Labour's 48% 'rich' tax - too much for Fine Gael?

smallobear

Active member
Joined
Oct 21, 2009
Messages
144
The one big difference between Fine Gael and Labour's budget proposals today is Labour's 48% tax on those earning more than €100,000.

Labour have won my vote with this. For me, no government will have any moral authority to cut anything if something like this isn't brought in.

Could this be a source of confrontation with the potential coalition partners? Could this be a factor in the formation of a potential 'alternative' alternative government? What do people think?
 


Halo

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 23, 2007
Messages
774
I would not read a lot into it, labour could be just covering its left flank with sinn fein making some ground of late.

edit.saying that, the tax has to be welcomed all the same and its likely it would certainly become a reality if labour went into government with sinn fein, unlikely to happen buts its the only way such a tax will be introduced.
 
Last edited:

wombat

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 16, 2007
Messages
33,003
Problem with the 48% tax rate over 100k (200k couple) is that they will have to bring in exemptions for the expat staff of the multinationals - couldn't care less about the Pat Kenny's, Microsoft is another matter.
 

smallobear

Active member
Joined
Oct 21, 2009
Messages
144
bruton saying no on 6.1 now
I saw that. At least Fine Gael are being honest now. They had been flirting with the idea, probably for populist reasons. At least they're out now - "We're right wing and we're proud." I won't be going near them next election
 

Decko

Active member
Joined
Jun 17, 2004
Messages
244
so top rate is already 56% (when prsi levies etc) so let labour be honest and say they want a top rate of 63%

such a policy would reduce not increase the tax take
 

smallobear

Active member
Joined
Oct 21, 2009
Messages
144
so top rate is already 56% (when prsi levies etc) so let labour be honest and say they want a top rate of 63%

such a policy would reduce not increase the tax take
Yes, the well publicised theory that 'sure they'll all leave if we tax them anymore.' A complete lie that is being spread by those with vested interests (i.e, the same high earners) who are in positions of influence and power. Sure take a look at the front page of today's Irish Times. There we go again - you shouldn't tax the management classes as they are the ones who will fix the economy. Nonsense!

No government will have any moral authority to cut anything if this is not done. The well paid in this country still live quite charmed lifestyles. Fair enough, not as comfortable as a few years ago but still comfortable by any reasonable standards.
 

Panopticon

Well-known member
Joined
May 27, 2009
Messages
5,575
Yes, the well publicised theory that 'sure they'll all leave if we tax them anymore.' A complete lie that is being spread by those with vested interests (i.e, the same high earners) who are in positions of influence and power. Sure take a look at the front page of today's Irish Times. There we go again - you shouldn't tax the management classes as they are the ones who will fix the economy. Nonsense!

No government will have any moral authority to cut anything if this is not done. The well paid in this country still live quite charmed lifestyles. Fair enough, not as comfortable as a few years ago but still comfortable by any reasonable standards.
Have you ever studied the history of PAYE rates and compliance in Ireland? It's not great.
 

smallobear

Active member
Joined
Oct 21, 2009
Messages
144
Have you ever studied the history of PAYE rates and compliance in Ireland? It's not great.
Well that's a legal issue. And if your or anyone else's argument is 'we can't tax them too much because they'll go offshore, avoid or both' then it's a flawed argument. We are living in exceptional financial times. Those who can afford to should be contributing more.

The premise of your question hints at why we're in the mess we are in i.e, acceptance of corruption in all its forms. We should be now looking to make sure that what has happened in this country never happens again. Yes, there has been a huge problem with tax avoidance in this country for years. Politicians were at it too - yet the Irish attitude was to accept it and to keep on electing the same individuals. Hence, we ended up where we are. If you're argument now is to keep on accepting this, then I'm afraid it is a flawed and depressing argument
 

smallobear

Active member
Joined
Oct 21, 2009
Messages
144
No one should have to pay almost half their income in tax.

That is plain Daft!

There would be a further flight of Capital out of the State with very little real direct benefit to its coffers.
Really? I pay 41% higher rate of tax, 8% PRSI, 7% pension levy, 5% compulsory pension contribution, 2% income levy - that's 63% of compulsory payments to the state on the upper part of my income. Fair enough, you may argue that part of that is pension contribution and that's a valid argument. But the fact of the matter is that I have no choice in the matter and must pay it.

I repeat - we are in exceptional financial times and those who can afford to should be paying more. Those on very high incomes still enjoy very privileged lifestyles. And in these times, I'm afraid it is at the rest of our expense.

And again, your point about flight of capital i.e, those with money leaving, is one that is being spread by those with the vested interest of being high earners. It's simply not true to say it will definitely happen. Take, for example, a lawyer or doctor, whose high income all depend on the businesses they have built up locally in Ireland. Will they be leaving?
 
Last edited:

harpsman

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 6, 2010
Messages
327
Well that's a legal issue. And if your or anyone else's argument is 'we can't tax them too much because they'll go offshore, avoid or both' then it's a flawed argument. We are living in exceptional financial times. Those who can afford to should be contributing more.

The premise of your question hints at why we're in the mess we are in i.e, acceptance of corruption in all its forms. We should be now looking to make sure that what has happened in this country never happens again. Yes, there has been a huge problem with tax avoidance in this country for years. Politicians were at it too - yet the Irish attitude was to accept it and to keep on electing the same individuals. Hence, we ended up where we are. If you're argument now is to keep on accepting this, then I'm afraid it is a flawed and depressing argument
havent a clue mate.
63% top rate(incl levies) will depress tax take for lots of reasons.
when you get a bit older and have to earn money rather than your pocket money from daddy you ll realise that
 

Decko

Active member
Joined
Jun 17, 2004
Messages
244
catalpa

labour are proposing a 63% tax rate NOT 48% -- they want people to pay almost 2/3rds of their income in tax
 

Panopticon

Well-known member
Joined
May 27, 2009
Messages
5,575
Well that's a legal issue. And if your or anyone else's argument is 'we can't tax them too much because they'll go offshore, avoid or both' then it's a flawed argument. We are living in exceptional financial times. Those who can afford to should be contributing more.

The premise of your question hints at why we're in the mess we are in i.e, acceptance of corruption in all its forms. We should be now looking to make sure that what has happened in this country never happens again. Yes, there has been a huge problem with tax avoidance in this country for years. Politicians were at it too - yet the Irish attitude was to accept it and to keep on electing the same individuals. Hence, we ended up where we are. If you're argument now is to keep on accepting this, then I'm afraid it is a flawed and depressing argument
I think all the people on median incomes can afford to pay some income tax. (They don't at the moment.) People on high incomes have already faced a barrage of new taxes in the last few years, from health levies to pension levies to income levies to pension deductions and everything to come. There is a lot of talk about fairness, but those who use the word most tend to use it as a shorthand for reducing talented people's income to increase feckless people's income - at all costs.

I don't see how it is corrupt to seek to reduce one's tax burden. But that's not the real problem. If you tax work more, there will be less work done. If you increase labour costs, less labour will be employed and more will be unemployed. Simple as.
 

Julian_Arnold

Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2008
Messages
14
Moral authority?? What gives any "Government" the automatic right to entitle themselves to 58% of money someone has earned that they clearly have NOT earned? What about the furore over finger-print machines and "privilege" days??? You've some cheek waving the moral flag around....!

P.S. I don't earn over EUR100k but if you include indirect taxes, I currently spend 7.2 months of the year working for the "Government".

Julian.

The one big difference between Fine Gael and Labour's budget proposals today is Labour's 48% tax on those earning more than €100,000.

Labour have won my vote with this. For me, no government will have any moral authority to cut anything if something like this isn't brought in.

Could this be a source of confrontation with the potential coalition partners? Could this be a factor in the formation of a potential 'alternative' alternative government? What do people think?
 

Catalpa

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 10, 2004
Messages
10,257
catalpa

labour are proposing a 63% tax rate NOT 48% -- they want people to pay almost 2/3rds of their income in tax
Well I think that is crazy.

25% should be the max on any fixed income.

OK as the poster above mentioned there some who will still be here anyway but a lot of high flyers would just find ways & means to dodge it.
 

smallobear

Active member
Joined
Oct 21, 2009
Messages
144
havent a clue mate.
63% top rate(incl levies) will depress tax take for lots of reasons.
when you get a bit older and have to earn money rather than your pocket money from daddy you ll realise that
What a charming clown you are. There is already a 56% top rate (64% for public sector workers) on middle income workers. What I (and Labour) are talking about is increasing it to 63% for those on over €100,000 i.e, those who can more than afford it. There are not 'lots of reasons' to explain why this will depress tax take.There would of course be plenty of reasons to explain it were we talking about those on below €100,000, but we're not.

I wouldn't blame a high earner like yourself for being against it. God forbid your privileged, sheltered little existence be harmed. You know when you're bringing little Jimmy to the €6,000 a year private school. Poor little Jimmy will have to pay for all this won't he? Sure pay for him to get into King's Inn - that's the plan isn't it. Get him up the pay scale so he can enjoy the same sheltered, accomodated existence as you
 

smallobear

Active member
Joined
Oct 21, 2009
Messages
144
Moral authority?? What gives any "Government" the automatic right to entitle themselves to 58% of money someone has earned that they clearly have NOT earned? What about the furore over finger-print machines and "privilege" days??? You've some cheek waving the moral flag around....!

P.S. I don't earn over EUR100k but if you include indirect taxes, I currently spend 7.2 months of the year working for the "Government".

Julian.
Are you under some impression that you're alone in paying tax? I pay 64% of compulsory state contributions. Get over the self righteous anger would you? The country is in the s*it. It was the reduction taxes in the early 2000s that helped create this situation
 

Merovingian

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 27, 2010
Messages
1,584
What a charming clown you are. There is already a 56% top rate (64% for public sector workers) on middle income workers. What I (and Labour) are talking about is increasing it to 63% for those on over €100,000 i.e, those who can more than afford it. There are not 'lots of reasons' to explain why this will depress tax take.There would of course be plenty of reasons to explain it were we talking about those on below €100,000, but we're not.

I wouldn't blame a high earner like yourself for being against it. God forbid your privileged, sheltered little existence be harmed. You know when you're bringing little Jimmy to the €6,000 a year private school. Poor little Jimmy will have to pay for all this won't he? Sure pay for him to get into King's Inn - that's the plan isn't it. Get him up the pay scale so he can enjoy the same sheltered, accomodated existence as you
Wow, easy on the anger my friend. Truely it is easier to take than to give!. Nobody should pay less than 20% of all of their income to the state (earned, benefits, interest, CGT) - this should max out at 60% for higher earners Not including pension contributions for the poor 'oul PS worker). The minimum tax take can progressively rise so that shelters etc are of no use eg earn 200K, pay 60% max-50% minimum; earn 20K pay 4K. Everyone pays.
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top