as it happens... Live Commentary Thread

JohnMc1

A hundred Gardai stations to close throughout the Country? Yeah that will work out well for us. Nothing can possibly go wrong. :rolleyes:

RandolphEsq

JohnMc1 wrote: »

A hundred Gardai stations to close throughout the Country? Yeah that will work out well for us. Nothing can possibly go wrong. :rolleyes:

Well some were only open 3 hours a day. Woopdeedoo

muffler

My highlight of the day was seeing Pearse Doherty quote Kenny and Gilmore when they previously said that any form of household charge would be a disgrace and an outrage etc etc.

And Kenny the twat just sat with a smirk on his face despite being exposed in public as being a hypocrite

Mr.Micro

JohnMc1 wrote: »

A hundred Gardai stations to close throughout the Country? Yeah that will work out well for us. Nothing can possibly go wrong. :rolleyes:

Will anybody notice? Most of the stations are never open when they are supposed to be anyway. Gardai need restructuring in the future and tell them what their job is.

OMD

coonecb1 wrote: »

Government pays back billions upon billions in bank debt.

Government goes broke in the process.

Government can't borrow any more, gets bailout.

Government adheres to terms of bailout.

Government cuts services and increase taxes.

To answer your question, yes, I do still believe cuts & tax rises are to repay bank debt.

You have to stop at your first point though. Government is not paying back bank debt.

snails_pace

JohnMc1 wrote: »

A hundred Gardai stations to close throughout the Country? Yeah that will work out well for us. Nothing can possibly go wrong. :rolleyes:

doubt it will make any difference , if you have a serious problem , its not some dogbox station from a one horse town which the squad arrive from , closing down small stations will merely mean the guards travel seven miles to reach you as opposed to three or four

K-9

everdead.ie wrote: »

Where does the USC go it's a bloody big chunck of wages.

I think FG have done a decent job in fairness we are slowly coming around, I think they probably needed something more symbolic than just removing the unvouched expenses system.

I think given all the news about ballyroe they could of announced a change to the future licencing agreements giving the state a 20% stake in any find larger than 100 mboe and gotten a lot of brownie points for it.

USC is classed as a tax, goes into some black hole somewhere. Should have went into the PRSI system, which some bright spark had the notion to reduce, in a time of unprecedented Unemployment and pension claimants. Billions more claimed from the system than expected and we cut payments in.

muffler wrote: »

My highlight of the day was seeing Pearse Doherty quote Kenny and Gilmore when they previously said that any form of household charge would be a disgrace and an outrage etc etc.

And Kenny the twat just sat with a smirk on his face despite being exposed in public as being a hypocrite

Pearse will get his day smirking at the opposition spokesperson, of that there is no doubt.

JohnMc1

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Will anybody notice? Most of the stations are never open when they are supposed to be anyway. Gardai need restructuring in the future and tell them what their job is.

True. I only see a Gardai around here when there's a match day at Nowlan Park.

OMD

K-9 wrote: »

Pearse will get his day smirking at the opposition spokesperson, of that there is no doubt.

He can do it now. FF are the opposition.

seamus

kennyb3 wrote: »

You've essentially ignored the bombshell - you;ve assumed they've had the kids.

But all young families wanting to have kids are going to be hammered by maternity being taxed and hit with the USC.

It shouldn't make that much of a difference. If the woman doesn't have her MB topped up, then she'll probably fall below the taxable threshold and pay no tax on it. If she does have it topped up, then her take home remains the same (at present her take home increases).

You don't miss what you never had, and MB is effectively that - a short-term incidental payment, not an ongoing payment which has been cut.

Godge

dreenman wrote: »

Smug reaction - They may not have to live in rags but that €1000 means that is less 1000 spent by families on Irish products & services so economy shrinks threatening jobs maybe yours maybe theirs - maybe someone else.

And if their house is worth 199,000 it means it was worth 400,000 + a few years ago - if they bought at the top of the market the extra 1000 may mean arrears, loss of house and still massive debt.

Doesnt make sense to take money out of the economy.

Our budget deficit is 9% approximately. To reduce it to 3% requires an average sacrifice of 6%.

1k off a couple earning 50k is 2%. That is an average income, but a less than average contribution to the correction.

coonecb1

OMD wrote: »

You have to stop at your first point though. Government is not paying back bank debt.

You are splitting hairs in a ridiculous way, the Government puts billions to keep the banks open, and the banks pay billions to pay back back debt.

It's not a huge leap to say the Government is paying back bank debt. They are paying it through the conduit of the banks.

MadsL

Interesting to see that Tom Parlon and CIF can still get concessions from the Govt, a tax holiday for FTBs and Unoccupied homes make no sense. More pandering to the sector.

A site valuation tax would have made a lot more sense.

OMD

coonecb1 wrote: »

You are splitting hairs in a ridiculous way, the Government puts billions to keep the banks open, and the banks pay billions to pay back back debt.

It's not a huge leap to say the Government is paying back bank debt. They are paying it through the conduit of the banks.

The government is not paying back bank debt though. We have tax rises to pay for services not to pay bank debt. We cut some services not to pay bank debt but because we cannot afford to pay them. The government is not paying off bank debt. That is not splitting hairs. That is a fact.
In the last 4 years, with all the budget cuts, how much of the cuts do you believe went to pay bank debt?

jank

Wasnt as bad as expected. Would have like to have seen more cuts to the base line of social welfare or at least some attempt to reform it.
Of course, croke park is up for renewal next year if I am right? That will be fun! Easily a few billion to be saved there.

coonecb1

OMD wrote: »

The government is not paying back bank debt though. We have tax rises to pay for services not to pay bank debt. We cut some services not to pay bank debt but because we cannot afford to pay them. The government is not paying off bank debt. That is not splitting hairs. That is a fact.
In the last 4 years, with all the budget cuts, how much of the cuts do you believe went to pay bank debt?

Mind boggling.

Tell me, why did Fianna Fail not make any attempt to cut services until after the bank crash in 2008?

The answer is, the pumping of billions into the banks led to the Government going broke.

If the billions hadn't gone into the banks, those billions would easily pay for all the services.

Ardent

Imf stated earlier this year that social welfare needed to be cut. Cannot believe government didn't tackle it. Political cowardice.

I've had it with them taxing the same people to death. I'll be running the gauntlet of not taxing my car now, its worth my while.

Geuze

OMD, the Govt is not paying off any debt at all.

Its debt is growing.

A huge amount of its debt is due to the banking crisis.

The interest payments on the public debt are rising fast, partly due to the debt incurred as a result of the banking crisis.

Geuze

No net public debt is being repaid.

The public debt is growing.

The banking crisis has cost us 64 bn. Our public debt is about 160-170 bb.

The interest bill is over 5 bb and growing fast. We are all paying more tax to pay the rising interest on an increasing public debt.

Our higher taxes and fewer services are directly linked to paying interest on a rising debt, due partly to the huge banking crisis.

Stheno

Geuze wrote: »

No net public debt is being repaid.

The public debt is growing.

The banking crisis has cost us 64 bn. Our public debt is about 160-170 bb.

The interest bill is over 5 bb and growing fast. We are all paying more tax to pay the rising interest on an increasing public debt.

Our higher taxes and fewer services are directly linked to paying interest on a rising debt, due partly to the huge banking crisis.

Our deficit is reducing.

We are being oversubscribed when we auction bonds in the international markets.

The banking crisis is subsiding

We are all contributing to get the country back on a level footing.

Glass half full/glass half empty scenario?

mollymosfet

The problem is that most of the right wingers defending this are fairly removed from reality, they talk a lot of hard man talk but are often fairly sheltered as to what's really out there. I know a lot of carers, mostly women since that's the role they're shoved into(and I'm beyond arguing that this budget takes it out unfairly on women, between the childcare and maternity leave ****) who are seriously struggling. I know one woman caring for an autistic son, it's a full time job and she gets no recognition from the state for what she does. Sooner or later, these kids will end up the government's problem as people can't afford to care for them anymore. There are people who will die as a result of these cuts, pensioners and poor freezing to death thanks to the hike in oil/gas prices the government made no attempt to block.

This whole thing is pretty sickening, there was no attempt to go after higher earners. I can't see how any rational human being could justify it as "fair". We're still clinging onto the wealth creator myth, which isn't working. We're constantly being told we're turning the corner, but we see very little of it despite the fact that it's been years since the crash so we should be seeing some recovery anyway. We've actually hampered it rather than helped it with these cuts.

Honestly, 1-2% raise in Corporation tax wouldn't have chased anyone out, in fact it would have put a bit more money back in some people's products and created a market for Corporations that actually sell and do business here, instead of just using it as a tax haven, which we don't really want.

Stheno

mollymosfet wrote: »

The problem is that most of the right wingers defending this are fairly removed from reality, they talk a lot of hard man talk but are often fairly sheltered as to what's really out there. I know a lot of carers, mostly women since that's the role they're shoved into(and I'm beyond arguing that this budget takes it out unfairly on women, between the childcare and maternity leave ****) who are seriously struggling. I know one woman caring for an autistic son, it's a full time job and she gets no recognition from the state for what she does. Sooner or later, these kids will end up the government's problem as people can't afford to care for them anymore.

This whole thing is pretty sickening, there was no attempt to go after higher earners. I can't see how any rational human being could justify it as "fair". We're still clinging onto the wealth creator myth.

Honestly, 1-2% raise in Corporation tax wouldn't have chased anyone out, in fact it would have put a bit more money back in some people's products and created a market for Corporations that actually sell and do business here, instead of just using it as a tax haven, which we don't really want.

Higher earners above 100k currently pay over 60% of total paye/usc/prsi and make up less than 20% of taxpayers, why should they pay more?

Our corporation tax attracts FDI

The reduction in the respite allowance for carers is harsh I agree.

JohnMc1

mollymosfet wrote: »

The problem is that most of the right wingers defending this are fairly removed from reality, they talk a lot of hard man talk but are often fairly sheltered as to what's really out there. I know a lot of carers, mostly women since that's the role they're shoved into(and I'm beyond arguing that this budget takes it out unfairly on women, between the childcare and maternity leave ****) who are seriously struggling. I know one woman caring for an autistic son, it's a full time job and she gets no recognition from the state for what she does. Sooner or later, these kids will end up the government's problem as people can't afford to care for them anymore. There are people who will die as a result of these cuts, pensioners and poor freezing to death thanks to the hike in oil/gas prices the government made no attempt to block.

This whole thing is pretty sickening, there was no attempt to go after higher earners. I can't see how any rational human being could justify it as "fair". We're still clinging onto the wealth creator myth, which isn't working. We're constantly being told we're turning the corner, but we see very little of it despite the fact that it's been years since the crash so we should be seeing some recovery anyway. We've actually hampered it rather than helped it with these cuts.

Honestly, 1-2% raise in Corporation tax wouldn't have chased anyone out, in fact it would have put a bit more money back in some people's products and created a market for Corporations that actually sell and do business here, instead of just using it as a tax haven, which we don't really want.

Who are these right wingers you are crying about? Europe is full of left wingers.

Idbatterim

I know in the recent survey 56% of people said they were at breaking point, but I reckon the number is actually vastly lower. Personally, I would have preferred had they made bigger cuts and increases in tax and simply absorbed the increases in tax and decreases in expenditure for the 2015 budget into the 2013 and 2014 budget. I think one of the single biggest break's on the economy is knowing there are 2 more of these budgets to come... We dont have no control over the international economy, but we do have to some degree over the domestic economy...

mollymosfet

Stheno wrote: »

Higher earners above 100k currently pay over 60% of total paye/usc/prsi and make up less than 20% of taxpayers, why should they pay more?

Our corporation tax attracts FDI

The reduction in the respite allowance for carers is harsh I agree.

What percentage of the wealth do they own? If they own more than 60% of the wealth(it's something like 80% IIRC), then that needs to increase. Are those numbers even accurate?

There are also studies showing that the top 10% actually have more disposable income since the start of the recession - how does that even work? They should pay more because they are not in danger of being pushed into poverty. They are more likely to sit on money - whereas lower earners pump nearly all their money straight into the economy, especially those on minimum wage/welfare.

Going after those that don't have any money is nonsensical. It's money directly out of the economy, there's no question of that. At least with higher earners there's a much higher chance that money wouldn't have been spent.

Our corporation tax would still be very low with an extra few % on it. There's such a thing as striking a balance here. If we're not making money out of it anyway, we need to look at it.

mollymosfet

JohnMc1 wrote: »

Who are these right wingers you are crying about? Europe is full of left wingers.

What on earth is your definition of "Left wingers"? The EU is mostly in the hands of Centre-right governments at the moment, and was around the time the recession hit.

This is, largely, a right wing budget. Not extreme right, as that would be all about cuts rather than taxes, but right nonetheless.

Idbatterim

Who are these right wingers you are crying about? Europe is full of left wingers.

Europe full of right wingers?! i was in vegas recently and even americans playing for large sums in the bellagio had a problem with poor getting etc getting a cent of their tax money, our most "right wing" party FG would be bleeding hearts compared to these. This is the thing, I dont think anyone in Ireland has an issue with redistributing wealth, the question is, when are they paying too much and when are you actually disincentivising hard work, commitment and dedication?

once again a pathetic budget that does nothing but kick the can even further down the road. No hard decisions made, no real cuts in expenditure, same old same old

there is a coalition with two fairly different ideologies, what can we expect? From what I have seen, FG if they had a majority might not go as far as some of us would like, but they would still go a hell of a lot further than any of the realistic alternatives. They would most likely tackle 2 sacred cows, the other credible alternatives wont even touch one...

Stheno

mollymosfet wrote: »

What percentage of the wealth do they own? If they own more than 60% of the wealth(it's something like 80% IIRC), then that needs to increase. Are those numbers even accurate?

There are also studies showing that the top 10% actually have more disposable income since the start of the recession - how does that even work? They should pay more because they are not in danger of being pushed into poverty. They are more likely to sit on money - whereas lower earners pump nearly all their money straight into the economy, especially those on minimum wage/welfare.

Going after those that don't have any money is nonsensical. It's money directly out of the economy, there's no question of that. At least with higher earners there's a much higher chance that money wouldn't have been spent.

Our corporation tax would still be very low with an extra few % on it. There's such a thing as striking a balance here. If we're not making money out of it anyway, we need to look at it.

Quote your studies showing the rich are richer?

And why should over 80% percent of workers pay less than 40% of taxes? the figure is even worse I believe. I think it's closer to 70% of taxes that high earners pay, must do a search

And how can people have no money if they are working and earning? The budget will hit them for €5 a week in PRSI they can defer the property tax.

I've found what I was looking for

54% of the population earn under 30k – In total they pay 3.1% of the tax.
16% of the population earn over 60k – They pay 74% of the tax.

Even worse than I thought.

See here

mollymosfet

Stheno wrote: »

Quote your studies showing the rich are richer?

And why should over 80% percent of workers pay less than 40% of taxes? the figure is even worse I believe. I think it's closer to 70% of taxes that high earners pay, must do a search

And how can people have no money if they are working and earning? The budget will hit them for €5 a week in PRSI they can defer the property tax.

I already explained why. They can afford it. You're not providing a reason why not, other than implied right wing idealogue nonsense.

http://www.thejournal.ie/top-earners-see-8-increase-in-disposable-income-cso-399195-Mar2012/

mollymosfet

Stheno wrote: »

I've found what I was looking for

Even worse than I thought.

See here

Again, what percentage of the wealth do they own? You do realise there are also stats for Inequality in Ireland, which are very high? So how can you justify what you're saying? Also whether it's "worse" or not depends on how those numbers break down.

Also, where does this chart even originate from? There's no references on the page...

JohnMc1

mollymosfet wrote: »

What on earth is your definition of "Left wingers"? The EU is mostly in the hands of Centre-right governments at the moment, and was around the time the recession hit.

This is, largely, a right wing budget. Not extreme right, as that would be all about cuts rather than taxes, but right nonetheless.

No way in hell is Europe Centre-right or anyway near it. He'll there was even a story in Britain of children being taken away from their Foster Parents because they were Conservatives. Typical Liberal "they're conservative so they must be racists" nonsense.

Stheno

mollymosfet wrote: »

I already explained why. They can afford it. You're not providing a reason why not, other than implied right wing idealogue nonsense.

http://www.thejournal.ie/top-earners-see-8-increase-in-disposable-income-cso-399195-Mar2012/

Did you see my edited post regarding the burden bourne by high earners?

Are you that unwilling to have a min. wage workern give up 5 a week, when someone on 70k pays more in overall taxes than the minimum wage person earns gross?

Sierra Oscar

RandolphEsq wrote: »

Well some were only open 3 hours a day. Woopdeedoo

The front desk being open three hours a day you mean - that does not necessarily mean that Gardai were not based from the station at other times during the day.

Gardai themselves will be still officially based within these areas undoubtedly, but nonetheless it can be important to have a local 'base' for Gardai to operate out of in an area. It can prevent issues arising over basic things, such as Gardai having to travel miles to reach the district station just to undertake paper work, which inevitably removes them from local communities and can reduce response times to incidents. The saving costs will also be lower than expected as greater resources will have to be spent on vehicles traipsing across entire divisions to get to and from local districts. There will be significant fuel costs alongside accelerated ageing of the Garda fleet.

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Will anybody notice? Most of the stations are never open when they are supposed to be anyway. Gardai need restructuring in the future and tell them what their job is.

People will notice when it becomes apparent that Gardai are no longer present in their local areas to the extent that they were before. This is the second round of station closures - there has already been uproar over the closure of last round of stations, which were far more justified in their closure compared to some of the stations in the next round. The further slashing of the Garda overtime budget will also greatly undermine operational capabilities.

mollymosfet

Stheno wrote: »

Did you see my edited post regarding the burden bourne by high earners?

Are you that unwilling to have a min. wage workern give up 5 a week, when someone on 70k pays more in overall taxes than the minimum wage person earns gross?

You are not listening at all. Who is vastly more likely to be able to bear that burden?

We also need a wealth tax and can't see why people would oppose it.

Stheno

mollymosfet wrote: »

You are not listening at all. Who is vastly more likely to be able to bear that burden?

It depends to be honest on different circumstances.

Someone on 70k who pays over 18k in tax versus someone on 18k who pays little or more?

Someone on 70k is likely to have a mortgage, a better car (so more road tax), etc and paying in tax what a min. wage worker earns.

Could a min. wage worker support a mortgage of €1000 a month?

I suspect not.

Could they pay property tax? Maybe.

Will they ever pay the same level of tax as a 70K worker? NO.

Our tax system is progressive up to a point, the more you earn, the more you pay, have you heard of the laffer curve?

mollymosfet

Stheno wrote: »

It depends to be honest on different circumstances.

Someone on 70k who pays over 18k in tax versus someone on 18k who pays little or more?

Someone on 70k is likely to have a mortgage, a better car (so more road tax), etc and paying in tax what a min. wage worker earns.

Could a min. wage worker support a mortgage of €1000 a month?

I suspect not.

Could they pay property tax? Maybe.

Will they ever pay the same level of tax as a 70K worker? NO.

Our tax system is progressive up to a point, the more you earn, the more you pay, have you heard of the laffer curve?

I have heard of the Laffer curve, and generally, it's something used in right wing arguments, so at least you've made that clear. It's not something that's particularly scientific either way. What IS a fact is that there was less inequality, for example, in the US and UK back when taxes on higher earners were much higher.

Also your argument is ridiculous and I'm tired of hearing it. A minimum wage worker wouldn't be taking on a mortgage of €1000 a month. There are lower earners with mortgages they can't pay off either. All the things you describe are blatant BENEFITS to being a higher earner. They are not things they even HAVE to have if they choose not to. Whereas lower earners have to get buy on what few amenities they can afford, the odd drink down the pub, or next to nothing to spend on hobbies.

Higher earners have far more they can cut back on, and again, are less likely to be spending that money in the first place.

The problem is you're so far removed from the reality of what many people face and probably don't really care either. At least these families have the option of downsizing if it becomes a problem, getting a cheaper car, etc. and frankly the government should be fecking the banks out of some of those ridiculous mortgages as well.

Stheno

mollymosfet wrote: »

I have heard of the Laffer curve, and generally, it's something used in right wing arguments, so at least you've made that clear. It's not something that's particularly scientific either way. What IS a fact is that there was less inequality, for example, in the US and UK back when taxes on higher earners were much higher.

Also your argument is ridiculous and I'm tired of hearing it. A minimum wage worker wouldn't be taking on a mortgage of €1000 a month. There are lower earners with mortgages they can't pay off either. All the things you describe are blatant BENEFITS to being a higher earner. They are not things they even HAVE to have if they choose not to. Whereas lower earners have to get buy on what few amenities they can afford, the odd drink down the pub, or next to nothing to spend on hobbies.

Higher earners have far more they can cut back on, and again, are less likely to be spending that money in the first place.

The problem is you're so far removed from the reality of what many people face and probably don't really care either. At least these families have the option of downsizing if it becomes a problem, getting a cheaper car, etc. and frankly the government should be fecking the banks out of some of those ridiculous mortgages as well.

In bold that's me, after a paycut of 30,000, I shop in Aldi and Lidl and bought most Christmas gifts in the clearance section of TKMaxx this year.

I'm not engaging in my families Kris Kindle as I can't afford it.

I drive a 00 car, so that's a 13 year old car.

I've never had a foreign holiday since 1999

I'm still in the higher tax band and paying more tax than a min. wage worker, working hard to pay off debts and save for the future.

If I get a bonus, it's 52% tax once it increases my earnings above 32 k

THoughts?

Blowfish

mollymosfet wrote: »

We also need a wealth tax and can't see why people would oppose it.

People oppose it because it leads to situations like this .

Given the huge amount the wealthiest contribute to the tax revenue, if you chase them out of the country, you'd end up with the "most vulnerable" being far far worse off as there'd be no choice other than to hit them with massive tax hikes to cover the difference.

mollymosfet

JohnMc1 wrote: »

No way in hell is Europe Centre-right or anyway near it. He'll there was even a story in Britain of children being taken away from their Foster Parents because they were Conservatives. Typical Liberal "they're conservative so they must be racists" nonsense.

Sure, that sounds like something that happened in exactly the way you describe it.

Don't see what it has to do with Economics, though.

mollymosfet

Blowfish wrote: »

People oppose it because it leads to situations like this .

Given the huge amount the wealthiest contribute to the tax revenue, if you chase them out of the country, you'd end up with the "most vulnerable" being far far worse off as there'd be no choice other than to hit them with massive tax hikes to cover the difference.

People keep saying this, yet, again, in many countries tax rates on the rich are at an all time low. If this sort of thing happens, it's obvious there are further loop-holes to be closed. And if this is the sort of behaviour the rich are displaying, then they're hardly very patriotic or decent people are they? Certainly not the sorts to be revered.

You're also falling back on the myth of the rich as wealth creators, which is essentially disproven by the above.

Also you're linking to the Telegraph. Why does a google only show this being posted on right wing news sources?

Pretty good refutation I found on Yahoo answers of all places:

Lol.

You idiot, strangely enough 50% of the people getting over 150,000 are from the "city", the reduction occurred during the city crash in 2009.

Also, they didn't leave, Brown was stupid enough to tell them 6 months in advance this was coming, so they paid themselves any early bonus, in shares and various other methods which reduced them to below £ 150,000.
So, they didn't disappear or leave, they just reduced their arable income or lost their jobs as the city contracted!.
The cons have reduced it to 45%, not a huge difference.
Are you claiming that for a millionaire they will leave for £ 39,500 p.a., that's the difference in tax!!!


The biggest scandal, is that they don't pay the same rate anyway, when £ 10'billion is hidden away,
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20…; Every year anyway.

Looking at 1, you do know that " invested" money is TAX free anyway, so it makes no effect on this at all.
2. They do that Snyway, no matter what the tax rate is.!?, we need to cut ack on avoidance schemes.
3. This is the game , they say that in EVERY country, fine let them go. I the financial sector they make no money at all, they just move it around and some bank loses and some pot sods small business is broken up to pay for it. Where will they go?? Let them go.

an example of avoiding tax, no matter what isAmazon , who did £7.1 billion worth of trade from 2009-11 yet only paid £2.3 million in tax, yes a rate of 0.03% rate!!

There's a lot of correlation/causation dishonesty going on here.

This was a higher income tax bracket, not a wealth tax anyway. Again SITUATIONS LIKE THIS are already what we're having with many on the breadline. We can't keep taking from them and hope it fixes things. Funny how the "tough decisions" are only called that when they're taken out on the poor.

mollymosfet

Also, Laffer Curve refuted:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/04/17/1083983/-The-Laffer-Curve-Refuted

Stheno

mollymosfet wrote: »

Also, Laffer Curve refuted:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/04/17/1083983/-The-Laffer-Curve-Refuted

Tell me I'm getting a bonus of 100 and I'm happy.
Have me realise 52 of that 100 goes on tax and I'm not interested in making the effort to earn it.

Laffer in reality?

Cookie_Monster

mollymosfet wrote: »

I have heard of the Laffer curve, and generally, it's something used in right wing arguments, so at least you've made that clear. It's not something that's particularly scientific either way. What IS a fact is that there was less inequality, for example, in the US and UK back when taxes on higher earners were much higher.

Also your argument is ridiculous and I'm tired of hearing it. A minimum wage worker wouldn't be taking on a mortgage of €1000 a month. There are lower earners with mortgages they can't pay off either. All the things you describe are blatant BENEFITS to being a higher earner. They are not things they even HAVE to have if they choose not to. Whereas lower earners have to get buy on what few amenities they can afford, the odd drink down the pub, or next to nothing to spend on hobbies.

Higher earners have far more they can cut back on, and again, are less likely to be spending that money in the first place.

but why should these high earner bother working so hard just to hand over more and more and more of their income? why not just start in a lower paying job and end up with a higher net income? Or move off shore to a country that has a sensible tax code and pay a fair rate?

What needs to happen in Ireland is the LOWER 40-50% odd of earners being brought into the tax net and paying their fair share, not taxing the higher earners even more

mollymosfet

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

but why should these high earner bother working so hard just to hand over more and more and more of their income? why not just start in a lower paying job and end up with a higher net income? Or move off shore to a country that has a sensible tax code and pay a fair rate?

What needs to happen in Ireland is the LOWER 40-50% odd of earners being brought into the tax net and paying their fair share, not taxing the higher earners even more

I don't understand this. I made the clear point that when taxes were higher on higher earners, there was less income inequality. Why can you not deal with points like this which shed a lot of doubt on your argument?

"Sensible tax code" "fair rate" - according to right wing standards. I do not agree.

Higher earners are not necessarily harder workers, and I'm unsure where you even get that idea. What is the incentive for lower earners to work harder with social mobility rates of around 10%?

The rich pay more because they own more of the wealth. This is the issue here. Taxes should be relative to the wealth you own, because showing it as a percentage of income does not fairly represent the steep curve between lower and higher earners.

You are talking about bringing people further into the tax net who are in many cases, already struggling to make ends meet, but I get the feeling you're so far gone you'll probably use some "Welfare queen" scenario as why this somehow doesn't matter. I know people who are struggling on the breadline bringing up disabled children, people who are being forced abroad as-is, even people who have to turn off their heating to afford to live...

This is beyond politics, and going into the realm of sheer empathy failure. You cannot have a definition for "Fair" that involves people struggling and dying while others are living it up. Just because, on paper, the rich pay a higher percentage of tax, does not mean it's unfair, if the system in which they operate affords them much greater wealth in the first place. I notice you ignored the damning study showing that the top 8% of the population actually have MORE disposable income. How is that "fair"?

"Fair" for you seems to have nothing to do with moral decency.

Would it be fair to say that many right wing ideologies, such as yours, are actually just sociopathy, dishonesty and narcissism phrased as a political/economic argument? Because I am really starting to believe this.

I'm sick of this. At the end of the day, we're talking about real people, not numbers on a screen, and I don't feel like playing games with those who are fundamentally just bad people.

mollymosfet

Stheno wrote: »

Tell me I'm getting a bonus of 100 and I'm happy.
Have me realise 52 of that 100 goes on tax and I'm not interested in making the effort to earn it.

Laffer in reality?

That's not simply what it's about. There are clear numbers there, refuting the Laffer curve you presented.

You are also making the mistake of assuming that all higher earners actually "earn" what they get. Which is all kinds of messed up.

How do you expect me to take you seriously when you are full of this ridiculous intellectual dishonesty? Or are you so far removed from reality you believe people who earn more are always the harder workers? Have you even heard of "Social mobility", and had a look at the stats?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/mar/10/oecd-uk-worst-social-mobility#

These are real numbers. Given we tend to trail off the UK in a lot of things, you can assume our numbers aren't a ton better, and if they are, it's largely down to our more generous welfare payments helping to keep people out of poverty.

Your example however does not involve real numbers. If the 48% you're left with still leaves you with €120,000 a year+ to play around with, then frankly, you should do your ****ing job, I'm sure there are plenty of others who would be happy to be in your position, so feel free to hand it over to someone more qualified as a human being.

Even if it won't close all our debt issues, there's clearly a lot of room to take more from higher earners as they can afford to pay more. To ignore this possibility totally because of some sociopathic right wing ideology is socially irresponsible.

Cookie_Monster

mollymosfet wrote: »

I notice you ignored the damning study showing that the top 8% of the population actually have MORE disposable income. How is that "fair"?

because they worked to achieve it

"Fair" for you seems to have nothing to do with moral decency.

indeed it does, you seem to think only the rich should pay tax and that most people shouldn't bother to pay their way and take everything the state has to offer with no return

Would it be fair to say that many right wing ideologies, such as yours, are actually just sociopathy, dishonesty and narcissism phrased as a political/economic argument? Because I am really starting to believe this.

and I'm starting to believe you're basically a communist who just wants to forceably remove any wealth or assets that people have worked for just because you don't have them.

I'm sick of this. At the end of the day, we're talking about real people, not numbers on a screen, and I don't feel like playing games with those who are fundamentally just bad people.

real people? Wealthy people are real people too who have rights just like the rest of us, obscenely high taxes like you're proposing is nothing short of theft to support the layabouts who contribute little or nothing but are the first to whine about being vulnerable.


Pretty much everyone in Ireland is rich when compared to the likes of Liberia, on that basis should we turn around and tax anybody earning over $365 ($1 a day) at your fanatical high rate?

Even if it won't close all our debt issues, there's clearly a lot of room to take more from higher earners as they can afford to pay more.

and whats to say people earning 30k can't afford to pay more than current, or 15k, or 5k?

mollymosfet

because they worked to achieve it

[citation needed]

Plenty of people earning next to nothing earn plenty hard. Some people luck out, some people don't. Just because they "work hard" does not mean they earn every penny of what they have, or even 1 in 10. You are just pushing Invisible Hand nonsense here. Which is little more than superstition. I presented to you figured on social mobility. You ignored them.

indeed it does, you seem to think only the rich should pay tax and that most people shouldn't bother to pay their way and take everything the state has to offer with no return

This is just Ayn Rand nonsense and you're not going to impress anyone who isn't also a sociopath or narcissist with it.

and I'm starting to believe you're basically a communist who just wants to forceably remove any wealth or assets that people have worked for just because you don't have them.

Ridiculous strawman. I made a valid point that your standards of "Fair" are removed from reality, as you do not particularly care who is really struggling, or how well off some people do despite being taxed heavily. It may have exaggerated your position but was still rooted in it.

Whereas you're being outright absurd, or at the very least, again, using weighted terms to hide the fact that a society where we didn't "Force" people to give up some wealth would be a lot more bleak for the poor.

real people? Wealthy people are real people too who have rights just like the rest of us, obscenely high taxes like you're proposing is nothing short of theft to support the layabouts who contribute little or nothing but are the first to whine about being vulnerable.

You are out of touch to the point of being delusional, and your comments about "layabouts" are insanely offensive. Wealthy people do fine the way they are. You are clearly unable to understand the concept of "privilege" in any shape or form. I'm sure you're not far off the type who things The Gays ask for "Special rights" as well.

Look, this isn't even about politics. You are a fundamentally amoral human being and your ideology has caused more pain on the western world over the last 30 years than possibly any other.

Calling mothers with disabled children, or those out of a job due to the recession, who worked hard for years "layabouts who contribute little or nothing" shows you do not have the moral authority to use such weighted terms as "theft".

More Randian filth.

Pretty much everyone in Ireland is rich when compared to the likes of Liberia, on that basis should we turn around and tax anybody earning over $365 ($1 a day) at your fanatical high rate?

No, we should work towards everyone having a decent living standard. Which does not involve your right wing rubbish, as you'll see a lot of those third world crapholes are a lot closer to your libertarian paradise you'd like to believe.

I'm done arguing with cartoon villains.

Cookie_Monster

mollymosfet wrote: »

Ridiculous strawman. I made a valid point that your standards of "Fair" are removed from reality, as you do not particularly care who is really struggling, or how well off some people do despite being taxed heavily. It may have exaggerated your position but was still rooted in it.

fair would be a flat income tax rate with no exemptions of credits or property taxes based on actual asset value or consumption taxes based on usage (of which there are some). the system in place currently is anything but fair.

you seem to think that the more well off should pay huge amounts to support ths who are not despite already paying far far in excess of those same people. How is this fair? Whats your vision of fairness in all this?

Whereas you're being outright absurd, or at the very least, again, using weighted terms to hide the fact that a society where we didn't "Force" people to give up some wealth would be a lot more bleak for the poor.

some wealth is fair, most of it is not, that's clearly what you are advocating

jank

mollymosfet wrote: »

More Randian filth.




I'm done arguing with cartoon villains.

Well seeing as you have to resort to name calling to prove your point (what point) we can see that you are just full of empty rethoric.

TAX THE RICH MORE is just a fallacy. The figure are right there, they are by far the biggest contributors to the tax net. There should always be an incentive to work harder and to keep your own earnings in your own pocket rather than have the state dictate to you that you didnt 'deserve' your last pay rise or bonus. If it were up to the likes of you we would all be equal wearing the same coloured boiler suits, waving some red book.

OMD

coonecb1 wrote: »

Mind boggling.

Tell me, why did Fianna Fail not make any attempt to cut services until after the bank crash in 2008?

The answer is, the pumping of billions into the banks led to the Government going broke.

If the billions hadn't gone into the banks, those billions would easily pay for all the services.

Your lack of knowledge is amazing. No wonder people vote for Sinn Fein and the other loony left if they have such a poor insight into our problems as you.