Ireland's debt deal: What will the Left do now?

Heads the ball

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Answer this please: what would cost the least human misery, raise €16 from the middle and upper class or raise it from those who are in a weaker position?

We know the CPI is a basket of typical goods remeasured periodically, but the fact is not every family's budget moves in perfect harmony with the CPI - maybe they have a particular reliance on a particular good or maybe they dont spend within the exact proportions assumed by the CPI. Now I think your point is fine from a high-level theoretical point of view but from a realistic point of view you have to accept that there can be much more deviation between your thesis of "they are better off because the CPI went down" and reality as a result of the fact that peoples spending patterns may not correlate to the CPI and that those in this bracket of society typically have less means of adjusting their spending to cope with reductions as a relatively higher percentage of their incomes goes on necessities.

Monty Burnz

Heads the ball wrote: »

Whats your definition of "lots of money"?

More money than I spent living in Dublin at the height of the bubble, including my rent.

antoobrien

Heads the ball wrote: »

Thats a bit oversimplified: you are assuming an actual bankruptcy and wind up of the bank where there is a queue of creditors lining up to get their payments. This is not the case here.

And the consequences of not paying back senior bondholders means legal action to have the banks declared bankrupt, which the bondholders are likely to win, meaning that the simple scenario is also correct,

Heads the ball wrote: »

Answer this please: what would cost the least human misery, raise €16 from the middle and upper class or raise it from those who are in a weaker position?

This is already happening. My gross salary works out at about €38k depending on bonuses etc. In 2008 my paye health levy & prsi in was about 6,350. In 2011 it was 8264.24 - off the same gross salary. The governmemt are taking twice that €16 per week back off average workers and far more off higher wages.

Heads the ball wrote: »

Do you endorse the terms of the bank bailout?

Yes, the macro position is more important here than individual concerns. Read this post you might get an idea of the real economics going on in Europe for the past 4/5 years.

Heads the ball

Monty Burnz wrote: »

More money than I spent living in Dublin at the height of the bubble, including my rent.

What is the figure please?

Monty Burnz

Heads the ball wrote: »

What is the figure please?

I lived on about €900 per month. Banked the rest. I got no winter fuel allowance or medical card either. I imagine most pensioners would be paying rather less in rent than I did.

Of course, I lived without dignity.

Heads the ball

antoobrien wrote: »

And the consequences of not paying back senior bondholders means legal action to have the banks declared bankrupt, which the bondholders are likely to win, meaning that the simple scenario is also correct,

Unlikely to have happened in reality

antoobrien wrote: »

Yes, the macro position is more important here than individual concerns (my paye health levy & prsi in 2008 was about 6,350, last year it was 8264.24 - off the same gross salary). Read this post you might get an idea of the real economics going on in Europe for the past 4/5 years.

I wont go into this because its off topic but thats an appauling statement and you are certainly in the scarce deluded minority. Almost every party (im actually not sure what FF's position on it now is) disagrees.

golden lane

tax incentives for the rich, and the workers......

along with decreases in public spending.......

is the best way out of a recession.......

Monty Burnz

Heads the ball wrote: »

Unlikely to have happened in reality

<insert totally unsubstantiated claim not unlike religious faith here>

Heads the ball

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I lived on about €900 per month. Banked the rest. I got no winter fuel allowance or medical card either. I imagine most pensioners would be paying rather less in rent than I did.

Of course, I lived without dignity.

So anyone who gets more than €900 a month has "lots of money"? You realise thats €10,800? Think I'll leave that one there

Heads the ball

Monty Burnz wrote: »

<insert totally unsubstantiated claim not unlike religious faith here>

It was unlikely that a bank would have actually been brought to court and forced to wind up

Monty Burnz

Heads the ball wrote: »

So anyone who gets more than €900 a month has "lots of money"? You realise thats €10,800? Think I'll leave that one there

You think people can't feed and clothe themselves on that? Because I did just fine - and, in a point you seem to have ignored, half of my money was going on rent. How much rent/mortgage do pensioners usually pay?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

djpbarry

Heads the ball wrote: »

So I ask you why should they suffer a further cut?

Pensions haven’t been touched. Personally, I’d be happy if it was just means tested.

Heads the ball wrote: »

Answer this please: what would cost the least human misery, raise €16 from the middle and upper class or raise it from those who are in a weaker position?

You see, what you’ve done there is fallen into the old trap of painting everyone in the ‘middle classes’ as having bags of money to burn, while everyone in the ‘working classes’ is worse off. Slightly ironic considering what you say next...

Heads the ball wrote: »

We know the CPI is a basket of typical goods remeasured periodically, but the fact is not every family's budget moves in perfect harmony with the CPI.

Well that’s just being silly – we shouldn’t touch welfare rates because there’s no such thing as an “average family”?

daltonmd

Heads the ball wrote: »

Answer this please: what would cost the least human misery, raise €16 from the middle and upper class or raise it from those who are in a weaker position?

We know the CPI is a basket of typical goods remeasured periodically, but the fact is not every family's budget moves in perfect harmony with the CPI - maybe they have a particular reliance on a particular good or maybe they dont spend within the exact proportions assumed by the CPI. Now I think your point is fine from a high-level theoretical point of view but from a realistic point of view you have to accept that there can be much more deviation between your thesis of "they are better off because the CPI went down" and reality as a result of the fact that peoples spending patterns may not correlate to the CPI and that those in this bracket of society typically have less means of adjusting their spending to cope with reductions as a relatively higher percentage of their incomes goes on necessities.

Where are you getting the 16 euro reduction? Is this for single people? Families? Because you don't make it clear.

Heads the ball

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

You are not better off if you spending does not correlate to the CPI or if your circumstances change (you now have a child in school, you now have an ill mother).

Like I said, you have a good theoretical point but you should in the interest of fairness accept that it may not be like that (everyone better off because the CPI is down marginally more than your income) in reality. Its D4 economics!

Heads the ball

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

What would cause the least human misery if you had to raise this money in the morning?

take €16 from the middle class? or
take €16 from the poorer classes?

Blowfish

Heads the ball wrote: »

You are not better off if you spending does not correlate to the CPI or if your circumstances change (you now have a child in school, you now have an ill mother).

If, in your hypothetical situation circumstances changed, thus putting you in a worse financial situation, then it's the circumstances changing that caused it. It would have had nothing to do with the reduction in SW.

Heads the ball

Monty Burnz wrote: »

You think people can't feed and clothe themselves on that? Because I did just fine - and, in a point you seem to have ignored, half of my money was going on rent. How much rent/mortgage do pensioners usually pay?

Is it still your contention that people who get more than €10,800 a year get "lots of money" - yes or no please?

daltonmd

Heads the ball wrote: »

What would cause the least human misery if you had to raise this money in the morning?

take €16 from the middle class? or
take €16 from the poorer classes?

Where did the 16 euro come from?

Off basic rate of welfare? Then you are talking about single people, yes?

There wasn't 16 euro taken off families though.

Child dependant rate in 2006 - 22 euro per week, per child.
Today - 29.80 per week per child.

Heads the ball

Blowfish wrote: »

If, in your hypothetical situation circumstances changed, thus putting you in a worse financial situation, then it's the circumstances changing that caused it. It would have had nothing to do with the reduction in SW.

Sure I agree. But lets not pretend everyone is blanket-wide better off just because the CPI went down.

Monty Burnz

Heads the ball wrote: »

Is it still your contention that people who get more than €10,800 a year get "lots of money" - yes or no please?

Yes. I thought I made that clear?

Are you claiming that it's not possible to feed and clothe an adult for €10,800 per year - yes or no please?

Heads the ball

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Yes. I thought I made that clear?

Are you claiming that it's not possible to feed and clothe an adult for €10,800 per year - yes or no please?

OK then I say you are grossly incorrect by any reasonable and objective threshold

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Monty Burnz

Heads the ball wrote: »

OK then I say you are grossly incorrect by any reasonable and objective threshold

I note your ploy is to demand direct answers from others, but refuse to give them yourself.

Well played sir.

daltonmd

Heads the ball wrote: »

OK then I say you are grossly incorrect by any reasonable and objective threshold

So we need to increase SW?

KyussBishop

Taking todays CPI of €101 compared the Jobseekers (€188), the remainder is €87; what expenses does CPI not cover, that may eat into that remainder?

I know this is a simplistic way of looking at it, since consumer expenses don't have to even approach €101 if you're frugal (CPI does not adjust for lifestyle), but it's a workable way for looking at the probable extent of any cuts.


My personal view is that cuts on SW to some degree are probably inevitable; to put a lower limit on cuts, for the sake of the debate though, would people in general agree that cutting below €101 is a bad idea?

What is the method government uses for determining SW rates in any case? (if any)

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Heads the ball

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

The misery is in strecting these people's difficult budgets even further making life more and more difficult for them.

Should people in Donegal be paid a similar rate of welfare/benefits to people in Derry because they live close to them?

Heads the ball

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Thats not inconsistent with the position I am advancing. Im not advocating a SW correlation to the CPI.

Heads the ball

daltonmd wrote: »

So we need to increase SW?

Alls I said was its incorrect to say people who get €10,800pa have "lots of money"

Never said anything about increasing SW