers voting base.



Jaysus! who let the shaggin ff dogs out today! :roll:
 

lying eyes

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 27, 2009
Messages
4,417
I have just been listening to Paschal Donohoe and Maureen O'Sullivan on the RTE1 'This Week' programme. Again, Paschal trots out the line that increasing rates of income tax will increase "the cost of creating a job" in Ireland. This is a fallacy and it is disingenuous and one that various TD's and Ministers regularly resort to in defence of refusing to impose pain on the better off - themselves included. The presenter, of course, didn't challenge Paschal's feeble assertion.

I have worked in various sectors, including the multinational one and employers do not give a toss about income tax rates - there is no cost to them. In the late nineties and early noughties income tax rates were significantly higher than they are today (top rate 48%), yet there was strong inward investment, high levels of job creation, economic growth and there was immigration - people were coming to Ireland to work!

I don't believe that most people in the 41% tax band would have had an issue with an additional 1 or 2% if it meant that carers and those being cared for, particularly children, had a dignified and less difficult existence. To suggest otherwise is, to be quite frank, convenient rot.

This budget is shameful and there is no other word for it. Any right-minded citizen could only be ashamed of the cuts to child benefit, respite grants and carers - the MOST vulnerable in our society - people who, day in day out, lovingly give of themselves to care for others. If they refused to do so, the cost to the State would be much greater. Cuts to Child Benefit expose the recent Children's Referendum for the cynical cod that is was.

Meanwhile, at Leinster House, TDs like Pashcal and Maureen get €1,000 per month for clocking in at work, are paid €92,000 per annum and a raft of other expenses - not forgetting, of course, the large pensions entitlements. To stand before people who have been savaged and are suffering must require a deficit of conscience or a high level of brazeness - or both.


I agreee with all the above 100%. This B/S about extra tax causing problems for employment. The so called MEDGIA again failing to ask for a co-herent explaination to that statement. What are they saying? If tax rates go up one or two %, that people will give up their jobs-well if they do there are plenty in line to take them.
 

Karlito99

Active member
Joined
Jun 7, 2009
Messages
117
In the late nineties and early noughties income tax rates were significantly higher than they are today (top rate 48%) .....I don't believe that most people in the 41% tax band would have had an issue with an additional 1 or 2%...
What you conveniently omit is the 7% USC paid today by higher earners that did not exist in the late 90s
 

making waves

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 2, 2010
Messages
19,271
And what of ALL the available evidence (ESRI, OECD, Dept of Finance) which shows that the richest have paid by far the most in proportion to their income in new taxes since the recession began?
This is absolute utter bullsh*t - practically all the new taxes that have been introduced are flat rate taxes which have hit the bottom 90% hardest - furthermore austerity has impacted the bottom 90% by reducing their income while the richest 90% have seen their income INCREASE during the same period. The past five years have seen a major transfer in the proportion of wealth in this country from the bottom 90% to the richest 10%.
 

And So I Said

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 19, 2012
Messages
3,450
This is absolute utter bullsh*t - practically all the new taxes that have been introduced are flat rate taxes which have hit the bottom 90% hardest - furthermore austerity has impacted the bottom 90% by reducing their income while the richest 90% have seen their income INCREASE during the same period. The past five years have seen a major transfer in the proportion of wealth in this country from the bottom 90% to the richest 10%.
I would have used a U instead of an *.

Other than that - spot on.
 

bob3367

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 11, 2007
Messages
8,083
This is absolute utter bullsh*t - practically all the new taxes that have been introduced are flat rate taxes which have hit the bottom 90% hardest - furthermore austerity has impacted the bottom 90% by reducing their income while the richest 90% have seen their income INCREASE during the same period. The past five years have seen a major transfer in the proportion of wealth in this country from the bottom 90% to the richest 10%.
Then why are we €1600 a month less off, than the 2007 tax arrangements.....explain that.

Your facts arent facts as you have no backing up data to prove it.
 

White Horse

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 13, 2006
Messages
7,061
Stuff your proposed tax increases.

I work to raise my family, not other peoples.

The state doesn't not own my work or my wage.
 
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
22,910
Don't you just love someone else seeking to steal your pay under the guise of taxation so they can be all right in getting Govt handouts.

The extra 1 or 2% won't mean much....yadda yadda yadda, always from someone who doesn't have to pay it.

Ireland has become a dependency culture where what people can milk from welfare is seen as being good.

Time to turn off the taps of welfare spending permanently.

You want it, work for it.
 

irish_bob

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 9, 2008
Messages
7,558
FACT - the richest 10% of the population have seen their income INCREASE year-on-year since the beginning of the economic collapse.
FACT - the remaining 90% of the population have seen their income DECREASE year-on-year since the beginning of the economic collapse.

Why - because the 90% are being forced to pay the gambling debts of the richest 10% while the richest 10% pay f*ck-all extra in tax and instead show off by spending (a small amount of) it on big cars etc. I am one of the people you constantly attack on here as being an 'overpaid, lazy' public servant - I drive a 12 year old car and will not be getting another one until it falls apart (then it will be the cheapest thing possible that goes).

The 'hard work' that the rich are engaged in is cutting jobs and cutting wages so their profits increase - with the mantra 'don't waste the opportunites of a good recession' to screw working people - and they are being faciliated by the government they have bank-rolled who preach about the dangers of increasing taxes on the rich while cutting respite grants and welfare for OAPs.

The government in this country are implementing a policy of welfare for the richest 10% (who are hiding all their wealth in the Caymens) and austerity for everyone else. Don't expect the 90% to continue bending over and taking it up the rear end from the likes of you.

the top tend to invest in financial markets which have risen 100% since the collapse of 2008
 

ticketyboo

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 21, 2011
Messages
5,042
I agreee with all the above 100%. This B/S about extra tax causing problems for employment. The so called MEDGIA again failing to ask for a co-herent explaination to that statement. What are they saying? If tax rates go up one or two %, that people will give up their jobs-well if they do there are plenty in line to take them.
Donohoe is indeed talking crap. It's a lazy, ill-considered cliche which seems not to have been challenged by the interviewer. Wonder why that was? But then again, seeing him on VB I got the impression he wasn't the brightest bulb in the chandelier and learned his lines by rote. Much like the party leader. A potential employer's concerns, I would imagine, would be minimum wage rates, employer's PRSI, things that cost the employer to provide employment.
The correct argument about increasing tax, for what it's worth, is that it would be a disincentive to unemployed to take up jobs when one factors in travel and lunch costs, possible loss of medical card, and so forth.
That rationale might wish employers to wish for a reduction in basic tax rates IF said employer was having difficulty recruiting.
 

Howya

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 29, 2012
Messages
1,690
This is absolute utter bullsh*t - practically all the new taxes that have been introduced are flat rate taxes which have hit the bottom 90% hardest - furthermore austerity has impacted the bottom 90% by reducing their income while the richest 90% have seen their income INCREASE during the same period. The past five years have seen a major transfer in the proportion of wealth in this country from the bottom 90% to the richest 10%.
Let's test that statement;
USC
2% - on the first €10,036
4% - on the next €5,980
7% - on the balance

property tax
0.18% less than 1m
0.25% over a 1m
 

New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top