Have a look at

http://www.globalrichlist.com/

Better still, test your current assessment of reality by guessing beforehand what percentile of the global income scale you’re in.

Just as NAMA is our establishment’s final party, for Studio 54
“The nightclub closed with one final party called “The End of Modern-day Gomorrah”, on February 4, 1980.”

There was even a financial recovery operation - though I doubt they hired someone who had never done it before to conduct it, even though it was for a (in NAMA terms) microscopic recovery operation:
“After the nightclub’s closing, cocaine and money were found in its walls.”

Use the cleaner in the public service test. If large numbers of them are not availing of a tax break it shouldn’t exist.
Wide base, low rates.

fair point and with the proceeds of this cut the marginal rate of tax to 45%?

The figures that are available do show that the better off pay a large portion of the income tax, but it would still be interesting to see if some of the 400 have other dodges on the go that cuts their bill.

Fitzgerald: The rich are different than you and me.
Hemingway: Yes, they have more money.
This never actually happened; it is a retelling of an actual encounter between Hemingway and Mary Colum, which went as follows:

Hemingway: I am getting to know the rich.
Colum: I think you’ll find the only difference between the rich and other people is that the rich have more money. ”

You get the economy you deserve; we got a property based economy; because we incentivised people to invest there. Build a hotel; creche; car park and write off tax.

heres the relevent section from Form 11. Section N….Until this section of Form 11 is shut down; were going nowhere.. Look at the list of specific exemptions, and then there is the ‘other’ because there is so many of them

N - PROPERTY BASED INCENTIVES ON WHICH RELIEF IS CLAIMED IN 2009 [901 - 930]
blah blah blah
901. Urban Renewal S.372AP & AR
902. Town Renewal S.372AP & AR
903. Seaside Resort S.372AU
904. Rural Renewal S.372AP & AR
905. Living over the Shop S.372AP & AR
906. Park and Ride S.372AP & AR
907. Student Accommodation S.372AP
Industrial Buildings Allowance Owner Occupier Investor - Lessor
908. Urban Renewal S.372C & D
909. Town Renewal S.372AC & AD
910. Seaside Resort S.352 & S.353
911. Rural Renewal S.372M & N
912. Multi-storey Car Parks S.344
913. Living over the Shop (Commercial Premises Only) S.372D
914. Enterprise Areas S.343
915. Park and Ride S.372V & W
916. Hotels S.268(1)(d)
917. Holiday Cottages S.268(3)
918. Holiday Hostels S.268(2C)(b)
919. Guest Houses S.268(2C)(a)
920. Nursing Homes S.268(1)(g)
921. Housing for elderly/infirm S.268(3A)
922. Convalescent Homes S.268(1)(i)
923. Qualifying Hospitals S.268(2A)
924. Qualifying Mental Health Centres S.268(1C)
925. Qualifying Sports Injury Clinics S.268(2B)
926. Buildings used for certain childcare purposes S.843A
927. Specialist Palliative Care Units S.268(1)(m)
928. Buildings or structures in registered caravan & camping sites S.268(2D)
929. Mid-Shannon Corridor Tourism Infrastructure
Investment Scheme S.372AW
930. Where the scheme(s) on which you are claiming relief is/are not listed at Lines 901-929 above state the name of the Incentive
Scheme(s), quote the relevant Section and enter the amount of relief claimed in the year (Owner Occupier, Investor-Lessor).

Many people believe that if effective rates for the superrich go up their own marginal rates will go up too. So they oppose raising the effective rate on the superrich. It’s the unsalted slippery slope argument.

On the other hand many people believe that the tax breaks for the superrich will stay while they have their rates increased. This is unfair.

Perhaps if the opposition were committed to keeping marginal income tax rates unchanged under their next administration but also committed to abolishing the tax breaks they could convince everyone.

Over a number of weeks FT articles have explained that the response of leading City fims and banks has been the opposite of that predicted. Generally, they have raised the bonus levels, often so that the beneficiaries receive exactly the same remuneration as they would heve prior to the tax increase. Frequently, they have done this by dipping into the gobal bonus pool, or simply by retaining lower earnings.

The British Chancellor estimated the yield on this one-off would be £500mn, and was derided for doing so. City estimates now centre around a yield of £4bn. We shall see.

Why did critics of the measure seem to get it so wrong? And what lessons can be drawn? It seems that the overwhlming bulk of City professional are not based there because of the clement weather, great infrastructure, cheap cost of housing or great food. It doesn’t seem to be the case either that they are there for the low taxes. They are there because that is the location where profits can be maximised.

Perhaps that is a general law relating to the domicile of both highly paid individuals and of corporates, with tax rates just one factor in that calculation.

Based on what Karl has said, I have no confidence in statistics quoted by VB who has his mind made up on these matters anyway. I am not saying the rich should not pay more but that care has to be taken that, particularly with regard to the super-rich, that policies don’t lower revenues since they are more elastic: they can - and do- bugger off.

@dealga. With respect, that’s so dumb. The purpose of taxes (with the exception of taxes designed to influence behaviour like Pigouvian ones) is to RAISE MONEY. If you change the tax system and it lowers revenue than you have failed.

If there were no tax breaks of any kind - and I mean none - and you adopted a basic tax rate for all incomes - what would this xx% need to be to bring in the revenue we need? There are quite a few non-stated assumptions here, but I am just curious about the matter in a general way.

B Peter

At what income level does one sudddenly become rich.

The bearded brigade seem to think that €100,000 p.a makes one rich-I do not agree,

any thoughts

“More generally, a close examination of all tax expenditures is certainly called for”

I think the raising of the minimum tax rate and the reduction in income limits to which this applies is a far more fruitful approach than trying to tackle expenditures one by one. This is the taxation equivalent of getting your stomach stapled rather than trusting yourself to diet. I expect many of these expemptions will just wither on the vine in the coming years as higher earners start to become more selective about which they use, so film industry etc will start to come under pressure.

As a 100% PAYE high earner, I get none of the aforementined tax breaks. At risk of allowing you all to calculate my gross pay, I can reveal that tax + PRSI + levies equalled 48.3% of my gross income in calendar 2009. Vincent Brown is forever saying that the rich should pay 45% tax. Bring it on.

Then we found out about the hotel room mountain:

http://www.irisheconomy.ie/index.php/2009/11/12/report-on-hotel-sector/

So the government were giving vastly excessive tax breaks for hotel rooms at a time when the public wanted houses. There was no public outcry about the hotel room shortage.
This one was all them.

Saved, by the pot o’gold, begorrah.

I’ll say it again. A household income of twice the average wage is rich, particularly if it has multiple earners. Those piously calling to tax the rich, meaning those others, should be aware that they are in that group. They are not.

Oh, and there is no pot of gold. Not unless you count tax evaders…