Income Tax Take 2016 Going Through The Roof - Middle-Class Squeeze

YouKnowWhatIMeanLike

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 13, 2011
Messages
7,186
The exchequer statement relaesed by the Irish Department of Finance shows government has reaped a whopping 19.2 bn euro in 2016 from the PAYE & Self-Ass tax payer.

http://www.finance.gov.ie/sites/default/files/170104 Exchequer Final Statement Dec 2016_0.pdf

This constitutes the biggest tax take ever in modern Irish history. All this while we only see a modest increase in the corporation tax take by some 0.7bn euro since 2007.

So it's obvious that the new mantra of our economic masters of this nation is to have mainly hired "workers" to pay for the nations expenses while businesses and capital has to be released from any kind of burden-sharing as much as possible.

so when we are looking at the tax bands cut-off points who "benefits" most and who contributes most to social system?

single €33,800
Married one income €42,800
Married two incomes €67,600
single parent €37,800

from a previous Income tax distribution review in 2014 http://www.revenue.ie/en/about/statistics/income-tax-2014.pdf
one can easily read who is squeezed the most in Ireland. I guess the numbers roundabout might apply to 2016 as well, or have they changed significantly?
 


Therightroad

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 12, 2010
Messages
1,158
The main thing is that those in Middle Income PAYE land keep the heads down and work away like good little boys and girls and fund lots of lovely Dole for Travellers and others who wont work but can drive nicer cars than those same Middle Income PAYE workers......
 

PBP voter

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 18, 2015
Messages
9,384
Its the reason why we have so many jobs. Low corpo tax and low employers PRSI.

In the South of Europe employment isn't encouraged.

Germany seem to be able to do it for some reason.

 

Fractional Reserve

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2011
Messages
8,158
Employer social security levels in European countries are too high and discourage employment .Europe is taxed to death

Its the reason why we have so many jobs. Low corpo tax and low employers PRSI.

In the South of Europe employment isn't encouraged.

Germany seem to be able to do it for some reason.

 

PBP voter

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 18, 2015
Messages
9,384
Employer social security levels in European countries are too high and discourage employment .Europe is taxed to death
Agree. Apart from in Germany. They see to be doing Ok.
 

SamsonS

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
4,775
While your main point is valid, you seem to dismiss tha massive increase in Corp tax on the last 2 years of nearly 75%! Thus u are assuming that this will continue at that level.

The request for tax cuts is no different to calls for increased expenditure , it's still being done when we are still running a deficit. Tax cuts for individual workers is fine, assuming the overall income tax take continues to rise.
 

Fractional Reserve

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2011
Messages
8,158
Agree. Apart from in Germany. They see to be doing Ok.
You will see serious problems in Germany with municpals they are under serious pressure for revenue , banks are dodgy and immigration is a mess ,so Germany will soon feel the pinch hard
 

toughbutfair

Well-known member
Joined
May 28, 2009
Messages
10,164
Reducing the USC is a stupid move as it was a tax on gross income so hard to avoid. I remember FG complaining when FF got rid of a married person having a tax band twice as high as a single person if a one income family. I think this should be brought back as it would help some women stay at home and have more children (we are not having enough children and lower demographics are having more children than educated people so that is a ticking time bomb ).

Overall, we should be aiming for a surplus every year and no borrowing.
 

PBP voter

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 18, 2015
Messages
9,384
Reducing the USC is a stupid move as it was a tax on gross income so hard to avoid. I remember FG complaining when FF got rid of a married person having a tax band twice as high as a single person if a one income family. I think this should be brought back as it would help some women stay at home and have more children (we are not having enough children and lower demographics are having more children than educated people so that is a ticking time bomb ).

Overall, we should be aiming for a surplus every year and no borrowing.
We should be aiming to spent around 85% on what we take(including interest payments on national debt) and the 15% left over being saved in a sovereign wealth fund.
 

toughbutfair

Well-known member
Joined
May 28, 2009
Messages
10,164
We should be aiming to spent around 85% on what we take(including interest payments on national debt) and the 15% left over being saved in a sovereign wealth fund.
I'm fiscally conservative but I don't think those figures are feasible. I'd aim to save 2-3% percent in a short term fund so when the next recession comes, there's money there to reduce the cutbacks required. 25% of the surplus should be paid off the national debt. There should be no overall tax cut or spending increases.
 

SamsonS

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
4,775
We should be aiming to spent around 85% on what we take(including interest payments on national debt) and the 15% left over being saved in a sovereign wealth fund.
Seriously, run a surplus of around 8b per annum. Can u see any party ever suggesting that!
toughbutfair idea of 2-3% surplus is possible, not that dissimilar to the rainy day fund proposed by gov. Persoanlly can see a balanced budget maybe in 2018, but just reckon political priority will mean running a surplus will be pushed back.
 

toughbutfair

Well-known member
Joined
May 28, 2009
Messages
10,164
Seriously, run a surplus of around 8b per annum. Can u see any party ever suggesting that!
toughbutfair idea of 2-3% surplus is possible, not that dissimilar to the rainy day fund proposed by gov. Persoanlly can see a balanced budget maybe in 2018, but just reckon political priority will mean running a surplus will be pushed back.
Irish People are too thick to constantly have a surplus and save. The media will cry "crises" about something, the people will buy into it, the government will have to spend money on said crises or lose the next election.
 

stopdoingstuff

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 26, 2011
Messages
22,401
Very much so. Forcing women out to work, sending a kid to crèche and having less children seems to the policy of all the main parties.
Yeah it should be policy to try to keep us above replacement level fertility and to have us move towards a rate of births high enough to sustain our pension system and labour force needs. We are just about at replacement rate now but the trend is down. This means encouraging women to stay at home with the kids, which is what they want anyway when they get up the poll.
 

PC Principle

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 12, 2016
Messages
4,828
The exchequer statement relaesed by the Irish Department of Finance shows government has reaped a whopping 19.2 bn euro in 2016 from the PAYE & Self-Ass tax payer.

http://www.finance.gov.ie/sites/default/files/170104 Exchequer Final Statement Dec 2016_0.pdf

This constitutes the biggest tax take ever in modern Irish history. All this while we only see a modest increase in the corporation tax take by some 0.7bn euro since 2007.

So it's obvious that the new mantra of our economic masters of this nation is to have mainly hired "workers" to pay for the nations expenses while businesses and capital has to be released from any kind of burden-sharing as much as possible.

so when we are looking at the tax bands cut-off points who "benefits" most and who contributes most to social system?

single €33,800
Married one income €42,800
Married two incomes €67,600
single parent €37,800

from a previous Income tax distribution review in 2014 http://www.revenue.ie/en/about/statistics/income-tax-2014.pdf
one can easily read who is squeezed the most in Ireland. I guess the numbers roundabout might apply to 2016 as well, or have they changed significantly?
The number one reason I left that socialist kip.
 

SamsonS

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
4,775
Yeah it should be policy to try to keep us above replacement level fertility and to have us move towards a rate of births high enough to sustain our pension system and labour force needs. We are just about at replacement rate now but the trend is down. This means encouraging women to stay at home with the kids, which is what they want anyway when they get up the poll.
In policy terms are u talking about nudging or dramatic changes in policy, say paying Maternity Pay until the child has reached 2?

There are costs associated with this, both for the state and for business, without even going to the area of impact of absences on career path for female workers.
 

Eire1976

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2010
Messages
13,783
Its the reason why we have so many jobs. Low corpo tax and low employers PRSI.

In the South of Europe employment isn't encouraged.

Germany seem to be able to do it for some reason.

The Germans don't like their companies subbing out factory jobs to China, that's why Germany is not just a service economy like the UK.
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top