Irish People's attitudes towards high earners.

hmmm

lmtduffy wrote: »

All these things play a greater part in determining where you end up in life than hard work ever will.

I don't agree. If I look around at my friends 25 years after leaving school, in general the hard workers have done well and the layabouts not so well. Even the guys who didn't have academic aptitude but were good workers have generally done ok for themselves. There's an element of chance of course but to dismiss high earners as "lucky" is ridiculous.

Reillyman

lmtduffy wrote: »

So get real, people aren't jealous of what they should have done, they are angry, and rightfully so, that people earn more than they could ever need when they can barley afford their kids school books.

So what your saying is that the person who chose to be a national school teacher has every right to be "angry" at the person who chose to do a masters in finance and is now earning lets say €500,000 managing his own hedge fund?

P. Breathnach

MysticalRain wrote: »

... Given the state of our health service, you cannot say that consultants are worth the money.

The problem is that the health service is so complex and difficult to understand that most of us cannot make an informed judgement about the value of a consultant's work. It would take a lot, however, to convince me that they are worth the money.

namloc1980

lmtduffy wrote: »

So get real, people aren't jealous of what they should have done, they are angry, and rightfully so, that people earn more than they could ever need when they can barley afford their kids school books.

I could not disagree more. If someone earns a big salary €200k+ it's because they earned it and worked for it. It's how our economy works. You work hard, spend time and money on education and put in long hours and you get rewarded: or you layabout and wait for the nearest handout and complain about people who have done well for themsleves.

LookingFor

lmtduffy wrote: »

These people the successful ones are only so successful due to their hard work, and the long hours they work. There are many other people who work just as long and just as hard but they do not get pay'd the same.

Work smarter not harder.

Find where you can bring most value and exploit that.

In the case of entrepeneurs in particular, for example, they had to make a choice at some point if they were going to go the 'safe' route and take a regular job, or if they were going to take some massive risks and go out on their own. The rewards can be great but the risks huge too.

They're among the hardest working people you'll find. But no, they're not exclusively the hard working. There are others that work as hard as them and who may not in the end make as much as them. But they are likely working in much lower risk, lower value jobs. And that is ultimately their choice.

There are few enough people in this country now who can genuinely call themselves a victim of circumstances vs their own choices, IMO.

lmtduffy wrote: »

You need to learn to look closer at society, to large extent successful people are successful by chance, by chance of where they grow up, the school they attend, their parents parenting ability, their parents income, the situation of their extended family.

This is an assumption.

But even assuming this is true, success need not be reserved for those people. There are many examples of people who built themselves up from little or nothing.

lmtduffy wrote: »

All these things play a greater part in determining where you end up in life than hard work ever will.

What makes the greatest difference is your vision for yourself and your determination or lack thereof to realise that vision.

Work is just a tool you use along the way. You can spend a lot of time and energy working in a low-value job. If you're not happy with that you need to consider what you really want and the steps needed to get that.

If you really, REALLY want it you can make that happen. But if you have made choices along the way that limit your options or whatever, you have to take responsibility for that too.

With your attitude you are completely disempowering yourself. That has two side effects - 1) it removes personal responsibility in your eyes for your circumstances, which is probably a psychological comfort for you, but 2) it makes you powerless to change anything for yourself. While it's not true of ALL people who are in poor circumstances, there are a lot of people in this country that really need to start taking greater personal responsibility. There are a lot of people out there just 'coasting'...drifting even, day to day, who complain but who don't really take a grip of their own lives.

southsiderosie

Godge wrote: »

You are correct in comparing the national attitude.

but the problem is that Ireland is not America. In America you work hard, work long hours etc. and you get the rewards. In Ireland you look for the quick buck, the cute hoorism, the property play. it is not about how hard you work, it is about who you know and how you can play the system. that inevitably leads to the cynical attitude displayed by the majority.

Until we can get rid of the caricature of the FF gombeen small businessman in a rural town, those attitudes will continue. Equality of opportunity is key but we don't have it.

I think this is an overly rosy view of the American economy - at least in the last 15 years. There has been a "jobless recovery" after the last two recessions, and the people who do have jobs work even longer hours for the same pay, out of fear. The only people who seem to benefit from the hard work of many are those in the financial industry (who see job cuts and squeezing employees as a way to increase productivity and share earnings)...and in the meantime, many people do not have health care and their private pensions are down the toilet.

There are plenty of cute hoors in DC (and New York, and Chicago - especially Chicago :mad:). And instead of gombeen small businessmen we have slick well-connected financiers, defense contractors, and drug/insurance companies who block any attempts to restore fiscal discipline or even a modicum of financial regulation that might in the long term benefit the American people. Americans are notoriously hopeful, but we are very pessimistic right now about the direction the country is going in.

imeddyhobbs

If you earn handsomely then you should pay handsomely!

Ireland has a very unequal society,This is well documented.
I have no problem with financially rich people but I do have a problem with a system that protects them from paying their dues.

dan719

Flex wrote: »

I agree people have a bad attitude towards the wealthy in this country, as far as I can see anyway. Someone else (cant remember the name) posted this in another thread about bashing the rich and I thought it was pretty good, albeit anecdotal and simplified...

Someone posts this every single time this debate comes up. And guess what, it's still wrong.

In Ireland direct taxation is very low, but as a consequence indirect taxation is very high. If you take into account all taxes, both direct and indirect, the percentage of income taxed decreases with increasing income. It is very high for low earners, as they are more likely to smoke and drink, is reasonably proportional for PAYE workers, and is non-existent for the very wealthy. (Well before the Bono tax announced today).

LookingFor

imeddyhobbs wrote: »

If you earn handsomely then you should pay handsomely!

Ireland has a very unequal society,This is well documented.
I have no problem with financially rich people but I do have a problem with a system that protects them from paying their dues.

You may find yourself surprised by the actual distribution of the tax burden in this country. The top 4% of earners are expected to pay 48% of the total income tax haul next year. That's well up over the same proportion 10 years ago too.

Reillyman

dan719 wrote: »

It is very high for low earners, as they are more likely to smoke and drink

How on earth can you make a statement like that?

K-9

Reillyman wrote: »

How on earth can you make a statement like that?

Could never understand that one myself.

Don't give them any increases as they'll smoke and drink it!

Seanohea

I would love to see more of these so called high earners represented on current affairs programmes on both tv and radio, and see what they have to say about their taxation.
Personally i'm sick of hearing people complain "damn those government ministers are paid 200,000 and poor me i have my social welfare cut, when i have a big mortgage of 400,000 to take care of", that they (a lot of people i've heard in the media) got when they were working on construction sites in the boom. If some people couldn't see it was unwise to get the obscene mortgages they were getting, its primarily their fault in my opinion.
A lot of people dont seem to take responsibility for their own actions, and seem only to ready to blame the government and bankers, and they get far too big of a platform in the national media.

starbelgrade

lmtduffy wrote: »

You need to learn to look closer at society, to large extent successful people are successful by chance, by chance of where they grow up, the school they attend, their parents parenting ability, their parents income, the situation of their extended family.

All these things play a greater part in determining where you end up in life than hard work ever will.

This is sometimes, true, but in my experience, very rarely so.. I am a "high earner" - I run my own design business & worked my ass off to get it going, make it successful & keep it successful. I came from a working class background & grew up in a house with no bathroom - there was 1 toilet, out in the back yard. My dad earned f*ck all as did his brothers & sisters. I started my first job when I was in secondary school to help pay my way through college & worked weekends, evenings & summer hoildays to pay my rent, bills, food, clothing & college materials.

lmtduffy wrote: »

So get real, people aren't jealous of what they should have done, they are angry, and rightfully so, that people earn more than they could ever need when they can barley afford their kids school books.

They may well be angry, but they are angry at the wrong people - they should be angry at the people who mismanaged the country's finances when it had finances to manage & in part, they should be angry at themselves for allowing this to happen & for voting a useless government into 15 years of power. Claiming ignorance on that one is not an acceptable excuse.

lmtduffy wrote: »

A euro is worth less for every additional euro you have, its called diminishing marginal returns it is economic and socially just to redistribute wealth, especially when such a gulf between the rich and poor already exists and when we are already struggling to deal with the problems of that.

Again, you are missing a big point here. I'll speak from my own experience here, as it is the one I know most about - my company employs 15 people & use the services of many local businesses & services in our operations. We actually CREATE money, we CREATE jobs & we CREATE services.

We also pay a lot of taxes, PRSI contributions, service charges, etc etc. If I chose not to do what I do & take up a job teaching for example, the jobs & revenue I currently create would be created somewhere else... what good would that do for the economy? What good would that do for the guys I employ? Would THAT help them pay for their kids school books?

invincibleirish

starbelgrade wrote: »

Not all bankers, politicians & lawyers are involved in "nefarious activities", as you put it, just as not all "nefarious activities" are carried out by them either.

I didn't say that.

starbelgrade wrote: »

And on top of that, not all of them are high salary earners, just as not all high salary earners belong to those 3 groups.

I never said that either, just used them as examples.

imeddyhobbs

LookingFor wrote: »

You may find yourself surprised by the actual distribution of the tax burden in this country. The top 4% of earners are expected to pay 48% of the total income tax haul next year. That's well up over the same proportion 10 years ago too.

So how are we such an unequal society,how does that come about?And how are these figures compiled that reckon that 4% of of earners are "expected"to pay 48% of the total tax income

starbelgrade

invincibleirish wrote: »

I didn't say that.



I never said that either

No, I said those things, which is why they are in quotes with my sign-in name beside them.

LookingFor

imeddyhobbs wrote: »

So how are we such an unequal society,how does that come about?And how are these figures compiled that reckon that 4% of of earners are "expected"to pay 48% of the total tax income

These were stats from a sunday business post article a short while back. I would guess they're based on 'yesterday's weather' - i.e. the tax stats for the previous year.

How much higher earners pay brings no guarantees about societal equality. High earners DO pay more tax, in absolute terms and as a percentage of their income. They are 'paying their share', that's built into the tax system, the more you earn the more you pay. But the aim of that is not to have everyone left with equal levels of net income. Just because they are left with more than most does not mean they're not paying their fair share - they earned much more than most in the first place and had much more than most taken off them because of that.

The next point people make is that because they're left with more, it's not a similar burden, even though they pay more. But then...what do people want? For everyone to be brought to their knees? Where's the incentive to aim for success then?

What do you want? A society where everyone is equally average (or miserable), or a society that allows people to enjoy their success and value creation?

skip79

i heard the minister use these stats today in an interview

invincibleirish

LookingFor wrote: »

The next point people make is that because they're left with more, it's not a similar burden, even though they pay more. But then...what do people want? For everyone to be brought to their knees? Where's the incentive to aim for success then?

What do you want? A society where everyone is equally average (or miserable), or a society that allows people to enjoy their success and value creation?

Hi Micheal McDowell! still fighting the good fight i see.

lmtduffy

hmmm wrote: »

I don't agree. If I look around at my friends 25 years after leaving school, in general the hard workers have done well and the layabouts not so well. Even the guys who didn't have academic aptitude but were good workers have generally done ok for themselves. There's an element of chance of course but to dismiss high earners as "lucky" is ridiculous.

People from more well off families, that go to better schools and have a strong social network, do better in life than those with less, by virtue of being born in that family.

I dont begrudge a family providing whats best for their kids, what we need to look at is those kids whos families for what ever reason cannot provide for them, and have to suffer because of that.

There will always be exceptions who work tooth and nail to make it, and I applaud them, but they shouldnt have so many barriers that the more well off dont have.

lmtduffy

Reillyman wrote: »

So what your saying is that the person who chose to be a national school teacher has every right to be "angry" at the person who chose to do a masters in finance and is now earning lets say €500,000 managing his own hedge fund?

No angry at the government.

lmtduffy

namloc1980 wrote: »

I could not disagree more. If someone earns a big salary €200k+ it's because they earned it and worked for it. It's how our economy works. You work hard, spend time and money on education and put in long hours and you get rewarded: or you layabout and wait for the nearest handout and complain about people who have done well for themsleves.

So you disagree with a great body of the worlds welfare, sociology and economic studies?

How you put it, is how its should be, but its not, I believe the playing field should be made level so that hard work is pay'd equally and success available to all equally through income-redistribution.

LookingFor

invincibleirish wrote: »

Hi Micheal McDowell! still fighting the good fight i see.

Well I'm Peter. But hi to you too

But really, care to answer the question? How far do you want to tax 'rich people'? To what point?

And where's the line wrt disincentivising success?

These are questions that need answering if you want to say 'high earners' are not paying enough. When a tiny minority are already producing the majority of our tax take.

imeddyhobbs

LookingFor wrote: »

These were stats from a sunday business post article a short while back. I would guess they're based on 'yesterday's weather' - i.e. the tax stats for the previous year.

How much higher earners pay brings no guarantees about societal equality. High earners DO pay more tax, in absolute terms and as a percentage of their income. They are 'paying their share', that's built into the tax system, the more you earn the more you pay. But the aim of that is not to have everyone left with equal levels of net income. Just because they are left with more than most does not mean they're not paying their fair share - they earned much more than most in the first place and had much more than most taken off them because of that.

The next point people make is that because they're left with more, it's not a similar burden, even though they pay more. But then...what do people want? For everyone to be brought to their knees? Where's the incentive to aim for success then?

What do you want? A society where everyone is equally average (or miserable), or a society that allows people to enjoy their success and value creation?

(The fact that they are worth so much brings about the inequality in the first place.)
If it is as simple as this why do so many go off-shore and become non-resident?

lmtduffy

LookingFor wrote: »

Work smarter not harder.

Find where you can bring most value and exploit that.

In the case of entrepeneurs in particular, for example, they had to make a choice at some point if they were going to go the 'safe' route and take a regular job, or if they were going to take some massive risks and go out on their own. The rewards can be great but the risks huge too.

I admire the risk entrepreneurs take too, but I think its unfair that a persons backgorund results in that risk being much higher for some entrepreneurs than others.

They're among the hardest working people you'll find. But no, they're not exclusively the hard working. There are others that work as hard as them and who may not in the end make as much as them. But they are likely working in much lower risk, lower value jobs. And that is ultimately their choice.

Theyre both necessary.

There are few enough people in this country now who can genuinely call themselves a victim of circumstances vs their own choices, IMO.

Government tells people to commit suicide if they question speculation, people trust government, etc.

This is an assumption.

But even assuming this is true, success need not be reserved for those people. There are many examples of people who built themselves up from little or nothing.

This is a well documented trend.

I agree many have built themselves up form nothing, and I would like to give them support so they can compete with those that started high up from birth.

What makes the greatest difference is your vision for yourself and your determination or lack thereof to realise that vision.

For some, unfortunately, this is just not true.
We cant all be astronauts and not everyone can work their way out of the circumstances they find themselves in, alone at least.

Work is just a tool you use along the way. You can spend a lot of time and energy working in a low-value job. If you're not happy with that you need to consider what you really want and the steps needed to get that.

Work is just one tool, but their is an imbalance in what tools are available and to whom.

If you really, REALLY want it you can make that happen. But if you have made choices along the way that limit your options or whatever, you have to take responsibility for that too.

Untrue for most, despite how much they really, REALLY want it.
A lot of choices arent possible for a lot of people whilst other people have the opportunity to make wrong choices and recover.

With your attitude you are completely disempowering yourself. That has two side effects - 1) it removes personal responsibility in your eyes for your circumstances, which is probably a psychological comfort for you, but 2) it makes you powerless to change anything for yourself. While it's not true of ALL people who are in poor circumstances, there are a lot of people in this country that really need to start taking greater personal responsibility. There are a lot of people out there just 'coasting'...drifting even, day to day, who complain but who don't really take a grip of their own lives.

Its not a matter of attitude its a matter of resources, some have more than others without working, some have more than they need, and it is no argument against income redistribution.

lmtduffy

starbelgrade wrote: »

This is sometimes, true, but in my experience, very rarely so.. I am a "high earner" - I run my own design business & worked my ass off to get it going, make it successful & keep it successful. I came from a working class background & grew up in a house with no bathroom - there was 1 toilet, out in the back yard. My dad earned f*ck all as did his brothers & sisters. I started my first job when I was in secondary school to help pay my way through college & worked weekends, evenings & summer hoildays to pay my rent, bills, food, clothing & college materials.

And what you have done is exactly what more people should do, and what the country needs more people to do, and Id like to tax those who have more so that your struggle is lessen'd, so that more people like you make it.

They may well be angry, but they are angry at the wrong people - they should be angry at the people who mismanaged the country's finances when it had finances to manage & in part, they should be angry at themselves for allowing this to happen & for voting a useless government into 15 years of power. Claiming ignorance on that one is not an acceptable excuse.

I agree completely, I wasnt excusing the anger directed at the better off in society I was explaining it. The election results show that the majority of the country was ignorant enough to vote for FF, but I do not want FF in government any longer, so I am going to talk about alternatives.

The vast majority are now paying the vast share of the country's debt that was created by a minority that could afford it.

Again, you are missing a big point here. I'll speak from my own experience here, as it is the one I know most about - my company employs 15 people & use the services of many local businesses & services in our operations. We actually CREATE money, we CREATE jobs & we CREATE services.

Which I never disagreed with.

We also pay a lot of taxes, PRSI contributions, service charges, etc etc. If I chose not to do what I do & take up a job teaching for example, the jobs & revenue I currently create would be created somewhere else... what good would that do for the economy? What good would that do for the guys I employ? Would THAT help them pay for their kids school books?

I nver said we should tax stupidly, I said we should tax progressively.

starbelgrade

lmtduffy wrote: »

And what you have done is exactly what more people should do, and what the country needs more people to do, and Id like to tax those who have more so that your struggle is lessen'd, so that more people like you make it.



I agree completely, I wasnt excusing the anger directed at the better off in society I was explaining it. The election results show that the majority of the country was ignorant enough to vote for FF, but I do not want FF in government any longer, so I am going to talk about alternatives.

The vast majority are now paying the vast share of the country's debt that was created by a minority that could afford it.




Which I never disagreed with.



I nver said we should tax stupidly, I said we should tax progressively.

It seems were a lot more in agreement than I thought!

dan719

Reillyman wrote: »

How on earth can you make a statement like that?

Note that I am talking about tax paid as a percentage of income. People in lower socio economic classes are more likely to smoke and drink heavily. As a result they pay more in so called sin taxes. See J O'Hagan 'Excise Duty on Alcohol In Ireland' for more.

slade_x

are the masses of any other country really that much different, ive noticed a lot of complaining in my life regarding stereotypical irish attitudes towards everything.

im not very well travelled or even very politically minded and i may be wrong but i'd almost bet masses all over the world behave in much the same manner.

Of course i suppose this may be a predominantly irish board so hence all the "irish this", "the irish" that thread's. Oh those irish with their attitudes and opinions. Shure people with opinions, be'jaysus not in any other country.

Irish bashing in Ireland; were all a bit s**t really arent we, to everyone else we're just drunks and farmers with crappy internet.

starbelgrade

slade_x wrote: »

are the masses of any other country really that much different, ive noticed a lot of complaining in my life regarding stereotypical irish attitudes towards everything.

im not very well travelled or even very politically minded and i may be wrong but i'd almost bet masses all over the world behave in much the same manner.

Of course i suppose this may be a predominantly irish board so hence all the "irish this", "the irish" that thread's. Oh those irish with their attitudes and opinions. Shure people with opinions, be'jaysus not in any other country.

Irish bashing in Ireland; were all a bit s**t really arent we, to everyone else we're just drunks and farmers with crappy internet.

I've lived in Spain, France, Italy & Holland. The Spanish & Dutch are pretty similar to the Irish in that they give out about themselves, though the Dutch complain a lot more about the tourists & the Spanish rarely complain about the weather, unless it's overcast & you'd swear it was the end of the world!

The Italians are too busy trying to look good to complain & the French think they are perfect! The common factor is that every one of these nations complain about their governments, societies & politics.

The difference with the paddys is that when things are "good", everything is AMAZING & when things are "bad", everything is completely & utterly pointless & we just bicker & squabble. What we are lacking is a better sense of balance.