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.
BUDGET 2025 HAS officially been announced, with a range of one-off payments and some changes to taxes charged on income.
Minister for Finance Jack Chambers announced a number of changes to tax this afternoon, including:
An increase to the entrance to the higher rate of tax for PAYE workers (from €42,000 to €44,0000).
The measures will affect people differently depending on their income. You can find out what exactly they mean for you with The Journal’s Budget Calculator.
For a person earning an annual income of €20,000, here’s a breakdown of how your tax will (or won’t) change.
We’ll also be bringing you examples of what it means for people earning €40,000, €60,000 and €100,000 as well as our full Budget coverage on government spending, social welfare, and other changes.
The changes to PAYE will only affect people earning over €42,000, as the threshold has been raised to €44,000.
If you are earning €20,000 a year, you are already only paying the lower rate of tax and so there will be no difference.
Personal tax credits and employee tax credits are increasing by €125 each.
That means savings on PAYE for a single person earning €20,000 will amount to zero from the PAYE changes and €250 from changes to credits.
Changes to USC have also been announced with the 4% rate cut to 3% on incomes between €25,000 and €70,000.
However, for a person earning €20,000 there will be no change to the amount of USC they pay:
This is the same as what they will pay in 2025.
The only tax savings for people on €20,000 will be €250.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
I’ve said many times, will keep saying it: corporations like Meta are NOT your friend in any way.
@Daniel Skelton: I don’t think anyone ever has thought of a corporation as their friend… When was the last time you went for a coffee with a corporation?
@Kev Barnes: True, but I consider ones like Meta to be the lowest of the low. You can’t get any lower than them.
@Kev Barnes: you’ve never seen someone scrolling of Facebook in a café?
@Daniel Skelton: good man Daniel does that mean other corporates are?
@Daniel Skelton: TikTok is even lower than meta is it has been created specially to make our youth dumber.
It should be 100% banned.
@mani mus: I have.. But that doesn’t make your phone your friend
@Kev Barnes: Our leaders do it all the time.
@Kev Barnes: Badum-tsshh
You should be over the age of 18 to own a smart phone. They are one of the greatest scourges to enter society and I’m not being over dramatic when I say that. They allow bullying of kids to continue at all times, they give kids incorrect perceptions of their image and create very harmful addictions.
It is frightening how many parents give kids as young as 6 or 7 unfiltered access to some of the worst aspects of society.
No access, no problem.
If you think your child needs a phone to contact you, then buy a non-smartphone.
But an entire ban would take peer pressure out of the equation.
Ban the sale of advertising on the internet and this problem will vanish.
All the social media companies depend on advertising and use addictive interfaces to drive up “engagement” and numbers so that they can charge more for advertising.
@Steve O’Hara-Smith: Good idea, would go further and ban data minning too.
@Thesaltyurchin: Harder to define but yes indeed.
You could probably add some adults to that as well.
@Jb Walshe: like you?
There should be a new poll…Do Irish judges attend Andrew Tate seminars? To give a man a clap on the back for attacking a women that he admitted to….the wheel is rolling backwards.
An outright ban is needed until 18 years of age. Also social media should not allow the posting of so called news links or any links of that matter. It used to be about photos, sharing of nights out and socialising and sharing memories.. Politics, Screwing with our children’s minds was not part of it.. or screwing with adults minds for that matter.
@Roman Walczak Sadlowski: Outright ban wont solve anything. The social media companies, specifically X, Meta and Snap need to ensure anonymous accounts are not possible. If you want a social media account you need to provide proof of identification. As soon as all these cowards online hiding behind their keyboard know there is attribution behind every one of their posts it will stop overnight. Literally within 24 hours harrassment, doxxing, bullying, far-right nonsense, fake news and video posts etc will cease.
Society is doing a bang up job of doing the damage already without social media. The current and next generation will have some mess to clean up from the damage thats been done and I dont evny them.
But not quite as much as the current government are.
It’s so sad to see a group of teenage friends together just looking at their phones….no messing about, talking, slagging or laughter. My teen years in the early 90s were spent talking with friends and others my age, about everything and nothing, getting bored, slagging each other off, arguing and making up again…walking for hours or sitting around.
No child under 13 needs a phone. As a parent it is hard, but you have to lay down the law and say
No. My 12 year old has no phone, as I have told him his friends all live in our estate, he can walk over to them if he needs to talk.
Just behind substance abuse
@Argus Romsworth: Reckon if you count the profits (lets no pretend that anything else matters here) that tech bros are making way more than the narcos.
Not a hope of any action here. Money and profit is what our society value, child/people’s welfare are only considered if it doesn’t affect the bottom line. Have you not scene all the betting companies concern for problem gambling . If your winning your account is restricted, if your losing, bet away.
They are very addictive. An addiction is only bad news.
@JP: Facebook was designed by psychologists to be addictive, that’s the main reason it crushed Bebo, MySpace etc.
Most of the most mentally unstable people i see on social media these days are 40+. The ones harrassing td’s and guards and librarians and such.
Least we forget, THIS is a social media space.
You can say ‘ban smartphones’ until you’re blue in the face – gen z (hope I got that right) life revolves around social platforms – I had an argument with a friend back in 2018 about the detrimental effects this behaviour would have as I had been reading articles on it – basically they stated that the young ones wouldn’t know how to adapt to social situations, that they wouldn’t be able to decipher facial expressions, body language.
It’s not just about the bullying aspect, it reaches far deeper. Images on social media are heavily filtered and, especially for girls, can make them feel insecure and lack confidence in comparison to what they see on screen.
It was hard enough for me growing up, I was bullied but it was in person, was dealt with, the end. Online is endless.
Stop bullying kids by dumping anxiety on them.
https://climatekids.nasa.gov/kids-guide-to-climate-change/
The June Solstice happens today, and the Green party, rather than run with experimental theorists who imagine climate is one thing as long-term weather, teaches students that Ireland has a maritime climate as one topic among many within the Earth science of climate.
I never mind those who try to throw their weight around in the comments as though this is a schoolyard. I need adults in the room and in the Journal.
@Gerald Kelleher: Nooooo! The winters coming
@Gerald Kelleher: they left out the elnino effect in the climate change guide.
@Gerald Kelleher: I really wish researchers in social science hadn’t started using the term “climate anxiety” when surveying young people. Psychologists don’t want that term used. The vast majority of young people and children who report concerns about climate change in these studies do not have anxiety. Anxiety is complicated and it is generally rooted in the child’s early childhood experiences and the attachment styles of those who care for them. You could stop telling children that carbon emissions trap radiation tomorrow and I doubt it would have any impact on the numbers of children being treated for anxiety. I don’t care about the models. There are many excellent reasons to clean up our act and pursue renewable energy resources that don’t require you to buy into global warming. Young people are rightfully concerned about how human actions are impacting our environment. They aren’t mad, we are polluting the planet at a rate that can’t possibly be good, we have volumes of hard evidence demonstrating the mounting negative consequences to humans (children in particular) and we should stop.
@Sill Scoundrel: At last, a reasonable person even if climate research covers many topics.
The environmental party should protect society from academics looking for funding while supplying hysteria.
I absolutely love social media
Not as big a threat as the scary wary pilots!
have your say