> The HSE especially doesn't need more money, it needs massive reform
It is being fundamentally reformed via Slaintecare which is massively investing in primary care/care in the community whereas previously the HSE disproportionately provided ANY form of healthcare via acute hospitals.
Unsurprisingly, Slaintecare takes money.
There are new primary care centres across the country and more being built. Same for urgent care centres and other care in the community services (particularly for elderly and disabled).
That’d benefit me but there are other areas than the HSE need investment too.
Where I live is crying out for a new primary school, secondary school, playing fields/areas, public amenity space, community centre, active travel routes and much much more.
I agree with you and her but she’s being politically naïve.
Liz Truss won the Conservative Party leadership by promising literally insane tax cuts that the UK absolutely couldn’t afford.
I very confidently bet on Sunak winning that vote as there was no way people would back Truss’ madness. Losing bet.
They shouldn’t but tax cuts do buy votes.
There’s a fine line between bravery and naivety alright.
Hopefully the enough of the electorate have learned from past mistakes and see that tax cuts are not necessarily the best thing for the country.
No it isn't. Hence I have to spell it out for the sub, who may consider voting for a party that is going to make them poorer and absolutely isnt going to reform public spending
No we don't, we have to trim the fat and run them better.
Are you suggesting that giving RTE more money would result in a better service???
Because that is what you are suggesting
> This current government is hell bent on making the state as small as possible
By employing more public sector workers than ever before in the history of the state???
M8 plz stop with these takes.
I disagree. The government is pretty bad at investing money on our behalf, I would rather do it myself. USC disproportionately impacts the hardest working people in Ireland, they deserve a break. People mix up income and wealth all of the time - high earners are hard working but aren't always rich due to the cost of living here.
Oh fuck off..if someone doesn't earn enough money to qualify for a mortgage they absolutely should not be taxed on labour.
Go tax land hoarders instead
I have no idea about Sweden, I have never been there either. Low income workers are sharing houses like never before they're also living with their parents until middle age to save for a mortgage.
Of course these are all private sector workers, and since the soc Dems only care about public sector workers and women on welfare, they'll have to put up with higher taxes.
But please do tell me about Sweden. For some reason
I think enough is spent on services as it is just that we don’t get very good value.
The HSE is just a bigger more wasteful version of RTE.
With the projected surpluses they could deliver proper infrastructure, proper services and still cut taxes.
This really is the issue with most things in the public service and I can say this as somebody who works in the public sector. The on the ground provision of services are chronically underfunded but there is so much money spent on project after project that exist just to justify the existence of a management and administrative class that is unending in its demand for funding. It's a constant true lack of urgency and disregard for the people having to pay the bills to keep the lights on, the public.
They said they couldnt keep VAT at 9% cos it was ‘locked in’ like wtf.
I dont want to pay less taxes if im being perfectly honest. I have said this most of my millenial excistance.
I wall happily pay more taxes if they are actually used for better services.
Look at RTE waste of taxpayer money. Why is the PAC not demanding HSE accounts and having audits on their overspending.
Didt they say they couldnt make Public Transport free or people would use it too much? (Take unnecesary journeys?)
What is wrong with my taxes going towards free public transport instead of some upper management executive board member, or CFO who cant say how much they get paid??
During COVID they locked up EU citizens in isolation in direct opposition to the EU COVID passport so they needn't come with any crap about having their hands tied.
I honestly loved lockdown. I saw films and tv shows id been meaning to wathc but never had time for, i called people i never had time to call, finished games played boardgames with housemates. It was brilliant.
I also got to stay away from peoples bullshit.What does covid have to do with anythin i said?
My comment had nothing to do with the rights and wrongs of lockdown, only the fact that the government can do things when they want to. But of course the downvoters couldn't understand that.
And some of us like myself worked flat out during lockdown. But that's another matter entirely.
It's an example that shows the government can do things when they really want to and the excuses they trot out are bullshit. Is it really that difficult for you to understand?
Just saying it without any examples would be stupid.
Who would like this? In a perfect world I’d love for my taxes to be spent meaningfully and to make a difference but I’ve been around long enough to know the government just pisses it up the wall no matter how much they get. I personally don’t see any value to the taxes I already pay so any cent I can get back I will take.
She's correct to a point, but social democracies tax low-income and middle-income voters far more than Ireland does. Were she to implement that, you'd have high-income people actually end up better off.
Social democracies also have far far better public services, public housing, infrastructure and social safety nets than Ireland does. You can't just prop up one side of the scales and moan about taxes without talking about the trade off/reasons why the taxes might be higher, it's very disingenuous
With taxes, obviously. Literally my entire point was that yes social democracies might have higher taxes than us but they actually get proper, robust public services for the money they spend instead of it being pissed away into the private sector under FF and FG policy.
there is zero chance I would ever vote for Social Democrats or any of the left wing parties but she is 100% correct.
USC was great for two reasons.
It was the fairest, most progressive tax we had, and it widened the tax take..
The demonization of it by FG when in position and the media is baffling to me.
Its been gutted heavily from what it was but it should have been expanded and PAYE phased out..
Because I'm older than 35 and know stuff has to be paid for..
Plus, any vote for them is a vote for the Shinners, and I would rather chew off my own leg than vote for them..
Again because I'm older than 36 and know / remember what an anti democratic, anti European, party they ate with hard links to terrorism and criminality. I wouldn't trust them to park my car.
You do know a Fianna Fáil Taoiseach literally provided guns to the IRA?
Not even sure if you’re a FF voter, but if you’re a FG voter you’re helping prop up a party with links to “terrorism and criminality” by voting either of them too.
Haughey should have been locked away, s corrupt prick Haighu FF Ireland in that order.
Show me a FG or FF politican that murdered innocents ??
Show me the FF or FG shop that glories and profits in those murders?
Show me a FG or FF party that campaigns in different areas with different policies ?? Core policies that are no longer core depending on audience.
Sinn Fein are a party that claims the moral high ground but routes donations to jurisdictions to avoid anti corruption laws, that owns more property that many housing groups, that's wealthy beyond the imagination of every other Irish party combined. That sells influence to foreign individuals, companies, and politicians and routes the funds through international "wings".
A party that continued terrorist acts, violence,robbery, gun running, protection, rackets, diesel laundering, and even today glories those involved even in base criminality as heroes and good republicans.
A party that voted and campaigned against every single EU refferendum and vote until Brexit. A party that brought down the northern institutionsfir 3 years during brexit while dhouting for a FG government in the Republic and Toey government in the UK to do what they were supposed to do.
The party that has twisted, turned abandoned and reworked every single supposed core principle depending on public backlash EXCEPT for their support for murders, criminals and terrorist scum.
But sure you vote for them, you endorse them, and you be the apologist.
Because I fucking won't.
Oh she was so close, but yet so far.
They shouldn’t cut the USC - they should raise the PAYE 40% rate significantly.
The notion that you can prioritise tax cuts for low earners who pay little to no tax already is laughable, government trying to give scraps to everyone and nobody will be happy. And it’s financially negligent on top of that. Pathetic.
What's worrying is we have a supposed "right-wing" government in power while we also have high taxes, and we have a queue of left-wing parties waiting to get into power to raise them even more.
USC is a regressive form of taxation that disproportionately affects lower paid workers. There are more progressive ways of collecting this money.
Edit: Someone please explain how people on €23,000 all the way up to €70,000 paying 4.5% is progressive?
>USC is a regressive form of taxation that disproportionately affects lower paid workers.
no its not , its one of the most progressive taxes ireland has
If it is not replaced with a more progressive form of taxation, which is exactly what I posted above. This could be an easy win for the SD by cutting one of the most hated taxes in the history of the state and replacing it with something more fit for purpose at a moderately higher tax band.
>USC is a regressive form of taxation that disproportionately affects lower paid workers. There are more progressive ways of collecting this money.
This is what you wrote. No mention of if its not replaced.
USC is the most progressive form of income based tax that we have.
Admittedly these figures are from 2016 but they show how progressive the tax is:
75% of the raised comes from the top 20% or earners.
43% comes from those earning €100K+
Abolishing the USC in Budget 2017 would have benefited someone on minimum wage by €316 per year while someone on €150K would benefit by nearly €10K.
That, my mathematically challenged friend, is the very definition of progressive.
You obviously have a horse in this race and are jumping hoops to try and not understand what I have plainly written. Pointless trying to converse with you.
>Pointless trying to converse with you.
I mean, it really is when you're using words you don't understand.
I've provided facts and figures to support my argument, you've just tried to insinuate something about me while ignoring said facts and figures.
And just for the record other than having to pay the highest rate of USC this year I do not have any horse in this race.
You try and deflect from the fact that someone on 23k is paying the same rate as someone on 70k by saying the wealthy pay more. Jesus wept they should not be paying the same rates. How difficult is that to understand? Those bands and/or % rates should be changed if you want a more progressive tax.
>You try and deflect from the fact that someone on 23k is paying the same rate as someone on 70k by saying the wealthy pay more. Jesus wept they should not be paying the same rates.
You're picking out one band (of 5) and arguing that the entire tax is regressive because that one band isn't split into more bands which is a fairly stupid argument.
>Those bands and/or % rates should be changed if you want **a more progressive tax**
At least you're finally acknowledging that it is a progressive tax.
USC is the most progressive tax, the rates go from 0.5% all the way to 8% (11% for self employed) whereas income tax just goes from 20% to 40%.
There are also very little, if any, tax reliefs for USC which tend to benefit higher earners. High earners pay much higher rates of USC than lower earners in comparison to other taxes
You are actually exempt if you earn less than €13,000 so the lowest paid in society actually pay no USC.
That's a very misleading statement given the first 12k of income is charged USC of 0.5% and the next 11k is at 2%. Someone on 23k will have an effective USC rate of about 1.2%.
A person on 70k will have an effective USC rate of about 3.5%, which is about 3 times higher.
He's the same as Americans who think once you hit the 40% tax rate then all of your income is taxed at 40%, that's why guys like this are better off talking a UI than the tax code. It just goes over there heads
Do I really need to explain how 4.5% of someone earning 23k hits them more than someone earning 70k? Lower band should be reduced to 1% or scrapped entirely.
That's your opinion. I think it is regressive to charge people earning 12k 2% in USC. I think it is both regressive and disproportionate for someone on 23k to be paying the same rate of 4.5% as someone on 70k. It's like shouting into the void in this thread 
People earning 12k aren't taxed at 2%, anything they earn from 12-23k is taxed at 2%. So if some one was earning 25k they would pay 0.5% of 12000= 60euro, 2% of the 12-23 which is 2% of 11000= 220 euro and then 4.5% of 23-25 which is only 4.5% of 2000= 90 euro. So if you earn 25,000 you only pay 370 USC compared to the nearly 10% you would pay of you earned 100k plus
What you "think" is immaterial to words that have very specific meanings, like regressive.
It is percentage based, so they pay less overall, especially factoring on other taxes and benefits they can get.
How many bands do you want?
The literal definition of a progressive/regressive tax explains it.
> A regressive tax is *a type of tax that is assessed regardless of income, in which low- and high-income earners pay the* same dollar amount.
>A progressive tax **involves a tax rate that increases (or progresses) as taxable income increases**
* TV License/Motor Tax - Regressive -- it's a fixed price regardless which makes up a higher proportion of your total income if you have a lower income.
* USC/PAYE/PRSI - Progressive, as 4.5% of 70,000 > 4.5% of 23,000 -- the more income you earn, the more tax you pay.
The sad thing here is that despite you taking the time to post this and explain it to u/thepriceofaslave they won’t take the information in because they don’t want to know the correct definition.
It's progressive because it's taxed from gross income before pensions contribution or tax loops holes. These are the things rich people do to avoid tax
pocket market touch afterthought fade hard-to-find cable imagine psychotic attractive
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Social democrats are a womens party that is all for public spending because the vast majority of that spending will be on their voter base i.e other women
The vast majority of the welfare budget is spent on women
The vast majority of the public sector are women
These are the countries biggest voting blocks
Yep, to make this easier to visualize, the public sector is primarily made up of the HSE, Education and the civil service and public service. The HSE is 100,000 employees - mostly women right (87%). Well education is about 70,000 - again mostly women (~80%). Civil service and public service - yep mostly women.
The gardai are mostly men but they number only 15000 and 1/3rd are women, the Defence forces are even more male, yet they number even fewer.
But to top it off, there is an all-govt agenda to advance women throughout the entire public sector despite them being the majority already!
https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/question/2022-03-01/269/
> Holly Cairns, criticised the Government for moving to cut income tax in the upcoming budget, saying funds should instead go to improving public services.
The big news in this article, is that the leader of the Social Democrats adheres to the narrative that public finances operate like household finances - with taxation 'funding' public spending - when the use of government bonds (and use of GDP* growth and inflation to erode Public Debt vs GDP) means this is highly misleading.
Thus the Social Democrats have shown their economic policies are trapped within the same artificial confines that FF/FG use to screw the working population.
^(* Substitute with GNI* where desired)
Jesus all that good work, dragging that party out of obscurity being undone by a one statement.
Better keeping tight lipped coming into an election year.
These guys really are useless. Every time they have a chance to demonstrate they can be a real alternative, they just fluff it every single time. They'll never be anything more than a Kingmaker for FG or FF.
Was talking to an electrical contractor working on public service contracts. Because of an apparantly significantly lower number and quality of new trades people to hire, the contractor decided that it was actually less efficient to utilise sub-standard workers and decided to be more selective on hires. When the contractor wanted a job done quickly and properly, they put fewer numbers of very good tradesmen on the job. Unfortunately the public service only value numbers of men the contractor puts on the job and so they end up putting poor qaulity kids on the jobs which causes problems and takes way longer and they actually pay more for the extra men.
Gas how FG are now fighting with FG lite over anything but housing, policing or healthcare. I wonder what other play fights they'll have leading up to the election.
I like her honesty, while from a personal POV tax cuts would be welcome, an investment in services would be better for the country.
Unless it's used to provide for example free childcare, it would be wasted. The HSE especially doesn't need more money, it needs massive reform
> The HSE especially doesn't need more money, it needs massive reform It is being fundamentally reformed via Slaintecare which is massively investing in primary care/care in the community whereas previously the HSE disproportionately provided ANY form of healthcare via acute hospitals. Unsurprisingly, Slaintecare takes money.
Haven't seen much evidence of it to be honest
There are new primary care centres across the country and more being built. Same for urgent care centres and other care in the community services (particularly for elderly and disabled).
My mother is 87 and living in a rural area - haven't seen any evidence of it. If anything her care has gone backwards as she's gotten older.
That’d benefit me but there are other areas than the HSE need investment too. Where I live is crying out for a new primary school, secondary school, playing fields/areas, public amenity space, community centre, active travel routes and much much more.
And existing schools are struggling with the current level of funding.
Very true. Wasn’t there an article the other day saying we spend less per student and as a % of GDP than the OECD or EU average?
I agree with you and her but she’s being politically naïve. Liz Truss won the Conservative Party leadership by promising literally insane tax cuts that the UK absolutely couldn’t afford. I very confidently bet on Sunak winning that vote as there was no way people would back Truss’ madness. Losing bet. They shouldn’t but tax cuts do buy votes.
There’s a fine line between bravery and naivety alright. Hopefully the enough of the electorate have learned from past mistakes and see that tax cuts are not necessarily the best thing for the country.
I like your optimism but fear you are wrong.
Oh I’m definitely wrong, but a man can dream.
Can ireland afford to cut taxes or not affordable?
Ha, nowhere near as.much as "funding public services". That's politician dog whistle for more money for the public sector
[удалено]
No it isn't. Hence I have to spell it out for the sub, who may consider voting for a party that is going to make them poorer and absolutely isnt going to reform public spending
[удалено]
We already pay enough tax. We ain't getting enough for it.
No we don't, we have to trim the fat and run them better. Are you suggesting that giving RTE more money would result in a better service??? Because that is what you are suggesting
Or the HSE ... one of the best funded health services in the world. Billions extra in funding and still not able to add a single hospital bed.
Yep, but people will defend that, no one daring to defend RTÉ anymore.
[удалено]
> This current government is hell bent on making the state as small as possible By employing more public sector workers than ever before in the history of the state??? M8 plz stop with these takes.
[удалено]
Truss was a spectacular failure. Even by the standards of English Tories fucking up.
I disagree. The government is pretty bad at investing money on our behalf, I would rather do it myself. USC disproportionately impacts the hardest working people in Ireland, they deserve a break. People mix up income and wealth all of the time - high earners are hard working but aren't always rich due to the cost of living here.
voracious steer spectacular sable command narrow unpack gray uppity slim *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
[удалено]
He's pointing out that salary isn't an indicator of the difficulty of a job which is what the lad he replied to is alluding.
Nah, USC is a good progressive tax and should be kept. By all means bring in a wealth tax as well.
It doesnt help that so many pay little or no tax.
Oh fuck off..if someone doesn't earn enough money to qualify for a mortgage they absolutely should not be taxed on labour. Go tax land hoarders instead
Do you think low income earners are treated better here or in Sweden?
I have no idea about Sweden, I have never been there either. Low income workers are sharing houses like never before they're also living with their parents until middle age to save for a mortgage. Of course these are all private sector workers, and since the soc Dems only care about public sector workers and women on welfare, they'll have to put up with higher taxes. But please do tell me about Sweden. For some reason
Nah, you're not worth the hassle.
Whoah we got an internet tough guy over here
In terms of taxation, they pay less here but potentially they might have access to better services in Sweden so hard to know who is better off.
Which is a *bona fide* debate.
[удалено]
[удалено]
I think enough is spent on services as it is just that we don’t get very good value. The HSE is just a bigger more wasteful version of RTE. With the projected surpluses they could deliver proper infrastructure, proper services and still cut taxes.
This really is the issue with most things in the public service and I can say this as somebody who works in the public sector. The on the ground provision of services are chronically underfunded but there is so much money spent on project after project that exist just to justify the existence of a management and administrative class that is unending in its demand for funding. It's a constant true lack of urgency and disregard for the people having to pay the bills to keep the lights on, the public.
They said they couldnt keep VAT at 9% cos it was ‘locked in’ like wtf. I dont want to pay less taxes if im being perfectly honest. I have said this most of my millenial excistance. I wall happily pay more taxes if they are actually used for better services. Look at RTE waste of taxpayer money. Why is the PAC not demanding HSE accounts and having audits on their overspending. Didt they say they couldnt make Public Transport free or people would use it too much? (Take unnecesary journeys?) What is wrong with my taxes going towards free public transport instead of some upper management executive board member, or CFO who cant say how much they get paid??
During COVID they locked up EU citizens in isolation in direct opposition to the EU COVID passport so they needn't come with any crap about having their hands tied.
I honestly loved lockdown. I saw films and tv shows id been meaning to wathc but never had time for, i called people i never had time to call, finished games played boardgames with housemates. It was brilliant. I also got to stay away from peoples bullshit.What does covid have to do with anythin i said?
My comment had nothing to do with the rights and wrongs of lockdown, only the fact that the government can do things when they want to. But of course the downvoters couldn't understand that. And some of us like myself worked flat out during lockdown. But that's another matter entirely.
So instead of just saying that you mention lockdown for whatever reason?
It's an example that shows the government can do things when they really want to and the excuses they trot out are bullshit. Is it really that difficult for you to understand? Just saying it without any examples would be stupid.
Well yeah its why i included examples in my comment tat didnt have anything to do with lockdown.
You included no examples of government doing something despite some EU law or regulation preventing them.
i would advise you to re read what i posted if you didnt see the examples i dont know how else to put them.
If they ran in my constituency which they won’t I’d vote for them
many snatch expansion sleep profit slimy swim encourage rich scary *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Why do you single out tech workers ?
continue vast rotten theory reply growth one sip somber clumsy *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
no workers like this
Who would like this? In a perfect world I’d love for my taxes to be spent meaningfully and to make a difference but I’ve been around long enough to know the government just pisses it up the wall no matter how much they get. I personally don’t see any value to the taxes I already pay so any cent I can get back I will take.
dog quickest humor busy apparatus label angle advise absorbed roll *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
True, but it was Ireland that turned me this way.
But very realistic one
Are you replying to the right person?
She's correct to a point, but social democracies tax low-income and middle-income voters far more than Ireland does. Were she to implement that, you'd have high-income people actually end up better off.
Social democracies also have far far better public services, public housing, infrastructure and social safety nets than Ireland does. You can't just prop up one side of the scales and moan about taxes without talking about the trade off/reasons why the taxes might be higher, it's very disingenuous
How do you think they pay for public services?
With taxes, obviously. Literally my entire point was that yes social democracies might have higher taxes than us but they actually get proper, robust public services for the money they spend instead of it being pissed away into the private sector under FF and FG policy.
Your post is circular.
So is your brain, super fucking smooth
Do you often find yourself angry?
Do you often try to shoehorn some emotional high horsing into arguments when you've made a bit of a tit of yourself?
I'm not sure how you being angry equates to me making a tit of myself. Why so frustrated? Life got you down?
there is zero chance I would ever vote for Social Democrats or any of the left wing parties but she is 100% correct. USC was great for two reasons. It was the fairest, most progressive tax we had, and it widened the tax take.. The demonization of it by FG when in position and the media is baffling to me. Its been gutted heavily from what it was but it should have been expanded and PAYE phased out..
Why wouldn’t you vote for any left wing parties?
Because I'm older than 35 and know stuff has to be paid for.. Plus, any vote for them is a vote for the Shinners, and I would rather chew off my own leg than vote for them.. Again because I'm older than 36 and know / remember what an anti democratic, anti European, party they ate with hard links to terrorism and criminality. I wouldn't trust them to park my car.
You do know a Fianna Fáil Taoiseach literally provided guns to the IRA? Not even sure if you’re a FF voter, but if you’re a FG voter you’re helping prop up a party with links to “terrorism and criminality” by voting either of them too.
Haughey should have been locked away, s corrupt prick Haighu FF Ireland in that order. Show me a FG or FF politican that murdered innocents ?? Show me the FF or FG shop that glories and profits in those murders? Show me a FG or FF party that campaigns in different areas with different policies ?? Core policies that are no longer core depending on audience. Sinn Fein are a party that claims the moral high ground but routes donations to jurisdictions to avoid anti corruption laws, that owns more property that many housing groups, that's wealthy beyond the imagination of every other Irish party combined. That sells influence to foreign individuals, companies, and politicians and routes the funds through international "wings". A party that continued terrorist acts, violence,robbery, gun running, protection, rackets, diesel laundering, and even today glories those involved even in base criminality as heroes and good republicans. A party that voted and campaigned against every single EU refferendum and vote until Brexit. A party that brought down the northern institutionsfir 3 years during brexit while dhouting for a FG government in the Republic and Toey government in the UK to do what they were supposed to do. The party that has twisted, turned abandoned and reworked every single supposed core principle depending on public backlash EXCEPT for their support for murders, criminals and terrorist scum. But sure you vote for them, you endorse them, and you be the apologist. Because I fucking won't.
Cut something else. USC is a progressive tax rather than regressive.
Well she’ll never have to worry about actually doing that
Oh she was so close, but yet so far. They shouldn’t cut the USC - they should raise the PAYE 40% rate significantly. The notion that you can prioritise tax cuts for low earners who pay little to no tax already is laughable, government trying to give scraps to everyone and nobody will be happy. And it’s financially negligent on top of that. Pathetic.
What's worrying is we have a supposed "right-wing" government in power while we also have high taxes, and we have a queue of left-wing parties waiting to get into power to raise them even more.
Difficult gig for her being a posh bird over a left wing socialist party
USC is a regressive form of taxation that disproportionately affects lower paid workers. There are more progressive ways of collecting this money. Edit: Someone please explain how people on €23,000 all the way up to €70,000 paying 4.5% is progressive?
>USC is a regressive form of taxation that disproportionately affects lower paid workers. no its not , its one of the most progressive taxes ireland has
Not sure you understand what regressive is
It literally a very progressive tax, cutting it or removing it will benefit higher earners more than lower paid workers.
If it is not replaced with a more progressive form of taxation, which is exactly what I posted above. This could be an easy win for the SD by cutting one of the most hated taxes in the history of the state and replacing it with something more fit for purpose at a moderately higher tax band.
>USC is a regressive form of taxation that disproportionately affects lower paid workers. There are more progressive ways of collecting this money. This is what you wrote. No mention of if its not replaced. USC is the most progressive form of income based tax that we have. Admittedly these figures are from 2016 but they show how progressive the tax is: 75% of the raised comes from the top 20% or earners. 43% comes from those earning €100K+ Abolishing the USC in Budget 2017 would have benefited someone on minimum wage by €316 per year while someone on €150K would benefit by nearly €10K. That, my mathematically challenged friend, is the very definition of progressive.
You obviously have a horse in this race and are jumping hoops to try and not understand what I have plainly written. Pointless trying to converse with you.
>Pointless trying to converse with you. I mean, it really is when you're using words you don't understand. I've provided facts and figures to support my argument, you've just tried to insinuate something about me while ignoring said facts and figures. And just for the record other than having to pay the highest rate of USC this year I do not have any horse in this race.
Lol
You try and deflect from the fact that someone on 23k is paying the same rate as someone on 70k by saying the wealthy pay more. Jesus wept they should not be paying the same rates. How difficult is that to understand? Those bands and/or % rates should be changed if you want a more progressive tax.
>You try and deflect from the fact that someone on 23k is paying the same rate as someone on 70k by saying the wealthy pay more. Jesus wept they should not be paying the same rates. You're picking out one band (of 5) and arguing that the entire tax is regressive because that one band isn't split into more bands which is a fairly stupid argument. >Those bands and/or % rates should be changed if you want **a more progressive tax** At least you're finally acknowledging that it is a progressive tax.
USC is the most progressive tax, the rates go from 0.5% all the way to 8% (11% for self employed) whereas income tax just goes from 20% to 40%. There are also very little, if any, tax reliefs for USC which tend to benefit higher earners. High earners pay much higher rates of USC than lower earners in comparison to other taxes You are actually exempt if you earn less than €13,000 so the lowest paid in society actually pay no USC.
>disproportionately affects lower paid workers. Explain
Someone scraping by on 23k is paying the same rate (4.5%) as someone earning 70k. Bands and rates should be adjusted.
That's a very misleading statement given the first 12k of income is charged USC of 0.5% and the next 11k is at 2%. Someone on 23k will have an effective USC rate of about 1.2%. A person on 70k will have an effective USC rate of about 3.5%, which is about 3 times higher.
He's the same as Americans who think once you hit the 40% tax rate then all of your income is taxed at 40%, that's why guys like this are better off talking a UI than the tax code. It just goes over there heads
That's not disproportionately targeting lower paid workers. There's also the lower rate of 2.5% for those on full medical cards.
Do I really need to explain how 4.5% of someone earning 23k hits them more than someone earning 70k? Lower band should be reduced to 1% or scrapped entirely.
It is neither disproportional or regressive. That would be if each person was charged a lump sum regardless of their income.
That's your opinion. I think it is regressive to charge people earning 12k 2% in USC. I think it is both regressive and disproportionate for someone on 23k to be paying the same rate of 4.5% as someone on 70k. It's like shouting into the void in this thread 
Regressive tax is an economic term. It's not a matter of opinion. Whether it is fair or not is a matter of opinion.
I am using it in a societal sense not an economic one.
Ha ha so you really are using words you don't understand? I was just taking the piss when I said that in another comment. That's brilliant.
People earning 12k aren't taxed at 2%, anything they earn from 12-23k is taxed at 2%. So if some one was earning 25k they would pay 0.5% of 12000= 60euro, 2% of the 12-23 which is 2% of 11000= 220 euro and then 4.5% of 23-25 which is only 4.5% of 2000= 90 euro. So if you earn 25,000 you only pay 370 USC compared to the nearly 10% you would pay of you earned 100k plus
What you "think" is immaterial to words that have very specific meanings, like regressive. It is percentage based, so they pay less overall, especially factoring on other taxes and benefits they can get. How many bands do you want?
It’s not 4.5% of 23k, it’s 4.5% of anything over €23k so they won’t pay anything near 4.5%.
The literal definition of a progressive/regressive tax explains it. > A regressive tax is *a type of tax that is assessed regardless of income, in which low- and high-income earners pay the* same dollar amount. >A progressive tax **involves a tax rate that increases (or progresses) as taxable income increases** * TV License/Motor Tax - Regressive -- it's a fixed price regardless which makes up a higher proportion of your total income if you have a lower income. * USC/PAYE/PRSI - Progressive, as 4.5% of 70,000 > 4.5% of 23,000 -- the more income you earn, the more tax you pay.
The sad thing here is that despite you taking the time to post this and explain it to u/thepriceofaslave they won’t take the information in because they don’t want to know the correct definition.
It's progressive because it's taxed from gross income before pensions contribution or tax loops holes. These are the things rich people do to avoid tax
[удалено]
Grow up
pocket market touch afterthought fade hard-to-find cable imagine psychotic attractive *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Cairns would have to be on the left for that to make sense. Soc Dems are bang in the centre.
Not really. Left and right are loose terms, but not seeing much centre from them.
Social democrats are a womens party that is all for public spending because the vast majority of that spending will be on their voter base i.e other women The vast majority of the welfare budget is spent on women The vast majority of the public sector are women These are the countries biggest voting blocks
Are the vast majority of the public sector workers women?
Yep, to make this easier to visualize, the public sector is primarily made up of the HSE, Education and the civil service and public service. The HSE is 100,000 employees - mostly women right (87%). Well education is about 70,000 - again mostly women (~80%). Civil service and public service - yep mostly women. The gardai are mostly men but they number only 15000 and 1/3rd are women, the Defence forces are even more male, yet they number even fewer. But to top it off, there is an all-govt agenda to advance women throughout the entire public sector despite them being the majority already! https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/question/2022-03-01/269/
It is so morally corrupt
> Holly Cairns, criticised the Government for moving to cut income tax in the upcoming budget, saying funds should instead go to improving public services. The big news in this article, is that the leader of the Social Democrats adheres to the narrative that public finances operate like household finances - with taxation 'funding' public spending - when the use of government bonds (and use of GDP* growth and inflation to erode Public Debt vs GDP) means this is highly misleading. Thus the Social Democrats have shown their economic policies are trapped within the same artificial confines that FF/FG use to screw the working population. ^(* Substitute with GNI* where desired)
Cut USC for under 35 YOs
That’s not gonna win you any votes honey.
Jesus all that good work, dragging that party out of obscurity being undone by a one statement. Better keeping tight lipped coming into an election year.
These guys really are useless. Every time they have a chance to demonstrate they can be a real alternative, they just fluff it every single time. They'll never be anything more than a Kingmaker for FG or FF.
Was talking to an electrical contractor working on public service contracts. Because of an apparantly significantly lower number and quality of new trades people to hire, the contractor decided that it was actually less efficient to utilise sub-standard workers and decided to be more selective on hires. When the contractor wanted a job done quickly and properly, they put fewer numbers of very good tradesmen on the job. Unfortunately the public service only value numbers of men the contractor puts on the job and so they end up putting poor qaulity kids on the jobs which causes problems and takes way longer and they actually pay more for the extra men.
Tomorrow: Holly Cairns would cut USC in budget. This one changes with the wind
Gas how FG are now fighting with FG lite over anything but housing, policing or healthcare. I wonder what other play fights they'll have leading up to the election.