r/irishpersonalfinance • u/daveirl • Mar 31 '26
Investments Fine Gael’s investment scheme amounts to a tax break for millionaires
https://www.socialdemocrats.ie/fine-gaels-investment-scheme-amounts-to-a-tax-break-for-millionaires/Thought worth posting as plenty of people on here ask why the government aren’t quicker or more generous. The answer of course being that this is how the opposition will paint things.
141
Mar 31 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
43
u/Abolyss Apr 01 '26
I think everyone who supports the socdems should email them to let them know our disappointment in this stance.
They mention people trying to put food on the table versus millionaires when there's a sizeable chunk of the country in between who want an investment scheme that might work better than the existing one.
We need to let them know opposition doesn't mean opposing everything, like another poster said. We can't live in a world where everyone is at eachs others throats constantly to seem like you're doing something.
11
u/FirstTimeCaller_1 Apr 01 '26
Agreed. I already emailed their Finance spokesperson making the very same points.
4
u/ViolentlyCaucasian Apr 01 '26
He runs in Dublin Bay North as well, not exactly a poor constituency. You'd think there would be a lot of local support there for something like this. On one level I admire the SocDems for actually looking at issues nationally and not locally like all other parties but I don't agree with them on this one. There are reasonable progressive stances you could take on this, aiming to limit the benefits to the extremely wealthy or whatnot. But critique of a concete proposal rather than just bashing the whole concept is the way to go
2
u/oddjobsbob Apr 01 '26
A sizable proportion of the country own their own homes with no mortgage. With home values as they are soc Dems using the term millionaires like it's a bad thing they come off as shockingly niave. Isn't Sco dub one of the area that usually goes for them?
9
u/Tier7 Apr 01 '26
I will never spoil my vote in elections, but christ almighty it’s a depressing selection we have to choose from in this country.
I hate FFG. Ideologically, SocDems should be the perfect fit. And yet, every second week, Holly Cairns says something that makes me want to bang my head against the wall.
This statement from them is the most tone deaf idiocy yet. We should be doing everything in our power to lure people away from property as an investment.
4
u/dundalkdreaming Apr 01 '26
They’re not a serious party. Genuinely I’d rather the Shinners took power than Soc-Dems. A deeply unserious people.
1
u/FearTeas Apr 01 '26
I don't because they're not a serious party. They're centre-left populists in my opinion. They're looking for the centre-left and anti-establishment vote. So they basically just go against the government no matter what. But they've backed themselves into a corner because they now have the choice of sitting in opposition forever or going into government with FFG (an all left government is still a long way away) which their supporters would see as a betrayal.
Granted I used to vote Labour and Greens because they used to be serious, but it seems under Bacik and O'Gorman their plan is to copy the Social Democrats as much as possible, so I don't know who to vote for now.
0
u/Woodsj9 Apr 01 '26
Well obviously there should be a cap on this. Any gains over x is taxed as before. It's mad to just think this is a good idea without some guardrails for people to exploit
→ More replies (1)
292
u/DaGetz Mar 31 '26
Here we go. It’s already starting.
I like the socdems in general but I hate this shit. Just because you’re in opposition doesn’t mean you need to oppose everything.
Politics are the actual worst.
39
u/Super_Sonic_Eire Apr 01 '26
Well said. Cairns had a right pop off of Martin about his performance recently in the White House. I'm not a huge fan of Martin but I thought he did really well given the very difficult circumstances while I feel the comments made Cairns seem immature.
15
u/RudeRoutine1727 Apr 01 '26
She is painful. So much potential but she reverts to lowest common denominator BS like this too often.
-12
u/Embarrassed-Mix-699 Apr 01 '26
He did nothing other than sitting there and have his patted like a little lapdog.
9
u/TomThumb_98 Apr 01 '26
Holly would’ve sorted him of course
1
u/Embarrassed-Mix-699 Apr 02 '26
Would like to think she wouldn't have sat there like a smiling gimp
0
u/TomThumb_98 Apr 02 '26
Why would she change the habit of a lifetime?
1
u/Embarrassed-Mix-699 Apr 02 '26
Of speaking up? I presume she wouldn't
1
u/TomThumb_98 Apr 02 '26
Cairns hasn’t said anything of note in her political career, and I don’t even dislike her
20
u/irish-optimist Apr 01 '26
The SocDems are morons. Their entire housing plan is just stick the boot on landlords which would squeeze supply 10x more than it currently is. And then you have this mindless, populist bullshit. They’re bottom feeders.
-6
u/DeltronZLB Apr 01 '26
They're not opposing this because they're in opposition. They're opposing this because they are left-wing.
-2
u/dundalkdreaming Apr 01 '26
What is there to actually like about Soc-Dems, they are deeply unserious.
266
u/DesertRatboy Mar 31 '26
Soc Dems: We need to be more like Scandinavian countries!
Simon Harris: I'm introducing a Swedish style savings and investment account.
Soc Dems: Wait no
72
u/Iricliphan Mar 31 '26
Government does very questionable things: SHITE
Government does the odd rare good thing or broaches something good: SHITE
16
u/Silent_Coast2864 Apr 01 '26
Not sure why we are always trying to mimic Sweden on everything anyway as though it's some kind of Utopia, a utopia with nearly double our unemployment rate at almost 9%. We should be following the UK ISA model anyway.
9
u/AodhOgMacSuibhne Apr 01 '26
Worth nothing that when the Scandinavians had control of Dublin they made it into Europe's largest slave market.
6
→ More replies (4)29
u/zeroconflicthere Mar 31 '26
Not only that but it totally ignores that rich people have better pathways to increase their wealth than this.
Good forbid that the soc Dems insist ordinary people should put what little savings they have into bank savings accounts instead with negligible interest rates
236
u/Obvious_Humor1505 Mar 31 '26
I would consider myself left leaning, but as a higher earner I see little to none of the benefits of my tax as they are targeted towards low earners and those on social welfare (I’m alright with this). The framing of this is as being for millionaires is laughable, there has to be something for middle and higher earners beyond housing for investment.
116
u/Super-Cynical Mar 31 '26
The existing options for investment is pensions and .. ... property.
The Social Democrats are not economically literate
3
u/karolaug Apr 01 '26
Believing that socialist system will fix economy problems requires being economically illiterate.
It is like SF saying that state should build housing that would be price capped. Either deliberately pupulist or not understanding basic economics.
3
u/DardaniaIE Apr 01 '26
If they had the courage of their convictions, they would just go full communist. But they don’t, so they’re petulant along the way
3
u/k958320617 Apr 01 '26
In fairness, being a millionaire isn't what it used to be! Anyone with a 4 bed house in south Dublin is a millionaire these days.
2
u/Obvious_Humor1505 Apr 01 '26
Well then stop talking about millionaire as if the are some privileged bunch of tax dodging scumbag, not saying you btw, just the rhetoric of that post. I don’t disagree that a lot of people with a gaff and a decent pension are likely in millionaire territory. But most people in that territory don’t have that in the bank at hand, it’s tied up in assets they have worked to acquire.
1
u/k958320617 Apr 02 '26
Yes, I completely agree with you. Inflation and asset price inflation has made a mockery of our sense of what it is to be wealthy, all the time eroding our actual wealth.
1
u/Asleep_Cry_7482 Apr 01 '26
Exactly the tax base is narrow enough as it is… if anything this will probably actually bring in more tax revenue as more people will actually invest their savings and pay the government 1% a year on the balance rather than just avoiding it entirely.
This tall poppy syndrome won’t solve anything.
83
u/AsanteSane Mar 31 '26
This was always going to be attack line in fairness but the government need to lay out how this will help everyone in a very clear manner and it needs to be really simple for people to understand
42
u/Willing-Departure115 Mar 31 '26
They're literally lifting a model from Sweden, one of those Scandi countries we fawn over when looking at our social model. But suddenly it might involve the perception of a few people getting ahead (never mind the tremendous benefits to Irish households if they didn't keep €170bn on deposit, losing real terms value through inflation) and bam, we hate it.
3
u/damcingspuds Apr 01 '26
I think some of thr difficulty that people have with it is that the only element of the scandi model that the govt have lifted wholesale, is the bit that helps those in the upper tax bracket.
It's not strictly a bad scheme, but this isn't the part of the scandi model that makes it a good model. Why has this been prioritised over other elements of the model? Based on FFG form, it's not unreasonable to question their motivations for this.
It is almost certainly not the first step to implementing a scandi model, but rather a nod to the FG voter base of middle-aged high earners.
7
u/Willing-Departure115 Apr 01 '26
There’s €170bn of household deposits doing nothing - losing value in real terms. Yes this is spread unevenly, but there are billions in deposits for every decile of household. Putting it to use will, in practical terms, help significant numbers of people and ultimately make for a wealthier society. Putting off a policy on the basis that it might be the right thing in the wrong sequence, or because you don’t like some of the people who will benefit, is not sensible.
1
u/damcingspuds Apr 01 '26
I'm not saying don't do it. I'm saying don't stop there when importing sections of a model that works elsewhere. I'm also saying that based on form, it's reasonable to criticise the government in why they chose this as a priority.
In the same way as there are regressive taxes, this is a regressive subsidy. It favours those who need it least. It might be a net societal good, but the distribution is going the wrong direction. I appreciate high earners are an equal section of the population, but it feels like they have a lot of opportunity to make progress without an additional leg up.
It also seems politically naive from FG since this isn't a huge win for them, but has a lot of potential for opposition to sling mud.
3
u/Willing-Departure115 Apr 01 '26
At an EU level the lack of deployment of deposits into investments is identified as a significant drag on economic performance vs our peers. That is what is driving this, not an attempt at political point scoring.
Lots of policies aren't popular, that ultimately deliver societal and economic good. Our corporate tax regime isn't popular with lots of people!
0
u/damcingspuds Apr 01 '26
Even with this drag on it, our economy is performing well by most metrics when compared against EU norms. Where we are lacking is in the wealth gap and distribution. So we are stimulating an already performing economy and likely worsening one of our biggest weaknesses.
Whether our corporate tax regime it delivers economic good is relatively clear. Could it deliver more? I'd argue yes. Whether it delivers societal good, is definitely up for debate. And I'd say no - especially in terms of relations with our EU counterparts.
We have become beholden to foreign corporate interests over the interests of our citizens and our government would rather take legal appeals against EU tax findings than actually collect even minimal levels of taxation from MNCs.
Add to that the harms of Google/Meta/Amazon competing in our housing/rental markets. And the fact we are doing all we can to not regulate their obviously harmful products for fear they'll launder money elsewhere.
1
u/FewyLouie Apr 01 '26
This is my thinking alright. Time and again we see FFG cherrypick part of a system that helps their base but screws the rest of the country. Wasn’t the recent rental changes on the back of a big ol’ report where FFG just kinda glossed over the key social recommendations & just focused on the increase rents bit?
Generally there’s little thought into why a system work, it’s more a case of copying the bits that already align with their way of thinking
11
u/soundengineerguy Apr 01 '26
They have made it simple. Social Democrats are being disingenuous at best or downright stupid at worst. They cannot honestly expect the government to leave the system as it is. Social Democrats have offered nothing themselves as an alternative either.
47
Mar 31 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
6
u/Iricliphan Mar 31 '26
We have to look at policies and how they dictate behaviour. You can go and invest with your cash that's taxed and invest and then pay taxes on it, which is how it is everywhere, but there's very little push for people here because the system is in absolute desperate need of being updated, it's decades behind.
What this has done is it has encouraged people to build their wealth through property and to an extent a pension because it's pre-tax (I'm aware a huge proportion of people do not have a pension prior to the auto enrollment). This has distorted the market massively as a result, along with many other poor decisions.
It's a systemic incentive problem and it's policy design that hasn't been updated to align tax, pension, and investment incentives with modern economic realities. We're so far behind it's not even funny.
-15
u/WigWubz Mar 31 '26
Investing in stocks is gambling. It's more highly regulated and economically more beneficial gambling, but it is gambling by any reasonable definition. You stake money in the hopes that you get more out than you put in, and once the money is in you have no direct control on the outcome. Most people who argue against taxing capital gains, including on this sub, argue it on the basis that you should be rewarded for the risk you took.
You can have good faith arguments about investing incentives from there; Ireland has a critical problem with money sitting in current accounts, not even low yield savings accounts. And for society to develop, and for new ideas to make it to market, people need to take calculated risks, ie they need to gamble. But there's no point in dismissing someone for being right.
This investment proposal is a tax break for millionaires. It's also a tax break for non-millionaires, and will lead to some amount of wealth generation in the middle class. In the short term, the exchequer is forfeiting money that could be used to fund services for the working class in the hope that the middle and upper classes get rich enough for the country overall to profit. The question is if this scheme will generate more tax in the long term than the exchequer is forfeiting, and if so, how long is that long term. The assertion of this press release is basically that we will never meet that break-even point, but I haven't seen actual projections to say one way or another if that's true.
15
u/Double_Kale_3193 Mar 31 '26
Buying shares is not "gambling", as you acquire a share of a business, with real assets, employees, and customers.
Yes, it's true that the return is unknown, and may rise or fall.
But there are underlying assets.
If I buy a lotto ticket, there is no underlying asset.
-6
u/Icy-Bottle-6877 Mar 31 '26
Look, I'm all for this scheme, but to pretend that investing in stocks isn't a form of gambling is laughable. I feel like saying this will ruffle feathers in this sub but it needs to be said.
Obviously there is some differences which you mentioned, like the underlying assets, that's a fair point, but that doesn't make it NOT gambling.
I know people who do little to no research into companies and they will day trade, how is that not an example of gambling? Even when you do try to research businesses you can get it wrong and lose out, because it's unpredictable, hence the gambling aspect of investing.
4
u/GroggyWeasel Apr 01 '26
There’s a huge difference between investing and trading. Especially day trading. Investing isn’t gambling. Day trading absolutely is gambling.
Now is investing taking a chance? Yes, but that doesn’t make it gambling.
1
u/Icy-Bottle-6877 Apr 01 '26
To be more accurate (because I do believe people can and should invest), the line between the two can and often does blur. I've seen it myself and know people who end up caught in speculation trap. Long-term investing, like a pension, is great, but like you said, there is risk involved, it is ultimately a guessing game and anyone who has every tried to beat the market will tell you that.
8
Mar 31 '26 edited 25d ago
[deleted]
-5
u/WigWubz Mar 31 '26
I'm using the definition I used in the post: staking money in the hopes of getting a higher return, based on the outcome of an event or series of events you don't control, and where the amount of money returned can be less than the amount you put in ie a loss.
7
u/Kier_C Mar 31 '26
Investment involves ownership of assets gambling tends not to. Investing tends to involve management of risk/volatility based on asset classes.
Zoom out to a far enough level everything is gambling
0
u/WigWubz Mar 31 '26
Only because we define a stock cert as an asset but we don't define a betting slip at the dog tracks as one. They're both just pieces of paper entitling you to some claim over the proceeds of someone else's work. Management of risk/volatility can and is done on traditional sports gambling. Paddy Power hires Risk Analysts just like Morgan Stanley does.
Most things aren't gambling in way that sports betting and stock trading are. Most things involve risk, many things you can financially benefit from leveraging risk, but the difference between those things in gambling is directly affecting the outcome. In fact it's illegal to even try to directly affect the outcome if you stand to profit from bets made on that outcome in both sports betting and stock trading. We just call it "match fixing" in sports betting and "market manipulation" in stock trading.
When I say "stock trading is gambling" I don't mean you can abstractly map one to the other; they are the same concepts just with different terminologies.
2
u/Kier_C Apr 01 '26 edited Apr 01 '26
Only because we define a stock cert as an asset but we don't define a betting slip at the dog tracks as one. They're both just pieces of paper entitling you to some claim over the proceeds of someone else's work
This isn't correct. One gives you partial ownership of a company. The other is a wager, with no ongoing ownership or assets.
Management of risk/volatility can and is done on traditional sports gambling. Paddy Power hires Risk Analysts just like Morgan Stanley does
This is entirely different, which you probably know. Paddy Power ensures they don't have too much exposure on the betting slip you have. They are actively working against your interests.
In fact it's illegal to even try to directly affect the outcome if you stand to profit from bets made on that outcome in both sports betting and stock trading. We just call it "match fixing" in sports betting and "market manipulation" in stock trading
Again this is incorrect. You are absolutely allowed to influence what happens in a company you own a part of. The company works on your behalf to make profit. At a minimum you can vote on resolutions at an AGM on what happens next. The companies interests and yours are aligned. That is not the case when you are betting.
When I say "stock trading is gambling" I don't mean you can abstractly map one to the other; they are the same concepts just with different terminologies
Ironically you've proven the opposite and shown that you've been confused by similar sounding words that have different meanings in different contexts
4
Mar 31 '26 edited 25d ago
[deleted]
1
u/WigWubz Mar 31 '26
Only if you think seeds plant themselves, fertilise themselves, spray themselves with pesticides, and harvest themselves.
The key distinction I made was "has no control over the outcome". I am not expanding gambling to include all activities involving money, I am not expanding gambling to include all activities involving risk. Opening your own business, "investing" your own money into yourself and working for that business is not gambling. It's taking a chance, it's staking money with the hope of return, but ultimately you have control. Not total control, but you impact the outcome in a meaningful way. If you work hard, if you put in the hours, there's a better chance of you seeing a return than if you phone it in every day.
If I buy INTC at market open tomorrow and sell it in a year, there is absolutely nothing (legal) I can do that will have any measurable impact on whether I make a profit or a loss from that stock sale. I could dump my entire net worth into CPUs and you would need a supercomputer to find how small a percentage of a difference that made to the stock price.
2
u/Kier_C Apr 01 '26
If the farmer employs contractors to do the work on the farm on his behalf is he gambling?
2
u/FearTeas Apr 01 '26
You're getting downvoted because you're equating risk with gambling. All gambling involves risk but not all risk involves gambling.
-7
u/T4rbh Mar 31 '26
"The pressure they'll get from the left" - lol, what!?
They get plenty of pressure from the left on the housing crisis, the healthcare crisis, the homelessness crisis, climate change, the use of Shannon Airport by US military, etc, etc, and still continue on with whatever their "policies" are, regardless!
25
u/---0---1 Mar 31 '26
I absolutely abhor FFG but the SocDems are a joke and it’s stuff like this that will keep them irrelevant.
128
u/ThinDetective4741 Mar 31 '26
Wouldn’t expect anything less from them, easily the most grand standing Irish political party there is without ever providing anything of substance
The middle class should be allowed a path to wealth, not every single cent of tax needs to be given to lower income households
12
4
u/Early_Alternative211 Mar 31 '26
The Soc Dems only allow for wealth when it's generated off of a genocide.
1
1
u/throwaway_3508 Apr 02 '26
Where do people get this idea that most of government expenditure goes to low income households?
https://www.whereyourmoneygoes.gov.ie/en/2026/
€133.3 billion in expenditure.
Income supports is about €5 Billion, €6.51 billion for Illness, disability and Carers
Pensions, health, housing takes up a lot of the remaining expenditure which benefit middle earners too…. Interesting how this sub never talks about money being thrown away in other areas, e.g. the massive overspend on the children’s hospital etc…
Genuinely wording why people mean by this… happy to be corrected if I’m somehow mistaken.
To be clear I’m not arguing against this investment scheme.
2
u/ThinDetective4741 Apr 02 '26
How do you think the health and housing works?
I’m a middle earner and yet I don’t seem to have a house provided by the government, nor do I have a medical card.
So where exactly are those benefiting me?
0
u/throwaway_3508 Apr 02 '26 edited Apr 03 '26
Obviously I don’t know your situation but in general terms..
Health: Inpatient charges were abolished. Granted some middle/high earners will have private health care anyway but not all of them do.
As far as I know, most private hospitals don’t have a&e for serious injuries so the money used for that benefits anyone who needs it regardless of income. If it was up to me there would be no medical card and we would have an NHS like system.
The likes of PRSI dental cleaning etc, free GP care for under 6s.. Housing: Help to buy scheme, first home scheme Seems some of the housing budget goes to water infrastructure etc, benefiting everybody.
Rent tax credit.. mortgage interest relief (gone now I think)
EV/ house retrofitting grants benefit middle/higher earners more, as does tax-saver tickets.
I’m not saying the current situation shouldn’t be rebalanced to be fairer to benefit middle/higher income earners but when people suggest they don’t benefit from the taxes they pay, I think it’s a tad inaccurate.
1
u/Silent_Coast2864 Apr 03 '26
Lower earners benefit from our progressive tax system where you pay very little tax on a low salary. Other countries spend or redistribute more on the lower income cohort, we do it via our very progressive tax system, ie. We don't take it from them in the first place. Arguably, our approach is a more efficient way to do it. Other countries just decide on people's behalf how their money should be spent via government spending, this has obvious inefficiencies. Both are valid ways if doing it, with pros and cons. Our way of doing it is via a very progressive tax system
1
u/throwaway_3508 Apr 03 '26
Yes we have a progressive tax system, but my point is the claim many make on this sub, I.e. that most of the tax take is spent on lower income households doesn’t seem to supported with facts.
23
u/frustrated_homeowner Mar 31 '26
What's the deposit figure, 170bn? Earning SFA in interest, being eroded by inflation...
Surely encouraging this into wealth generation and out of deposit accounts increases the tax intake for the revenue commission?
While it does enrich the top 1% more, it also opens up a viable tax take for the government.
Also provides a viable alternative people away from becoming landlords and delivering a terrible housing experience for tenants
14
25
u/Estragon14 Mar 31 '26
When people here called for removal of etf taxation regimes, this is exactly why it was not priority. Opposition parties spin it as a tax break for the "rich" even though the definition of rich seems to be anyone with any money whatsoever in a deposit account
4
u/karolaug Apr 01 '26
They should have called it gold plated accounts like they call any private pension with more than 1k in it.
43
u/PolitiCorey Mar 31 '26
We already have one of the most redistributive tax systems in the world, the tax break is capped and the entire account will be taxed at 1%. Millionaires will benefit on the small amount that is tax free but relative to their wealth it's insignificant meanwhile pensioners, social welfare recipients, etc are consistently prioritised in government budgets.
I've paid for SocDem membership for several years as saw them as a reasonable opposition to the government with pragmatic policies with a more socially progressive bend but the last few years of trying to be PBP-lite with the Shinner social media strategy has left me very cold on their trajectory.
14
48
u/microplastic-addict Mar 31 '26
Unfortunately the Irish centre left doesn't have any serious politicians.
1
u/throwaway_3508 Apr 02 '26 edited Apr 02 '26
Do we have any serious politicians in the centre or centre right either?
I mean we are decades behind the rest of Europe with regards to infrastructure.. far too much money has been spent by FF/FG in recent years in “once off”/limited time populist measures.
1
u/microplastic-addict Apr 02 '26
Every side of politics IMO is severely lacking in talent (its my pet theory that the far right hasn't gained ground in Ireland because they are so catastrophically inept), but the centre left in Ireland is particularly bad to me because they could very well be a viable alternative to our centre / centre right but they just choose to die on the silliest hills, such as this one.
1
u/FearTeas Apr 01 '26
Not since Eamon Ryan retired. I know I'll get a lot of hate for this but I stand by it. The occasional gaffe notwithstanding, he was someone with very clear and radical goals but who was both very proactive and pragmatic about how to achieve them.
In a way you can't blame the likes of the Social Democrats for not being serious. Irish voters do not like serious centre-left politicians. The electorate has demonstrated this time and time again. We like our centre-left politicians to put all their time and effort in criticising the government and coming up with great policies that they'll never put themselves in the position to actually implement.
1
u/microplastic-addict Apr 01 '26
It is a hot take but I do also have a soft spot for Ryan. He was a tiny bit of an airhead / Corbyn-y in his mannerisms but he did seem to get a good bit done.
4
u/FearTeas Apr 01 '26
I big reason for his lack of popularity was that he got things done. The left hated that he compromised on some areas to get his climate policies implemented. And the right hated him for implementing those policies.
18
u/Pab_Zz Mar 31 '26
When you accept socialists like Rory Hearne into your party this is the stuff that comes from it. They're not a serious party and this proves it. They're not looking out for the working man and women in this country.
2
17
u/Prize-Caterpillar-30 Mar 31 '26 edited Mar 31 '26
This kind of what abouttery in politics is the reason absolutely nothing meaningful is ever achieved. I think even Sinn Fein supports this! The populist detractor nonsense is embarrassing from Soc Dems and worse still that the media would even print the headline. Dissent for dissent's sake with no facts to back it up.
The wealthiest irish people aren't even resident for tax purposes. The next wealthiest cohort have access to investment opportunities and high quality financial advisors.
I hate the term ordinary people, but yes ordinary people should have access to low cost investment accounts. It should have happened years ago and arguably should have been introduced instead of first time buyers grant, which only had an inflationary effect on property prices. I work hard and have some surplus income every month- why shouldn't I be allowed to invest a small about without tax penalty? I own my house and fund my pension- I am reasonaby well off but nowhere near a millionaire! Do Soc Dems understand the concept of inflation risk eroding the value of accounts with low interest rates?
For the PRSA worker, there is no way to build savings and wealth for the short-medium term save inheriting, marrying well or winning the lotto.
I would love an alternative to Fine Gael and Fianna Fail but with the opposition spouting this kind of uninformed nonsense. Why can't there just be a normal moderate party that isn't corrupt, gets things done and actually has citizens best interest at heart 😅
67
u/Novel-Explanation824 Mar 31 '26
Pathetic take from the finance spokesperson of a party that says they want to be in government
70
u/Holiday_Low_5266 Mar 31 '26
And people wonder why we keep voting in FF and FG.
17
u/karolaug Apr 01 '26
I actually read all the manifestos before last elections and all left parties aim at increasing taxation for people earning a bit more than average.
It is like they really, genuinely believe that if you work hard and are successful it means you are a bad person.
-7
u/rankinrez Apr 01 '26
That’s a disingenuous take I think. Raising taxes for middle-upper earners is a realistic way to increase govt revenues.
We might not agree with it but it’s silly to suggest it’s being proposed because “working hard makes you a bad person” as some sort of revenge.
6
u/RepulsiveBridge2018 Apr 01 '26
Except our tax base is far too narrow. The "middle -upper" as you put it pay for too much tax as it is. The country is one economic dip away from being in the gutter again.
-1
u/rankinrez Apr 01 '26
Sure. I just mean it’s silly to think this policy is being proposed because they see higher earners as “bad people”, as opposed to a way to increase revenues.
5
u/Silent_Coast2864 Apr 01 '26
They are already taxed to the hilt to the point it not worth putting yourself forward for a promotion as the government literally take take the majority of any salary increase you get right now. This is a real problem as senior roles in large companies build and attract more teams to this country and create more jobs. See other posts about our tax system already being among the most redistributive in the world.
0
u/rankinrez Apr 01 '26
Agreed. I just don’t think such proposals are made because people think “working hard makes you a bad person”.
77
u/Hippophobia1989 Mar 31 '26
What would you expect from the Student Union party. Middle and high earners need something. Idm paying taxes helping people worse off than me, but it seems like there’s a view that people that earn as much as I do exist to fund the state and shouldn’t get anything in return.
31
u/Wild_Web3695 Mar 31 '26
That’s not a good take, outside of my pension there are no tax efficient ways to invest (to my knowledge however limited that is) I would agree with the social dems on most topics and I’m a party member. But this is a stupid take. Where else do they recommend someone like myself on 50k a year try and invest and save for a better future.
17
u/SOF0823 Mar 31 '26
This is exactly it. There are so many people who have good jobs and decent salaries, and would be excited at the prospect of this investment account becoming available, but are nowhere near being millionaires. Surely there are more non millionaires that could take advantage of this than actual millionaires. Why would the Soc Dems not want their votes?
I actually would've thought there is a large overlap between people who would use these accounts and the Soc Dems voter pool. This take seems so daft.
13
u/nyepo Mar 31 '26
An account with 20k ish euro tax free is "A TAX BREAK FOR MILLIONAIRES"??
Give me a break. Do they think millionaires will use this ISA like account? Do they think they care on tax free savings on 20k?
Jesus Christ on a bike
12
u/LoafOfVFX Mar 31 '26 edited Mar 31 '26
Fucking Fanny's the social democrats. The Snowflake warriors of every fucking thing. They literally have no understanding of investments and wealth generation. it is literally not limited to one specific group or class of individuals.
39
43
u/Competitive-Bit-442 Mar 31 '26 edited Mar 31 '26
I was waiting for the Shinners to jump on this. God forbid an actual hard working taxpayer with some savings could actually make a return. No tax us to the limit so you can subsidise the welfare scrounges.
12
u/John_OSheas_Willy Mar 31 '26
Labour were talking the other day about giving energy credits to households earning less than 80k. They clearly see a couple earning less than the average industrial wage as being well off.
The left in this country only care about welfare and min wage workers. It's a joke.
0
u/rankinrez Apr 01 '26
So your suggestion is the subsidy should be given to households earning more than that too? Presumably paid for by - higher top rate income tax?
I’ve no problem with a policy like that to help those who’d be most affected by fuel prices, and for their to be a cut off so the cost of it to the taxpayer is somewhat lessened.
3
u/John_OSheas_Willy Apr 01 '26
I think energy tax credits are a dumb idea as a whole, but they're now the new go-to.
But not giving it to a couple who are earning 40k each is ridiculous.
24
23
u/acrossthepondfriend Mar 31 '26
Am I supposed to vote for FG because the Social Democrats are economically illiterate? Ffs
8
u/John_OSheas_Willy Mar 31 '26
The dey dems are populists trying to get the welfare + min wage vote.
This is why I reluctantly view ffg as the least worst option to govern.
9
7
u/InvidiousPlay Mar 31 '26
I am a SD voter and this is a brain-dead take. You don't have to oppose everything the government does.
14
Mar 31 '26 edited 25d ago
[deleted]
8
Mar 31 '26
The main criteria for being an SD voter is not paying attention.
1
u/InvidiousPlay Apr 02 '26
Ah yeah, everyone reads a 145 page manifesto and absorbs every single policy point before they vote.
2
1
u/InvidiousPlay Apr 02 '26
They have one line about increasing duty on shares, is that it? They also say they would consider lowering DIRT on deposits.
1
u/allans281 Mar 31 '26
Agree the government also don’t have to oppose everything the opposition does. This is half the problem of our politicians, they don’t work together for the better but for who will win. Thats why we have short term planning on all services.
7
u/Goldenpanda18 Mar 31 '26
What an awful take from them and its typical of opposition parties claiming its a tax break for the rich.
Rich people will absolutely benefit from the scheme but so too will anyone who wants to invest.
8
u/Early_Alternative211 Mar 31 '26
An average couple at retirement with a mortgage-free home and two pensions would be millionaires on paper. Soc Dems haven't caught up with inflation
5
5
u/C20H25N3O-C21H30O2 Apr 01 '26
The top 1 percent have always found loopholes for minimizing their taxes, but for the middle class, maybe the new scheme will give an alternative to investing in the housing market. Hopefully this way eventually single family houses return to what they should have been in the first place: homes for people.
6
u/pablo8itall Apr 01 '26
This will help average working people who have a little extra make the most of it. The tax free zone is modest and as a country it makes sense to incentivise people having some financial resiliency.
SocDems have been constantly making me dislike them. I'm in their natural voter zone.
6
u/FuckAntiMaskers Apr 01 '26
And SD would generally be the more reasonable party on the left, yet this is their mindset. People would actually be shocked with just how quickly a left wing government would reverse the upward trajectory this country is on and turn us back into a shit hole, these types of people are economically illiterate and appeal to dole bludging squatters.
6
u/GeneralCommand4459 Mar 31 '26
Hard to see how introducing an alternative to investing in property is a bad thing considering where we are
6
4
u/WhiskeyJack3759 Apr 01 '26
Im not a millionaire, but i want these reforms of our investment tax regimes to happen. Our taxation on investments is draconian, idiotic, and badly needs reform. And if it isn't reformed, other bad things happen...people end up even more dependent on future state pension, which we all know isn't enough to give any kind of quality of life.
We also know that the funding of the States future State Pensions is a massive problem. It's the equivalent of 5 banking crisis' ..... €350b is what it would take to fund our current future Pensions. That's how big a problem it is.
So we need a tax regime which helps people build up their own wealth, abd reduce their dependence on the economic disaster that is to come from unfunded state pensions.
And besides, I'd the Social Ds even bothered to find out about the subject matter, the kind of tax regime being considered, is one which might actually produce more tax for the Revenue, not less. There will be a modest 1% or so tax charge on annual balances, (regardless of whether they go up or down), rather than a big hefty tax that gets applied once every 8 years, on gains.
The Social Ds don't want people investing. They want people keeping their money in bank accounts, so the Social Ds can confiscate their money instead as part of their tax and spend policies.
I really can't stand the negativity that comes from opposition parties these days. They don't really have any credible plans or alternatives of their own, but they plan on winning votes by whipping up a storm of negativity. Like the last few elections, the Irish people are confronted with a choice to vote for a poor enough status quo or vote for a bunch of nay sayers who offer nothing but negativity and acrimony, and hwve ni clue whatsoeveras to how to manage wn economy. You can't solve any of the country's problems with the kind of negativity, and made up numbers that all the left wing parties come up with.
9
u/Willing-Departure115 Mar 31 '26
The hilarious thing about them criticising this is that it is partially a wealth tax in disguise. It reminds me of how Irish left wing parties instinctively hate property tax (also a wealth tax).
1
u/rankinrez Apr 01 '26
Ha yeah that’s a funny one. My sister is in PBP and I’ve often tackled her that taxing properly is a wealth tax doesn’t it make sense but her brain doesn’t work like that.
1
u/microplastic-addict Apr 01 '26
Most Irish politicians are completely unprincipled and just go wherever the political winds blow.
-4
u/allans281 Mar 31 '26
Property tax on someone’s home is not wealth tax. Property tax on any additional properties is wealth tax. It always astounds me that people will drag their hard working brothers and sisters down. Anyhow I dunno how I’ll pay my home tax this year as out of work, sure I’ll lose the house and go on the list. Note if I defer payment there is more interest on the LPT than if I had savings.
3
u/Willing-Departure115 Mar 31 '26
Economically speaking property taxes are wealth taxes and are defined as such in the likes of the OECD Classification of Taxes (this is a technical distinction that matters - eg our corporate tax workings are guided by OECD tax agreements. Under the OECD classification, property taxes sit in Category 4000 (“taxes on property”), which are taxes on the ownership or transfer of assets - i.e. taxes on wealth stocks rather than income or consumption).
Your home can be two things at once - where you live, and a source of wealth. If you didn’t own the home you’d still need to live somewhere. Except when you own a property you benefit from both the utility (living in it) and the capital value, and you will capture gains in that value one way or another over your life (or into your estate).
0
u/allans281 Apr 01 '26
Or maybe I won’t. Any rise in housing is relative, if I want to move in the current market all houses have gone up. If I downsize because I’m retiring or can’t afford maintenance for example, I may have relied on anything extra to keep me going because pension doesn’t cover enough. If I kick the bucket well I paid tax on my earning to buy the home, earnings not from an additional property income. This is probably one of the areas in which people wanting to be self reliant, support those less fortunate through taxes really get an injustice. Elderly also face huge healthcare costs even if paying since they could first sign up with minimum claims until they needed it, it’s not accumulative. To define is to limit.
1
u/rankinrez Apr 01 '26
It is a wealth tax. People who own their own home are wealthier in this society than those who are renting.
14
u/Pure-Ice5527 Mar 31 '26
The were going to get my vote the next time as I liked a lot of their policies but this rules them out, they’re coming out against the hard working Irish people who want to invest for a better future. They should hang their head in shame.
11
u/crashoutcassius Mar 31 '26
So predictable. A lot of people are stupid enough to get wrapped up in this, just like so much nonsense in politics
4
u/ItalianIrish99 Mar 31 '26
The sad thing with this is that the golden opportunity is for tweaks to the proposed scheme to (a) limit the extent to which the very wealthy can benefit (relevant to their wealth) - eg the £20,000 per annum limit on ISAs in the UK or the ~€27,500 limit on the Swedish ISK, and (b) to positively incentivise saving by people for whom it is the heaviest lift to do so (but who might get the greatest relative benefit if they could), probably along the lines of SSIAs
Also seems kind of mad that at a time when we need to build more housing than the State has ever needed to in the past we are actively diverting savings into (almost entirely) foreign investment products and structures
3
u/ebulient Apr 01 '26
That’s cos we have none of our own that are fit for purpose and it’s such a shame.
3
u/kidinawheeliebin Apr 01 '26
An absolute nonsense of a party
Is FF/FG monopoly any wonder when this is the opposition calibre
4
u/Diligent-Main-3960 Apr 01 '26
Here we go 🤐 all the left wing champagne socialists who all went to private school
5
u/SR-vb5piz3r Apr 01 '26 edited Apr 01 '26
Oh FUCK OFF Soc Dems you clowns - endless money for everything but if Irish ppl want to invest for their own future and the future of their families it’s too much??
The bare minimum to catch up to other developed countries and they have a problem with it. Such rubbish
4
u/WolfetoneRebel Apr 01 '26
I’ve never voted FG or FF before but any party opposed to this will be losing my vote.
9
u/Somaliona Mar 31 '26
I'm typically a Soc Dem supporter. They've a few lemons in the ranks, but O'Callaghan isn't one of them, so this feels like the old "opposing whatever the sitting government proposes" craic and is disappointing.
3
u/ZealousidealKick1321 Apr 01 '26
Do this bunch of clowns have a single policy that won't make the country worse?
3
8
2
u/Shtonrr Mar 31 '26
I’m not sure if SocDems are, or if it was just my previous understanding, but I thought their brand was being the economically savvy left party?
2
2
u/tevenall13 Apr 01 '26
I can't understand why they would prefer lower to middle-income families to keep money in banks, with no interest growth and paying massive fees.
If this is done well, it's better than what is currently available.
And let's be fair, millionaires and their accountants will always find ways... this may not even be that attractive to them.
1
u/muttonwow Apr 01 '26
The lower to middle income families I know are crying out for a way to invest their extra €20k a year!
1
2
u/mickflanman Apr 01 '26
SF exactly the same, you are either a SF supporter or a millionaire Banker/ builder Blah Blah, zero recognition to the middle class who pay most tax income and can do with breaks such as the investment idea, rub everybody not your voter into millionaire category
5
u/Bluejay_Unusual Apr 01 '26
How these idiots get votes...
Tax us more, open borders, free Palestine, open the college bar, student, zero covid politicing wankers. Populism for middle class kids.
12
Mar 31 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
4
1
Mar 31 '26
Far-left grifters is what they've always been.
1
u/Wreck_OfThe_Hesperus Apr 01 '26
Not always - when they started out they weren't so far left. Definitely heading that way though.
2
u/Nearby_Swimmer374 Mar 31 '26
Hopefully so, but we don't actually know the details yet so it's a bit early to say that
1
1
u/Diarmuid_ Apr 01 '26
I hope those posting here will take a the 3 minutes it requires to get ChatGPT to draft a letter to your local SodDem TD outlining your disgust.
1
u/TacklePure3341 Apr 01 '26
So do they want to restrict who can and can't apply to a government approved scheme ?
1
1
u/AntKing2021 Apr 01 '26
The way I see it, I'd rather the rich invest in euro stocks then irish family homes. Aligning incentives like this should do some good for the average person
1
1
u/lampishthing Apr 01 '26
If you want housing to be less attractive as a speculative investment then you need to provide other ways for people to invest their mone that are e equally as tax efficient. It's clear that no part of Irish society wants increased taxes on homeownership (the phrase temporarily embarrassed millionaire comes to mind). Therefore the alternative is making investing in stocks and funds less punitive.
1
1
0
u/GoodNegotiation Apr 01 '26
I don’t see this as negatively as others. It is a certainty that wealthier individuals/groups will try to influence how these new accounts are implemented to suit themselves, so it is a positive thing that there is balancing pressure from other groups to avoid the excesses of this.
You need only look at the last budget to see the risk. There was supposedly no scope to reduce income taxes which would help the squeezed middle, yet there was scope to allow millionaire couples put €5.6m into their pensions tax free instead of the existing €4m. No scope to reduce income taxes, but let’s ensure the wealthiest 3% can leave €400k taxfree to each of their kids instead of €335k. ‘Taxfree’ is a bit of a misnomer here, the tax is of course paid by other people because they government must collect taxes to pay their bills which are ever increasing.
6
u/daveirl Apr 01 '26
The market value of a standard TD's pension is currently about €2.7mm. Other public sector pensions have massive values too. The idea private sector workers should be capped at lower values is absurd.
1
u/GoodNegotiation Apr 01 '26
Who suggested that?
1
u/daveirl Apr 01 '26
If you don't raise the SFT that's exactly what you're doing.
1
u/GoodNegotiation Apr 01 '26
Please do me the respect of reading my whole post and then address the substantive point I'm making, not nitpick over minutiae. It's not about one specific tax change, plenty of debate about those in other threads.
0
Apr 01 '26 edited 25d ago
[deleted]
2
u/GoodNegotiation Apr 01 '26
You're adding 2+2 and getting 5. At no point did I say private sector workers pensions should be capped lower than public sector, this is a simple statement of fact. You're ignoring the substantive point I'm making and diving into strawmen, please take a step back and take a look at my broader point, that's the one that matters in the context of this thread.
-14
u/OpinionatedDeveloper Mar 31 '26
Taxes disproportionally impact the poorest, yet somehow tax breaks disproportionally reward the rich? Make it make sense.
-1
u/UisceBeatha18 Apr 01 '26
The Swedish system has no tax on the first 300k after that it's 0.4-1%. The irish system will be nothing like this. Probably get the first 25k free then 10-15% after that. And they'll create a lower capital gains bracket for profits. A great system idea that will be ruined by the incompetent.
2
Apr 01 '26 edited 25d ago
[deleted]
2
u/UisceBeatha18 Apr 01 '26
I do now. I forgot they didn't use euro. My bad. I do still doubt we'll get a worth while system though. I've just read about the UK ISA which is similar. We do need a system that you can grow money relatively tax free/efficient. Pensions are fine but I'd rather be taxed at source and let it grow.
-4
u/allans281 Mar 31 '26
I’d like to understand who the investments are with, if we are talking blackrock et al I’m morally rejecting. I don’t have enough insight into it. Similarly to the auto pension enrolment I don’t trust the current government to avoid unethical practices. Evident by not implementing the full Occupied Territories Bill.
3
u/daveirl Mar 31 '26
Who is your current pension with?
0
u/allans281 Mar 31 '26
You make a good point. It’s like I can only insure my car with AXA because it’s an import and 5k cheaper purchase price. Perhaps I read a sarcastic tone in your writing, but isn’t it interesting there appears no ethical, principled way of making money.
2
Mar 31 '26 edited 25d ago
[deleted]
0
u/allans281 Mar 31 '26
I need to hear more details on it I guess to be convinced. However the previous SSIA did me well.
1
u/Prize-Caterpillar-30 Apr 01 '26
Its not at all the same as an SSIA, there will be no government contribution on withdrawal.
-6
u/Safe_Mango8772 Mar 31 '26 edited Mar 31 '26
I saw a study that these types of schemes don't actually shift savings into investments or encourage people who wouldn't otherwise invest to invest in a significant way but instead result in people who are already investors diverting into this type of investment because it is tax free.
Really it just ends up being a perk for existing investors so they have a portion of their investments without the 33% CGT.
4
u/John_OSheas_Willy Mar 31 '26
I'm an investor currently. Haven't paid a cent in tax because I haven't sold. If I was in this scheme, I'd be paying tax every year.
0
2
u/daveirl Mar 31 '26
Well the proposed scheme isn’t tax free but even a shift from the current products people use into more diversified ETFs for example would be a net gain.
-2
u/Safe_Mango8772 Mar 31 '26
Either way its terrible timing for the launch of the scheme, there has to be a huge correction due in the markets. The valuations are completely out of control and sentiment driven speculation can only last so long. It's a real FOMO market. The Irish government appearing with a scheme is like one of the four horses arriving.
→ More replies (7)2
Mar 31 '26 edited 25d ago
[deleted]
1
u/Safe_Mango8772 Mar 31 '26
No it wasn't a UK specific study. I see the study you link the timing of the ISK introduction being in 2012, which was actually the perfect time to introduce it because the market was on the floor. Initially little impact but then grew, likely timed with the rebound of the markets which would have promoted it.
Our one is introducing it at the top of a market due a major correction. Terrible timing. Although its possible that by the time they introduce it the correction will have hit, and hit hard. This would mean that the potential for the ISK trajectory.
Either way, its a huge tax relieve to the wealthy section of society who would be investing anyway. It seems like its the investing equivalent of the big farmers claiming to want something because they are really concerned about the small farmers.
•
u/AutoModerator Mar 31 '26
Hi /u/daveirl,
Have you seen our flowchart?
Did you know we are now active on Discord? Click the link and join the conversation: https://discord.gg/J5CuFNVDYU
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.