Séamus Healy (Tipperary South, Workers and Unemployed Action Group)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

To ask the Minister for Finance noting that in the course of a reply to Deputy Boyd-Barrett, Dáil Report of 3 October 2012, he provided data for year 2012 on the incomes of the top 10,000, top 1%, top 5%, top 10% of taxable units and their tax payments and effective tax rates (details supplied) and that the data was based on projections by the Revenue Commissioners of expected earnings and expected revenue in that year, in view of the distribution of incomes in 2009 and subsequent developments, if he will provide equivalent data for the year 2012 as revised in view of actual revenue outcomes for year 2012; if he will further provide the equivalent data for the year 2011 based on actual revenue outcomes for that year and the number of public servants there were in each earning category for the years 2011 and 2012; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10749/13]

Michael Noonan (Limerick City, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am informed by the Revenue Commissioners that the figures for incomes and tax as provided in my reply to Question No. 65 of 3 October 2012 were based on projected estimates of the total liability to tax in respect of the tax year 2012 and were not based on cash receipts expected to be collected in the corresponding calendar year. The figures were estimates from the Revenue tax forecasting model using actual data for the year 2009, adjusted as necessary for estimated income and employment trends in the interim. Figures of cash receipts are subject to timing arrangements and can also be distorted by cash flow adjustments. The incomes and tax values as calculated by the model cannot, therefore, be revised or updated by reference to actual revenue outcomes for years 2011 or 2012. For ease of reference, the information I provided for 2012 in my reply of 3 October last is set out in the following table.

It should be noted that the figures for tax and effective tax rate include income tax, PRSI and universal social charge. The figures are estimates from the Revenue tax forecasting model using actual data for the year 2009 adjusted as necessary for income and employment trends in the interim. These are, therefore, provisional and likely to be revised. In addition, gross income is as defined in a Revenue statistical report for 2010. The numbers of income earners shown in the table counts a married couple who have elected or have been deemed to have elected for joint assessment as one tax unit, although USC and PRSI are individualised charges, and as such the yield is calculated on the basis of individual incomes.

The basic data underlying the figures of tax and incomes provided in this form for 2012 were compiled as part of the preparations for budget 2013. Corresponding data for 2011 was not prepared as it would have been less relevant for budgetary considerations and equally demanding on resources. For that reason, figures are not readily available for 2011 on the same basis and could not be collated in the time available for this reply due to the significant data processing work involved. This is a matter which the Deputy needs to study. It is not something on which I can supply further information across the House.

Additional information not given on the floor of the House.

If it will assist the Deputy, I am attaching the following table, showing a projected distribution of 2011 incomes by income range, which I included in my reply to Question No. 134 tabled by Deputy Dowds on 7 February 2012. This table includes figures for income tax but not for USC or PRSI.

The figures are estimates from the Revenue tax forecasting model using actual data for the year 2009 adjusted as necessary for income and employment trends in the interim. These are, therefore, provisional and likely to be revised. It should be noted that the income ranges shown in the above tables relate to gross income as defined in a Revenue statistical report for 2010. It should also be noted that a married couple who has elected or has been deemed to have elected for joint assessment is counted as one tax unit.

Furthermore, the estimated earnings of public servants are not separately identifiable in the figures projected for 2011 and 2012. The latest relevant sector-based information available on income earners in the tax system is derived from income tax returns filed for the income tax year 2010 and represents about 95% of all returns expected at the time the data was compiled for analytical purposes. The data relating to the public sector includes individuals in receipt of various forms of income from public sources that would not normally be regarded as constituting employment within the public service, for example, those receiving fees or those on State boards. On the basis of the available tax based data, it is not possible to identify and exclude income from public sources to groups that would not normally be regarded as employed within the public service or to distinguish the earnings of employees associated with typical work patterns. Accordingly, it is likely that the number of public servants from this source is overstated. On that basis, the total numbers of public sector employees, and the breakdown of those numbers by income ranges, is set out as follows:

Further historical details on incomes earned in the income tax year 2010 are provided in Tables IDS 1 to 17 of the income distribution chapter of the Revenue statistical report for 2011, which is available on the Revenue website. A married couple which has elected or has been deemed to have elected for joint assessment is counted as one tax unit.

Séamus Healy (Tipperary South, Workers and Unemployed Action Group)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister for his reply. We know from previous replies that the 10,000 highest earners have astronomical incomes. The figure is approximately €595,000 per individual. Even after the effective tax rate and PRSI are taken into account, they have incomes of in excess of €300,000. These are astronomical figures compared to the average industrial wage or social welfare rates. Is it not fair to ask these individuals to make an additional contribution to the Exchequer? Should they not give up at least another €1 billion in tax and PRSI? They would still be very wealthy, with average incomes of approximately €264,000. Is it not reasonable for these individuals to pay a higher rate of tax on a fair basis?

Michael Noonan (Limerick City, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Even with the use of tax breaks there is a minimum tax rate of just under 30%. Everybody will pay that amount. Beyond that figure, the rates of taxation are very progressive. Under the new deal, senior civil servants have been hit hard by the wage reduction. With everything thrown in, their marginal rate of tax is 61% or 61.5%. Obviously people who earn higher incomes have more take home pay but the levels of taxation are quite progressive.

Séamus Healy (Tipperary South, Workers and Unemployed Action Group)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The marginal rate is quite different from the effective rate, which is in the region of 39% for these individuals. I suggest that, at a time when we are abolishing mobility payments, taking €350 million per year from low paid public sector workers, abolishing exceptional needs payments for needy families and imposing a property tax on households in negative equity or mortgage arrears, individuals on these levels of income should be made to pay their fair share in order to make a reasonable contribution. They are well able to contribute another €1 billion to the Exchequer while remaining very wealthy.

Michael Noonan (Limerick City, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is always speculative at what point one pitches personal taxation. We are in a common travel zone and can move to and live in any of the 27 member states of the European Union. If we tax people too high we do not want a situation in which everybody who is wealthy leaves the country because we want the wealthy people to invest and be productive in terms of providing jobs for other people. A balance must be found but they pay their fair share. The top couple of per cent of wage earners contribute some 20% of all taxes.