How poor are the poor, really?

ntlbell

gurramok wrote: »

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

I'm catching up on my BBC 4 podcasts.

Next up: In Our Time, Sipping a dutch gold in the echelon's of Cabrock. Previously known as the arseh0le of Cabra.

Later: Toasted cheese sambo with brown sauce washed down with a nice pinot noir while I'm screaming at repeats of soccer am.

Thoie

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Sorry, that was badly phrased - I trying to say that your fish and chips quote was more palatable than someone else's "they wouldn't appreciate parma" comment.

bullpost

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

More stereotyping of the working class from those who know nothing about it.

Thoie

bullpost wrote: »

More stereotyping of the working class from those who know nothing about it.

Did you read the same post I did?

bullpost

Thoie wrote: »

Did you read the same post I did?

Probably - though it sounds like our interpretations of it may differ slightly.

weiss

In my mind, some of the comments slightly suggest that only people with money nibble brie and sip wine while listening to BBC radio 3 or can appreciate the works of Shakespeare and Dickens..which is really funny

I laughed more at ntlbells comment, though

Working class types enjoy lager, fish and chips, watching football..some middle classes like that kind of thing too though.

Sorry if I misinterpreted that.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

elshambo

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

a more modern example of the same kind of thing

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nimrod_(slang)

At the time the Bugs Bunny cartoon was made in the 30's
most people in the US apparently got the biblical reference

as the years past and the cartoon was shown on tv
people not knowing what it meant and hence a nimrod came to known as a fool

weiss

OK donegalfella, sorry I misinterpreted what you said.

But It appeared in your other comments that working class people enjoy chips and beer.. watching football..etc

Why can't a person be happy with 75k+ a year?

If you've made bad choices, its your problem.

I'm not overly happy with the money I make, but I'm not on here complaining about it.

I've no healthcare, no pension waiting for me, no house, no car, no 40" LCD tv in the living room or holiday in the sun...but do you see me here whinging about it?

Everybody has their own problems.

I hate the system we have here where welfare can actually be a viable source of income for some people, and some are happy with that life..some even moved to this country for it.

But to suggest that those on low income, that might be living in council estates, eating fish and chips watching football and drinking beer are happy is, to me atleast, funny.

Sorry about that.

EDIT: by the way, I have no problem with people on high incomes, but It does annoy me to hear those moan about having it tough.
It just reeks of greed.

Thoie

weiss wrote: »

I hate the system we have here where welfare can actually be a viable source of income for some people, and some are happy with that life..some even moved to this country for it.

I'm not a fan of people who make a career out of finding more and more social welfare benefits. No matter how many stories you hear about some bloke managing to pull in 50k a year with 5 houses and 3 jeeps from the dole, the fact is that these are a very small minority. Look at it this way.

Currently 11% of the population is unemployed. The population of Ireland is somewhere around 4.3 million. This means that approx 473,000 are out of work.

A recent investigation into dole fraud found that 275 out of 2700 people investigated were claiming fraudulently. We'll call that 10%. Bearing in mind that the original 2,700 were chosen because there was something suspicious there in the first place, so that 10% found guilty were 10% of people who had been reported, or who had flagged up in the system in some way. If the 2700 had been a random sampling you might find that the percentage of scammers was more like 5%.

So we can extrapolate that 95% of our 473,000 claiming the dole are doing so perfectly legitimately. So in the entire country that leaves less than 2,000 scum screwing the system. If the figures were available, I'd be willing to bet that a similar number of PAYE employees are screwing the system in their own way, through non declaration of BIK, trying to avoid customs duty on their way home from holidays, paying for things (or getting paid) in cash for nixers etc.

Going back to your original point, the reason why welfare can be a viable source of income is because that's what it was designed to do. The mission statement of the Department of Social Welfare is

Our Mission is to promote a caring society through income and other support services, enabling active participation in society, promoting social inclusion and supporting families.

We don't have gangs of abandoned children, barefoot, dressed in rags, picking through the dumps looking for food. We don't have parents leaving their kids on the doorsteps of religious institutions. We don't have hordes of old people dying of neglect where they lie on Grafton St. I don't think anyone here would want that, and if it was happening questions would be asked of the government why weren't they providing for these people. Our social welfare system is designed to stop those kind of things from happening on a large scale.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

ateam

Thoie wrote: »

Currently 11% of the population is unemployed. The population of Ireland is somewhere around 4.3 million. This means that approx 473,000 are out of work

Just to point out that the 11% is 11% of the labour force, those fit and of age to work. It's about 2.2 million I think.

Dr Galen

Thoie wrote: »

I'm not a fan of people who make a career out of finding more and more social welfare benefits. No matter how many stories you hear about some bloke managing to pull in 50k a year with 5 houses and 3 jeeps from the dole, the fact is that these are a very small minority. Look at it this way.

Currently 11% of the population is unemployed. The population of Ireland is somewhere around 4.3 million. This means that approx 473,000 are out of work.

A recent investigation into dole fraud found that 275 out of 2700 people investigated were claiming fraudulently. We'll call that 10%. Bearing in mind that the original 2,700 were chosen because there was something suspicious there in the first place, so that 10% found guilty were 10% of people who had been reported, or who had flagged up in the system in some way. If the 2700 had been a random sampling you might find that the percentage of scammers was more like 5%.

So we can extrapolate that 95% of our 473,000 claiming the dole are doing so perfectly legitimately. So in the entire country that leaves less than 2,000 scum screwing the system. If the figures were available, I'd be willing to bet that a similar number of PAYE employees are screwing the system in their own way, through non declaration of BIK, trying to avoid customs duty on their way home from holidays, paying for things (or getting paid) in cash for nixers etc.

Going back to your original point, the reason why welfare can be a viable source of income is because that's what it was designed to do. The mission statement of the Department of Social Welfare is


[/I]We don't have gangs of abandoned children, barefoot, dressed in rags, picking through the dumps looking for food. We don't have parents leaving their kids on the doorsteps of religious institutions. We don't have hordes of old people dying of neglect where they lie on Grafton St. I don't think anyone here would want that, and if it was happening questions would be asked of the government why weren't they providing for these people. Our social welfare system is designed to stop those kind of things from happening on a large scale.

there would be a difference though between scammers as noted in your post and links and those who make a career out of the welfare.

I'd agree that the actual proportion of people acting in an illegal fashion is probably quite small in real terms. They do cost quite a substantial amount, so anything that can be done to crack down on this, I'd think we'd all agre is a good thing.

Career welfare is a different thing though. I've worked in several poorer areas across Dublin, and there are many people who are long term unemployed. The impetus for these people to get up and get a job is low, and made lower by having generous social welfare benefits, paid cash in hand, for doing nothing. In fairness though, there are also a significant number of long term welfare recipients who would love a chance to get back to work, but whether it be educational, child care etc, barriers exist to let this happen. The social welfare system needs to be refocussed on incentivising people back to work, removing the drain on the system. So that like many other areas of our government we could restructure and retarget the case

Thoie

Redoing the maths as ateam correctly pointed out I took 11% of the population, not 11% of the labour force.

Thoie wrote: »

Currently 11% of the labour force population is unemployed. The labour force population of Ireland is somewhere around 2.1 million 4.3 million. This means that approx 13,000 473,000 are out of work.

A recent investigation into dole fraud found that 275 out of 2700 people investigated were claiming fraudulently. We'll call that 10%. Bearing in mind that the original 2,700 were chosen because there was something suspicious there in the first place, so that 10% found guilty were 10% of people who had been reported, or who had flagged up in the system in some way. If the 2700 had been a random sampling you might find that the percentage of scammers was more like 5%.

So we can extrapolate that 95% of our 13,000 473,000 claiming the dole are doing so perfectly legitimately. So in the entire country that leaves less than 640 2,000 scum screwing the system.

Out of those 640, they've just caught 275. Even if we say that 10% are screwing the system, that's still considerably less than 2,000, and I still maintain that at least that number of PAYE workers are messing about as well.

Blangis

My point here, and I realise I clouded the issue by bringing my own circumstances into, it is that the current thinking goes as follows:

If person A makes 50k a year they can afford to give up 1k extra in tax.
If person B makes 100k a year they should be able to afford to give up not 2k, but 4k (I know these are not the real figures, I am simplifying them).

It is logical to expect the 100k person to have more disposable income in absolute terms (i.e. 2,000 instead of 1,000) but not in relative terms (i.e. 4% of their gross and not 2%)

It is also not sound to continue this line of thinking and move to 3%/6% or 4%/8%.

gurramok

Thats because they can afford it more than anyone on pay below them and still have a comfy lifestyle.

gerry28

If person A makes 50k a year they can afford to give up 1k extra in tax.
If person B makes 100k a year they should be able to afford to give up not 2k, but 4k (I know these are not the real figures, I am simplifying them).

It is logical to expect the 100k person to have more disposable income in absolute terms (i.e. 2,000 instead of 1,000) but not in relative terms (i.e. 4% of their gross and not 2%)

Lets assume the first €30,000 of your average family income is taken up paying essentials like mortgage, childcare, bills etc. Then if you earn €50,000 you would have €20,000 left but if you earned €100,000 they you would have €70,000. Obviously this is a crude example as I have not accounted fot tax.

But disposable income for the 100 K earner could easily be twice or 3 times that of the 50 K earner. This is why I think it is fair to take 4% of the higher income rather than 2%.

DadaKopf

It's also to do with the quantity of household income that goes on goods whose prices don't change much. Many consumer commodities are falling in price, but lower-earning households spend a higher proportion of their income on commodities things like electricity, gas, insurance, petrol, milk, mortgages/rent, etc., etc., than those earning higher incomes. Also, higher earning households to (theoretically) have greater financial resources to manage difficulties than those on lower incomes.

It's also at the root of an argument that VAT disproportionately affects the lower earners and is therefore a tax on the poor.

Thoie

Blangis wrote: »

My point here, and I realise I clouded the issue by bringing my own circumstances into, it is that the current thinking goes as follows:

If person A makes 50k a year they can afford to give up 1k extra in tax.
If person B makes 100k a year they should be able to afford to give up not 2k, but 4k (I know these are not the real figures, I am simplifying them).

It is logical to expect the 100k person to have more disposable income in absolute terms (i.e. 2,000 instead of 1,000) but not in relative terms (i.e. 4% of their gross and not 2%)

It is also not sound to continue this line of thinking and move to 3%/6% or 4%/8%.

For the sake of argument, let's say you pay income tax of 5k on a 50k salary, 10k on a 100k salary. Now the levy has come in the person on 50k (Bill) is taking home 44k, the person on 100k (Mark) is taking home 86k. We also have John, who earns 12k, and pays no tax.



If we assume that the government needs that 20k in taxes, we have a few scenarios on how they get it.

1. The current system (Bill pays 12% tax, Mark pays 14% tax)
2. Ensure that they are both paying exactly the same amount to the government, Bill ends up taking home 40k, and Bob takes home 90k - Bill is paying 20% tax, Mark pays 10% tax.
3. Dividing the 20k precisely between them in proportion - Bill pays 13.33% (takes home , Mark pays 13.33%
4. Raise the tax starting point to 55k. Bill pays 0%, Mark pays 20%

Obviously the absolute fairest system is option 3 (which isn't very far away from option 1. The problem with trying to introduce that is that you still need to keep the lower income earners away from the poverty line - you can't charge John a full 13.3% of his salary, as that pushes him below the line. So we introduce an arbitrary line at 12k, and say that the first 12k is free of tax.

So (if you're still with me), Bill now pays tax on 38k, Mark only pays tax on 88k. We're still using option 3 - dividing the money between them proportionally. But now the pot is smaller, so we're charging them at 16% of their taxable income. So they're both now paying 16% of their taxable income - seems fair. Bill pays €6,000, Mark pays €14,000. Notice anything odd there? Mark is no longer paying double what Bill pays. This is because the tax free line is a set figure - it's not proportional. If we take their new payments as a percentage of their gross income we now get two levels - 12% and 14% as it happens.

So if we're agreed that option 3 seems the fairest, but then start adding real world issues to the problem, we end up pretty much where we are at the moment.

asdasd

But disposable income for the 100 K earner could easily be twice or 3 times that of the 50 K earner. This is why I think it is fair to take 4% of the higher income rather than 2%.

Thats fair enough. However what is not mentioned with regards to middle income groups ( by which I mean 40 - 70/80K) is this:

a) There is a hige discrepancy in disposable income related to the cost of housing.
b) There is a huge discrepancy in net worth related to cost of housing when bought, and it's value now.

in fact we can tell very little of the wealth of an individual from his income at the middle income brackets - age is a far better correlation to wealth than income ( which is why the furore over the removal of the medical cards from the old and rich was such nonsense).

Nor can we tell anything about a persons disposable from his headline figure because the cost of housing consumes so much money. And then there is the cost of children.

In short someone ( or some two) aged 65 on 50K a year - a great pension - could be living in Kiliney, and have the money minus tax as disposable income.

Someone aged 30 on 50K a year could be living in a shoebox, and have that money, minus tax, minus housing, minus savings, minus pension to spend on two adults and two kids, and be in negative equity - which means negative real wealth, poorer than someone with nothing in net assets. No wealth, little disposable income.

Until we realise this we realise nothing.

Most of the agenda on this is written by the generation - still in power after 40 years - like V. Browne who want to pretend that income and wealth are exact correlations.

Cui bono? The citizens of the millionaire suburbs.

My modest proposal is we tax wealth, not working incomes.

gurramok

asdasd wrote: »

Thats fair enough. However what is not mentioned with regards to middle income groups ( by which I mean 40 - 70/80K) is this:

a) There is a hige discrepancy in disposable income related to the cost of housing.
b) There is a huge discrepancy in net worth related to cost of housing when bought, and it's value now.

in fact we can tell very little of the wealth of an individual from his income at the middle income brackets - age is a far better correlation to wealth than income ( which is why the furore over the removal of the medical cards from the old and rich was such nonsense).

Nor can we tell anything about a persons disposable from his headline figure because the cost of housing consumes so much money. And then there is the cost of children.

In short someone ( or some two) aged 65 on 50K a year - a great pension - could be living in Kiliney, and have the money minus tax as disposable income.

Someone aged 30 on 50K a year could be living in a shoebox, and have that money, minus tax, minus housing, minus savings, minus pension to spend on two adults and two kids, and be in negative equity - which means negative real wealth, poorer than someone with nothing in net assets. No wealth, little disposable income.

Until we realise this we realise nothing.

Most of the agenda on this is written by the generation - still in power after 40 years - like V. Browne who want to pretend that income and wealth are exact correlations.

Cui bono? The citizens of the millionaire suburbs.

My modest proposal is we tax wealth, not working incomes.

I've heard it all now. Its the cost of housing!

Ever hear of renting?

Nobody put a gun to their heads to take out a jumbo mortgage.

They signed the dotted line for that expensive house. They were adults then and still are now to take responsibilty.

Thoie

asdasd wrote: »

Most of the agenda on this is written by the generation - still in power after 40 years - like V. Browne who want to pretend that income and wealth are exact correlations.

Cui bono? The citizens of the millionaire suburbs.

My modest proposal is we tax wealth, not working incomes.

The only issue with that is that just because the house granny bought a million years ago for 2 and sixpence is now worth 7 bajillion, doesn't mean that she has the cash to pay tax on 7 bajillion now (which is, I suspect, why we pay CGT when she's dead). So we'd have to start defining wealth to exclude primary residence. Then we land ourselves in the situation where two 50k earners buy a house for 200k and 400k respectively. The 400k householder pays far less tax than the 200k householder. The 200k householder looks at the situation, wonders what the hell she's doing living in this shoebox and paying more for it, says "feck that" and wanders off to double her mortgage on somewhere with more room for shoes. Then the property prices rise astronomically, and, well, we've been there, done that

We've been going on about our own tax system a lot. Does anyone actually know of a country that currently has good social welfare, but also a really equitable tax system?

asdasd

I've heard it all now. Its the cost of housing!

Ever hear of renting?

Nobody put a gun to their heads to take out a jumbo mortgage.

You are really really angry with people who bought property, huh?

The cost of housing is not necessarily the cost of buying. It could be rent. Clearly the older pensioner may have little, or no mortgage. Rent is almost certainly more expensive than the mortage on a equivalent house bought 3 decades ago, by an order of magnitude.

But I feel I need be simple:

The cost of housing could be rent

gurramok

asdasd wrote: »

You are really really angry with people who bought property, huh?

Nope. It took 201 replies to find out the real reason why someone on 75k+ is giving out about life been tough.

asdasd wrote: »

The cost of housing is not necessarily the cost of buying. It could be rent. Clearly the older pensioner may have little, or no mortgage. Rent is almost certainly more expensive than the mortage on a equivalent house bought 3 decades ago, by an order of magnitude.

But I feel I need be simple:

The cost of housing could be rent

Yes, renting a place was way more cheaper than buying in 2006 depending on the house price.

If they rented and had sense, they would not be moaning about been tight on 75k+, yet those on 75k+ who did not buy an expensive house who were prudent can manage comfortably and both sets can still have a comfy lifestyle than a person on 30k.

Blangis

gerry28 wrote: »

Lets assume the first €30,000 of your average family income is taken up paying essentials like mortgage, childcare, bills etc. Then if you earn €50,000 you would have €20,000 left but if you earned €100,000 they you would have €70,000. Obviously this is a crude example as I have not accounted fot tax.

But disposable income for the 100 K earner could easily be twice or 3 times that of the 50 K earner. This is why I think it is fair to take 4% of the higher income rather than 2%.

This response is a perfect example of the type of thinking that I disagree with. Basically, you are saying that 30,000 (or whatever arbitrary amount)is enough for anyone to spend on mortgage and household expenses, regardless of what they earn, or what type of standards they have.

So if I make 100,000 per year, I should either buy a house out in Tyrellstown or Mulhuddart, or live in a rented apartment. And that should be good enough for me.

If I feel that it is not, then the full force of squinting windows Irish begrudgery is unleashed upon me.

I'm glad someone has finally come out and said it.

asdasd

If they rented and had sense, they would not be moaning about been tight on 75k+, yet those on 75k+ who did not buy an expensive house who were prudent can manage comfortably and both sets can still have a comfy lifestyle than a person on 30k.

1) I know someone n 50K a year who bought in Tyrelstown rather than rent. What class are they in?
2) You are almost certainly single, or unmarried at least. When people get married they want a place where they cant actually be kicked out with a month's notice and can actually do stuff with the place: repaint, redo the kitchen etc. This is natural.

i stayed out of the market, but I am single and a months notice means I can go find a nicer place, not the uprooting of a family. It is understandable that people bought. I am sure that many people who bought were as appalled at the price as you are.

Thoie

Blangis wrote: »

This response is a perfect example of the type of thinking that I disagree with. Basically, you are saying that 30,000 (or whatever arbitrary amount)is enough for anyone to spend on mortgage and household expenses, regardless of what they earn, or what type of standards they have.

I don't think that's what was being precisely said, but again you've come in with the "standards" thing. To repeat what I've said earlier, earning x amount of money enables you to have a better standard of living, but does not mean your "standards" are higher. Many people out there would prefer expensive ham to cheap ham, but they just can't afford it, so they don't buy it. It's not that their standards are lower, but their standard of living has to be.

It appears that the meaning behind the phrase "Cut your coat to suit your cloth" has been lost to many people in Ireland.

asdasd

It appears that the meaning behind the phrase "Cut your coat to suit your cloth" has been lost to many people in Ireland.

To turn that around, it was not unreasonable for people with 75K salaries to assume they could get good housing in Ireland. After all, if not them, who?

You want to say that 75K is rich, but also the earner of that salary should "Cut [his] coat to suit [his] cloth"

So which is it? Are they rich, or should the know their place?

gurramok

Blangis wrote: »

This response is a perfect example of the type of thinking that I disagree with. Basically, you are saying that 30,000 (or whatever arbitrary amount)is enough for anyone to spend on mortgage and household expenses, regardless of what they earn, or what type of standards they have.

So if I make 100,000 per year, I should either buy a house out in Tyrellstown or Mulhuddart, or live in a rented apartment. And that should be good enough for me.

If I feel that it is not, then the full force of squinting windows Irish begrudgery is unleashed upon me.

I'm glad someone has finally come out and said it.

No-one forced you to buy with a huge mortgage in TT or Mulhuddart. There was another option to 'get value for money' as you put it, it was called renting.
The idea is to rent until the price of your target house is within your means.

asdasd wrote: »

1) I know someone n 50K a year who bought in Tyrelstown rather than rent. What class are they in?
2) You are almost certainly single, or unmarried at least. When people get married they want a place where they cant actually be kicked out with a month's notice and can actually do stuff with the place: repaint, redo the kitchen etc. This is natural.

i stayed out of the market, but I am single and a months notice means I can go find a nicer place, not the uprooting of a family. It is understandable that people bought. I am sure that many people who bought were as appalled at the price as you are.

How do you know i am single? (psychic? no, i'm not single)

1 - They should of researched the biggest financial decision of their lives before buying in TT. A price tag of 300,000 for a house in TT should have rang alarm bells, where was the cop on? How hard is that?

2 - Yes, thats the downside of renting but you can move to a different if not posh area at a great rental rate and have that lifestyle you could aspire to without being in debt for 35yrs stuck in an outer suburb.

Thoie

asdasd wrote: »

To turn that around, it was not unreasonable for people with 75K salaries to assume they could get good housing in Ireland. After all, if not them, who?

You want to say that 75K is rich, but also the earner of that salary should "Cut [his] coat to suit [his] cloth"

So which is it? Are they rich, or should the know their place?

No, I was saying that someone with an income of x, who, after paying the mortgage and bills and whatever other things they have to pay, finds themselves with y amount of money left over, may have to reconsider some of their expenditures - taking fewer (or even no) holidays, buying the cheaper ham, swapping the 2 litre engine for a 1.2 litre, whatever it takes.