Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
FINANCE MINISTER Michael Noonan has affirmed that there are no plans to increase income tax rates in the coming Budget – despite a Troika commitment to widen the personal income tax base.
Noonan has gone on the record to confirm that the pledge in the Programme for Government – in which the government pledged to maintain the current rates of income tax, income bands and tax credits – remained the policy of the Fine Gael-Labour coalition.
“There are no plans at this time to depart from this policy,” Noonan said.
The commitment – on the record of the Dáil – came after parliamentary questions from Fine Gael backbencher Terence Flanagan, who asked if the government planned to introduce a higher rate of income tax for high earners.
“In addition, we will not increase the top marginal rates of taxes on income,” Noonan affirmed in his written reply.
The minister said OECD research named Ireland as having one of the most progressive tax systems of any of its EU members.
“I should point out that the top marginal rate of taxation on income is now 52 per cent for PAYE workers and 55 per cent for the self-employed,” he said.
Noonan elaborated that the top 5 per cent of earners were set to pay 43 per cent of all income tax collected in 2012, while some 78 per cent of all workers – those earning under €50,000 a year – would contribute only a fifth of the tax take.
Though the commitment will be welcome news to PAYE workers ahead of the Budget, it may make the Budget arithmetic more difficult for the minister – as the most recent edition of the EU-IMF Memorandum of Understanding included “a broadening” of the income tax base as one of its revenue-raising measures.
The Budget, which is due in 45 days’ time, is due to include measures which will raise an extra €1.25 billion in taxes, as well as spending cuts worth €2.25 billion.
Other ways in which the government is due to increase revenues include the property tax, increases in excise and other indirect taxes, and a “restructuring of motor taxation”.
Aside from the broadening of income tax, it also committed to “a reduction in general tax expenditures” – a commitment had previously been interpreted as cuts to tax credits, or the introduction of narrower criteria under which a taxpayer could qualify for them.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
I prefer mars to snickers. The past history of either is not really that important
A combination of factors Val. 4 billion years ago Mars was a much warmer place than today, as the planet had not cooled sufficiently since its formation. The interior of the planet at that time was similar to Earth’s today, i.e. a thin crust floating on a molten interior giving rise to volcanoes such as at Olympus Mons. The interior, as on Earth, is made primarily of iron, and in such instances where the core is molten, this iron creates a magnetic field (such as can be seen on Earth). The magnetic field protects the planet from solar radiation. This radiation breaks H2O molecules down into their respective parts – Oxygen and Hydrogen. With the cooling of the planet’s interior the magnetic field breaks down allowing the solar radiation in which then breaks down the H2O. The hydrogen is too light to remain on Mars’ surface (bear in mind Mars has only1/3 the gravity of Earth) and floats to the top of the atmosphere where, now that the magnetic field is gone, solar winds are allowed to tear the hydrogen away from the planet and carry it into space and ionising other particles which are also stripped away. As the atmosphere thins the planet cools even further. Any water that remains becomes locked in the rocks, any oxygen which remains ends up bound in CO2. The process is a relatively fast one. See this article from NASA on the process.
great comment
Global warming ;)
Deadly bit of news. Little bit disappointed by the artists image though. Surely Mars then wouldn’t have looked the same as now i.e. red and dusty, if it had an ocean would it? Surely it would have looked a little bit closer to our own planet. Raises serious questions about what happened there for an entire ocean to dry up also.
That would really depend on whether or not the ocean was there long enough for life to evolve. Our planet only looks like it does because of the plant life, if you look at the deserts you get an idea of how it would’ve looked if life didn’t happen. The only difference I’d put into the artists impression is a bit of cloud cover, maybe.
The view of the sky from the surface of Mars is blue, like Earth. NASA admitted that they touch those shots “for effect”.
the sky is only blue at sunrise and sunset
How I wish the human race could solve our problems here and explore inner and outer space together. The trillions spent on war could feed and clothe us all and used to expand our understanding of our home. The universe.
It will never happen, but still.
Who cares we should be looking after our own planet
Alan, we may need a new planet. Mars may become important in the same way as the USA was. Who says we must only live on one planet?
The fact that there was once water on Mars is old news. The mainstream news is only catching on now?
Read the first 2 lines of the article please.
It says that in the article, this is not news of water on the planet, it is news of the remnants of a particular ocean.
Ah crap, apologies folks. I read the article but the first couple of lines must have indeed escaped my attention! Whoops.
have your say