Sir, – The indications are that the priority of the Government in the upcoming budget is to reduce the amount of tax being paid by people on higher incomes. And this is despite the fact that one must earn more than 2½ times the maximum state pension before one starts to pay 41 per cent tax on the remainder of one’s income. I’m sure that the majority of our citizens would gladly pay that higher rate of tax, if only they earned enough to do so.
Some highly paid influential people, tax experts, business advocates, politicians and media personalities have been openly criticising the tax system to the extent that it has nearly become a mantra; one regularly hears things like, “you must earn €200 to pay a €100 bill”. Because of their high incomes, all of these people are subject to the higher rate of tax, and thus have a vested interest in reducing it.
If the Government does reduce taxes as indicated, it will be seen that the regressive taxes, ie the water and property charges on the poorest in our society, are being used to subsidise the wealthier by reducing their income tax bill. It appears that groupthink has again affected our leaders in relation to the direction the country is taking. – Yours, etc,
BRENDAN O’DONOGHUE,
Killerig,
Carlow.
Sir, – Wouldn’t it be nice if instead of inviting readers to speculate on how to spend an extra €160 million (“What would you do with €160 million if you were the Minister?”, October 7th), you asked them to think of ideas that would spend an existing €160 million better? You are feeding a false assumption that there is no problem that cannot be solved without some extra money. Money has come to be equated with concern. Our representatives’ only way of expressing that they care about an issue then becomes a commitment to spend extra resources on it.
We should know by now that pushing money into systems that are so poorly designed that they don’t work isn’t money that is going to deliver anything for the people the money is supposed to help or the problems it is intended to solve. There are many things the State is doing that others could do better, and there are many things the State does badly that it could do better. Let’s have that debate instead. – Yours, etc,
Dr EOIN O’MALLEY,
School of Law
and Government,
Dublin City University.
Sir, – I wonder will this Government deliver a budget that will be positively remembered in six months or will it have the courage to deliver a budget that will be positively remembered in 10 years? I don’t believe it can do both and alas I expect the former. – Yours, etc,
GARRET PEARSE,
Rosehill,
Wicklow.
Sir, – For those on the contributory invalidity pension who have been forced to retire early due to ill health, the payment of PRSI is a tax. There is no benefit, immediate or later, from paying as their invalidity pension becomes the old age pension when they reach retirement age.
PRSI is charged on any income invalidity pensioners have in addition to their contributory pension. Most invalidity pensioners would not have any other income but a minority do, often interest on money inherited from a family member. The additional income is badly needed to top up the invalidity pension (€193.50 per week) to make their life bearable. My wheelchair-using friend uses her non-pension income to pay for carers which the HSE cannot supply due to budget cuts. She is now subject to a minimum “PRSI” contribution of €500 a year on her other income. This amount would pay for 50 hours of care.
This is not PRSI but a tax on the sick. It should end.
The bizarre thing is that if she was healthy and had two part-time jobs paying €350 per week in both, she would pay no PRSI, despite having a gross income of €700 a week. This relates to a concession whereby those earning less than €352 per week pay no PRSI but get credited with Class A0 contributions. This exemption does not reflect the fact that many people have more than one part-time job. – Yours, etc,
ENID O’DOWD,
Ranelagh,
Dublin 6.