How poor are the poor, really?

Blangis

ntlbell wrote: »

If they bought a house well within their means they shouldn't have much of a problem

if they bought one that they couldn't afford and overstretched themselves they might have a problem

but that problem is not my or anyone else's problems it's their own problem.

So why is a higher earner expected to stay further "within their means" than a lower income earner - twice as much, to be precise?

It might not be everybody's problem now, but if this type of thinking continues, and higher earners continue to be hit twice as hard as everybody else, then it will be very much everybody's problem when this segment of society is no longer able to shoulder the burden that everybody expects it to bear.

gurramok

Blangis wrote: »

You are not being completely forthcoming there. What you mean is that you think that people on 75K+ are supposed to be able to take the hit and still have a comfy lifestyle. And, if they are not able to, then they deserve to suffer, because they must have made some decisions that you find repugnant.

Offensive decisions like buying a house to raise a family in, for example.

Then why can they not survive on €3,500 a month?

ntlbell

Blangis wrote: »

So why is a higher earner expected to stay further "within their means" than a lower income earner - twice as much, to be precise?

They're not, everyone who decided to buy a home should buy one they can very comfortably afford based on very stress testing etc this is not exclusive to higher earners or lower earners _everyone_ should.

Blangis wrote: »

It might not be everybody's problem now, but if this type of thinking continues, and higher earners continue to be hit twice as hard as everybody else, then it will be very much everybody's problem when this segment of society is no longer able to shoulder the burden that everybody expects it to bear.

The higher end of the spectrum has always had to take more of the burden

you understand why that it is right?

Blangis

ntlbell wrote: »

The higher end of the spectrum has always had to take more of the burden.

you understand why that it is right?

More of the burden is fine, but an exponentially increasing share of it is not.

You understand why not, right?

ntlbell

Blangis wrote: »

More of the burden is fine, but an exponentially increasing share of it is not.

You understand why not, right?

I don't think people on 70k have been asked to take an exceptionally increasing share have they?

after new levy's etc what is someone on 70-75k left with a month?

Blangis

ntlbell wrote: »

I don't think people on 70k have been asked to take an exceptionally increasing share have they?

after new levy's etc what is someone on 70-75k left with a month?

Exponentially. We took a much higher increase than the lower earners at the emergency budget. What I mean is that if the current thinking that we are able to take twice as much pain as the lower earners continues to hold sway, then we are going to take exponentially higher hits which will wipe us out very quickly.

Say in the December budget, the following increase takes place:

<75k - Increase from 2% to 3%. A 50% rise.

If the >75k earners take twice the hit then we get hit with a 100% increase which gives us:

>75k - Increase from 4% to 8%.

So if we continue to take hits that are twice as hard as everybody else, it won't be long before we are pushed over the edge, living "within our means" or not.

ntlbell

Blangis wrote: »

Exponentially. We took a much higher increase than the lower earners at the emergency budget. What I mean is that if the current thinking that we are able to take twice as much pain as the lower earners continues to hold sway, then we are going to take exponentially higher hits which will wipe us out very quickly.

Say in the December budget, the following increase takes place:

<75k - Increase from 2% to 3%. A 50% rise.

If the >75k earners take twice the hit then we get hit with a 100% increase which gives us:

>75k - Increase from 4% to 8%.

So if we continue to take hits that are twice as hard as everybody else, it won't be long before we are pushed over the edge, living "within our means" or not.

I'll try again.

Taking in current levy's how much does someone on 75k take home a month?

I'm a bit confused here because in your OP you stated that your mortgage and bills accounted for 80%+ of your take home.

Now I live in the same type of house as you and with all my bills food/mortgage after current levie's it uses up about 25% of my take home.

I earn less than you do, somethings not adding up.

It sounds like you're doing something wrong.

Akrasia

Blangis wrote: »

My point is that the current thinking assumes that I am living a life of ease and plenty, while the poor are living in the lowest sewers of misery and filth.

The facts are that I am just about getting by while they are living quite happily thanks to me and people like me. The life on council estates suits them just fine and they are happy there.

If Marx were alive today, he would quickly spot that the means of production (i.e. the work done by the middle classes) are now being exploited by not only the rich, but also the "poor."

the solution is quite simple, give up your job, sell your house and go on welfare in a council house. they're having a great time at your expense while you're obviously miserable.

Akrasia

bullpost wrote: »

My opinion on this is that those that bought property in the last few years are now burdened with the debt from our so-called boom and will be paying over the odds payments back to the banks for the foreseeable future.

I think there should be some sort of adjustment for those people to offset this burden against the new levies being introduced.
Mostly these are young families and their large mortgages are going to impact their standard of living for years to come.
But this is not likely to happen and therefore all you can realistically do is let your local Fianna Fail councillor have it when they come looking for your vote shortly.

you should not have bought a house in the last few years. The fact that so many people were willing participants in 'the property ladder' is why the irish economic collapse be amongst the most spectacular of anywhere in the world

gurramok

Its so obvious. A person on 75k gets around €3,500 after tax which has shrunk of course a little after the last budget.

Now, all banks will not give you a mortgage based on more than 35%-40% of your net home pay.
If we say 40%, that means there is at least €2,000 left over monthly after the mortgage been paid. And we are not including a dual income in this scenario.

I asked earlier, what on earth are those bills that one cannot survive on €2,000 a month after the mortgage been paid?

Akrasia

Blangis wrote: »

I am not going to itemise my monthly spending for you. This does not mean that I am lying about my situation, or conveniently leaving out a load of luxuries. I will say it again: the money I make is enough for myself and my family to live a modest lifestyle. Everybody's assumption that people like me are living high on the hog is incorrect.

What I am saying is that we are the geese that lay the golden eggs in this country, and that we are not in the best of health at the moment.

Bertie ahern considered that he lived a 'modest lifestyle'
Your conception of a modest lifestyle is your own, can you tell us honestly a few indicators so we can decide whether you are genuinely sacrificing or just a greedy whinger..

1. What model and year car do you drive?

2. how many holidays/breaks do you take a year

3 how often do you go out to a restaurant for a meal

4. Do you send your children to a private school

You might believe that 'poor' people are on the pigs back, but there are working people out there who regularly have to choose between paying the esb or the bin charges, and who haven't bought any clothes for themselves in over a year, who can't afford health insurance or to visit the dentist or to buy a new pair of glasses.

People who have absolutely no savings, no cushion and who are forced to borrow from friends and family when an unexpected expense arises (like a flat tyre on their 10 year old car...)

asdasd

I asked earlier, what on earth are those bills that one cannot survive on €2,000 a month after the mortgage been paid?

The question is whether there is such a thing as poor compared to some members of the "middle classes".

Lets asume this chap has a family of 4 i.e two kids. His income is about 480 a week, or 120 per capita. this does not take into account the need for the producing classes to save for university, travel to work, and save in general for pensions.

Poorer than someone on the dole at 204.

Of course.

but there are working people out there who regularly have to choose between paying the esb or the bin charges, and who haven't bought any clothes for themselves in over a year, who can't afford health insurance or to visit the dentist or to buy a new pair of glasses.

We are not talking about the working poor, but the unemployed. Clearly is a family of 4 on 75K a year is poorer than someone on the dole, then that applies all the way down the line for workers earning less than him.

gerry28

Blangis,

I am a public sector worker on €28,000. I'm getting hit for the 2% income levy, 5.5% pension levy and the health levy. All the while i have to pay mortgage, car, bills etc.

You were a bit unfortunate coming on here looking for sympathy on a wage of €75,000. You'll quickly learn that if your a public servant or on a good wage then you will get no sympathy at all on here.

Utter ruin and a public flogging is what we deserve in the eyes of some posters for having gall to be in secure employment or well off :rolleyes:

Akrasia

Blangis wrote: »

I agree that it is ridiculous to keep bringing me and my circumstances back into this discussion, and I wish you would stop.

What this thread is about is the belief (that you clearly hold) that a certain section of society should be able to take twice as much pain as another section of society. You keep saying that people who earn 75k+ should be able to take levies at twice the rate of other people.

Therefore, different rules apply to us than to people who earn less than us. While it is ok for them to budget for a tax increase of X% amount, we should be prepared for an increase of 2X%.

In addition, if one of the hits we take pushes us over the edge, we suffer much more than the less well off section of society, but if this happens, we deserve it.

Please just explain what the basis for this is?

you just don't understand. Equity is not just 'everyone pays the same'

If you are taxed 200 euros a month out of 4 grand net income it is much easier to come up with the savings than 20 euros a month tax if you only have 400 euros a month net income. The lower income families have already committed the vast majority of their income to non negotiable essentials (rent, heat, basic food, transport) and the 20 quid reduction in income will come directly out of the little bit of discretionary income they had (bye bye savings, bye bye trips to the beach with your family....)

elshambo

elshambo wrote: »

"And i bought a house i clearly could not afford at the top of the market because i assumed it would get higher in price

OP you replied to this with:

Blangis wrote: »

Actually, the main reason I went into my situation because I hoped to avoid the above coming up. I wanted to make it very clear that I am not a property speculator who made a bet and lost. I bought a house to raise a family in. I bought it when my family and I reached a stage where we wanted a permanent home. I paid the going price for it. I could afford it then, I can afford it now, and I will always be able to afford it. There is nothing blameworthy about my actions, really.

I have made my point over and over again: The assumption is that a certain section of society can afford to be hit again, and again, and again.

Because it keeps coming up, I'll make an addendum to it:

The thinking also goes that if these people can't afford to take hit after hit after hit, then it's their tough luck. They deserve to be punished because...

Maybe elshambo, Gurramok or AARRRGH could finish off this bit?

Suggestions:

(a) They should have predicted the future and kept a large amount of money aside for us in case we needed it?

(b) We are a nation of petty-minded, vindictive peasants and we are glad to see them being taken down a peg or two?

(c) ?

which means you clearly saw this part as well but choose to ignore it:

elshambo wrote: »

SUCK IT UP!
I was moving to London to start my own business when the crash came, im now in my parents spare room, in a home town that bores me to tears
Deal with it!

yer on 75K in a world where there are much worse off

AKA me, skint and living with the parents where if id got set up before the crash that I was 100% not a part of.....
who knows! (ya ya poor me)

elshambo wrote: »

SUCK IT UP!

AND

elshambo wrote: »

Deal with it!

didnt seem to work so I say to ALL (male and female) moaners who are earning TWICE the AVERAGE wage (over 4 times the minimum ) and crying about extra tax when most in the world are worried about what next week will be like

GROW A PAIR!
What you are dealing with at the moment is called real life!:eek:

Its what happens outside of bubbles
In the long run though horrible now, its more fun

& if you cant handle it its probably because yer parents being too busy being your friend, giving you everything instead of having to actually act like actual parents didnt respect you enough to help you grow up into an actual functioning adult:eek:

how is that for an ending to...

Blangis wrote: »

The thinking also goes that if these people can't afford to take hit after hit after hit, then it's their tough luck. They deserve to be punished because...

Maybe elshambo, Gurramok or AARRRGH could finish off this bit?
(c) ?

ooh
Doing these is good when the going is bad :D:D or :):pac:
and once in a while try to be:cool:

gurramok

asdasd wrote: »

The question is whether there is such a thing as poor compared to some members of the "middle classes".

Lets asume this chap has a family of 4 i.e two kids. His income is about 480 a week, or 120 per capita. this does not take into account the need for the producing classes to save for university, travel to work, and save in general for pensions.

Poorer than someone on the dole at 204.

Of course.

Err, that middle class family has received Child Welfare payments as well you know!

What about the wife??!:)

asdasd

Err, that middle class family has received Child Welfare payments as well you know!

Quite. I didnt include savings in the 120 per capita a month, or pensions and they probably exceed the gains from child benefits.

What about the wife??!

surely we are assuming that this is a one earner family. If he wife earns 75K then they earn 150K, and yes that is comfortable.
__________________[/quote]

gurramok

elshambo wrote: »

didnt seem to work so I say to ALL (male and female) moaners who are earning TWICE the minimum wage and crying about extra tax when most in the world are worried about what next week will be like

Min wage works about about 18k pa.

So the OP earns 4 times a person on min wage. Uh oh, the hole digs deeper

gurramok

gerry28 wrote: »

Blangis,

I am a public sector worker on €28,000. I'm getting hit for the 2% income levy, 5.5% pension levy and the health levy. All the while i have to pay mortgage, car, bills etc.

You were a bit unfortunate coming on here looking for sympathy on a wage of €75,000. You'll quickly learn that if your a public servant or on a good wage then you will get no sympathy at all on here.

Utter ruin and a public flogging is what we deserve in the eyes of some posters for having gall to be in secure employment or well off :rolleyes:

This is ironic. You must come out with a net pay of €1,900 a month or thereabouts?
And yet you defend a person on 75k+ who comes out with €2000 a month after mortgage been paid who whinges about life been tough.

elshambo

gurramok wrote: »

Min wage works about about 18k pa.

So the OP earns 4 times a person on min wage. Uh oh, the hole digs deeper

TA!
FIXED!

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

gerry28

This is ironic. You must come out with a net pay of €1,900 a month or thereabouts?
And yet you defend a person on 75k+ who comes out with €2000 a month after mortgage been paid who whinges about life been tough.

No I wouldn't say i'm defending him. Its not a competition about who is suffering the most. I'm sure he knows he is well enough paid and should have foreseen the reaction he would receive venting his frustration as he did. But, nobody likes money being taken out of their wage packet and I think thats all he was really saying in his OP, he may just have overstated things a little.

As a public servant I have been reading thread after thread bashing us for this, that and the other. I'm not on a great wage, all I was pointing out was if your a public servant or if your well paid you won't get too much sympathy on here.

Thoie

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Originally Posted by Blangis
I think that, despite all of the hand-wringing, we need to recognise that working class people in Ireland are completely different to middle class people. They have a totally different culture, different tastes, and different expectations. We might look at their lives and think: Oh how wretched! But they like the way they live.

My standard of living is not higher than theirs, it is just different. I might read the Irish Times instead of the Sun and eat Parma ham and mozzarella instead of Denny waifos and easi singles, but that is simply a question of taste. My house is not bigger than theirs, it is just situated in a middle class area.

Donegalfella, I was the same as you last year, and did similar things - went to the library instead of buying books

Blangis' comment on "they like they way they live" leaves a bit of a bad taste in my mouth, but perhaps I'm being over-sensitive.

Going back to my point about the choices people have to make, Blangis, if things got really tough for you, you might have to go with Denny and easi singles. It's not enough to say it's a question of taste. I feel that you still don't understand poverty, and you still don't understand that the person who is struggling on >75k has made choices - you speak about the things that "have" to be done as if they were imperative. Eating food is an imperative - eating cheese that costs €30 a kilo is not.

There is nothing stopping the 75k earner from buying the same size house for cheaper, except their choice not to live in a cheaper area. There is nothing stopping the 75k earner sending their children to the local secondary school, except it is their choice not to. You can't say that the "poor" people opt not to live in a middle class area, they simply can't afford to.

This discussion is also about the comparative hit that the higher earners in our society are paying. Let's compare a salary of 75k versus a salary of 50k (which, I stress, is certainly not poor either). The 75k earner has lost 2789 a year. The 50k earner has lost 1200 a year. This still leaves the 75 earner with a greater monthly disposable income than the 50k earner -by approx 1000 a month. 50k is still a good salary, and it's reasonable to assume that someone on 50k is able to afford a family (with a home), therefore it's reasonable to assume that with 1,000 extra a month the same can be done.

Let's look at minimum wage. One of the supposed benefits of minimum wage is that it raises standards of living for the poorest and most vulnerable members of society.

Our minimum wage worker is bringing home roughly 1,400 a month. Our 75k earner is bringing home roughly 4000 a month. I'm discounting any optional payments such as VHI, pension, etc. When I say optional assume we're not talking Public Sector here, this is not that place for that discussion again. This 1400 a month does not entitle the minimum earner to other benefits such as rent allowance, etc. So they have to do the same things the 75k earner does on roughly a third of the money - they have to feed and clothe their family and have a roof over their head. So, think about your monthly outgoings, and think about an income of 1,400. Think about all the things you and your family would have to do without. Think about what you want to prioritise. Now understand that by definition, someone on minimum wage is not under the poverty line. That's a key definition of minimum wage - it tries to set a standard of living that is not poverty.

If you'd like some more information about poverty, take a look at http://www.cpa.ie/povertyinireland/index.htm

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

ntlbell

working class people like fish and chips

I think we've reached a new low here.

Thoie

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Oops, there was more to the sentence about the library, but my computer ate it It probably wasn't very interesting either.

And for some reason the way you put it is offending my delicate little eyes less than the other way. I think the difference is that you're acknowledging that some people (regardless of their income) just like certain things, whereas the other way seemed to imply that poorer people were incapable of enjoying the finer things in life.

Thoie

ntlbell wrote: »

working class people like fish and chips

I think we've reached a new low here.

To be fair I read his post as "some people like fish and chips".

gurramok

I ate Italian tonight, did not have any beer and didn't watch any football. Glad i'm middle class now

ntlbell

Thoie wrote: »

To be fair I read his post as "some people like fish and chips".

Just re-read the post, must stop speed reading.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.