>[…] [.name.] is open to the idea of [.reason.], but said there are a number of questions which needed to be answered about how it would be implemented, making it “extremely challenging” to have done so by the end of [.month.]
Stupid cunts.
Varadkar got his headline for the week spread everywhere and that’s all that mattered, optics is the goal
It’s not challenging they just looked at how much tax money they be losing and said naaaaaa
“The introduction of an intermediate rate of income tax between the current standard rate of 20% and the higher rate of 40% would benefit those on lower incomes disproportionately less, the papers said.”
And??? Dont lower incomes pay less anyway than the salary range this would apply to? Doesn’t seem to be any break at all for those of us in that range, too focussed on propping up welfare and everyone else to cut the middle a break for once.
Well, that’s disappointing. I’ve often considered moving out of here with the amount of tax I pay. I paid about 100k in the last 12 months and I just think it’s madness that someone can be on 30 or 40k and be slapped with nearly the highest tax you can pay here. Of course, USC doesn’t cap out until 70 or so thousand, but still. At some point you have to wonder what are you actually getting for all of this tax and for me it’s really not much.
They’re planning to increase the lower and higher rate tax bands instead. Introducing an entire new tax band was always a bit unlikely, not least of all because people would loose out on tax relief without an overhaul of the entire tax system which would take ages to implement.
Put it in stark terms, my effective tax rate in Australia is probably about half of what it was at home, even though I’ve gotten a 50% raise by moving…
Absolute LOL at them saying such a change wouldn’t be equitable because low earners would benefit less, as if the current taxation system is equitable to begin with.
They have an opportunity to make a clear statement to potential voters and give something back to middle earners & they’re going to squander it.
Why do tax cuts have to be equitable when the amount we pay isn’t equitable?
Pure bolloxology
Just increase the tax bands for fuck sake it’s not that hard. Maybe they can grow a backbone and remove USC while they’re at it.
11 comments
This pretty sums up every cunt in the government:
>[…] [.name.] is open to the idea of [.reason.], but said there are a number of questions which needed to be answered about how it would be implemented, making it “extremely challenging” to have done so by the end of [.month.]
Stupid cunts.
Varadkar got his headline for the week spread everywhere and that’s all that mattered, optics is the goal
It’s not challenging they just looked at how much tax money they be losing and said naaaaaa
“The introduction of an intermediate rate of income tax between the current standard rate of 20% and the higher rate of 40% would benefit those on lower incomes disproportionately less, the papers said.”
And??? Dont lower incomes pay less anyway than the salary range this would apply to? Doesn’t seem to be any break at all for those of us in that range, too focussed on propping up welfare and everyone else to cut the middle a break for once.
Well, that’s disappointing. I’ve often considered moving out of here with the amount of tax I pay. I paid about 100k in the last 12 months and I just think it’s madness that someone can be on 30 or 40k and be slapped with nearly the highest tax you can pay here. Of course, USC doesn’t cap out until 70 or so thousand, but still. At some point you have to wonder what are you actually getting for all of this tax and for me it’s really not much.
They’re planning to increase the lower and higher rate tax bands instead. Introducing an entire new tax band was always a bit unlikely, not least of all because people would loose out on tax relief without an overhaul of the entire tax system which would take ages to implement.
Put it in stark terms, my effective tax rate in Australia is probably about half of what it was at home, even though I’ve gotten a 50% raise by moving…
Absolute LOL at them saying such a change wouldn’t be equitable because low earners would benefit less, as if the current taxation system is equitable to begin with.
They have an opportunity to make a clear statement to potential voters and give something back to middle earners & they’re going to squander it.
Why do tax cuts have to be equitable when the amount we pay isn’t equitable?
Pure bolloxology
Just increase the tax bands for fuck sake it’s not that hard. Maybe they can grow a backbone and remove USC while they’re at it.