Just to make the blood boil..

dttq

Teebor15 wrote: »

..i thought id share this extract i found on "de net"..its an open email from a facebook crowd "call for a revoluction in Ireland" Its nothing to do with me but would id love to see Kenny sit down and give his answers to each question!

Dear Enda Kenny,

I have contacted you by email several times over the last 18 months and have yet to receive a single response. Mind you David King and myself have become well acquainted in that time, even if his emails never vary from the same stock response. The fact is I am NOT writing to your Assistant Private Secretary or anyone else in your office and I am not interested in getting another fob-off message that says my email 'will be brought to the Taoiseach's attention as soon as possible.' You may think that this counts as a reply, but these kinds of robotic replies are simply not acceptable.

As we come to the end of another horrendous year I feel the time has come for you to answer some questions on behalf of the people of Ireland. You are supposed to be the elected leader of this state, which means you have a clear obligation to to answer TO the people of Ireland. Now I am not asking for answers sir, I am demanding answers! The people of this country are demanding answers. We are not interested in hearing any more dressed up lies, statistics or jargon. These questions are clear, I want and ONLY want, clear answers. I do NOT want to hear waffling generalizations; I do NOT want to hear that it was the previous governments fault; I do NOT want to hear any of the following phrases: "in the interest of the tax payer'; 'for the good of the country'; 'in the national interest'; 'sustainable growth'; 'helping the most vulnerable in society'; 'making difficult choices' or any other buzz words. The questions below are asked in clear, simple English. I will ONLY accept answers in clear simple English. I want ALL these questions answered - properly. If you fail to answer any of these questions satisfactorily I will assume that you are attempting to evade your responsibilities.

1. Please demonstrate your actual qualifications to lead this country.
2. Please justify your enormous salary in simple terms.
3. Please explain why your salary dwarfs those of leaders in much larger countries.
4. Explain why politicians are allowed to claim multiple pensions before even reaching pensionable age.
5. Adequately justify why politicians are still entitled to massive expenses.
6. Demonstrate any tangible benefits that the country has enjoyed as result of paying you these huge sums.
7. Explain why politicians who fail in their jobs are not fired.
8. Explain why politicians who fail in their jobs receive enormous entitlements when they leave office, at our expense.
9. Explain why politicians 'entitlements' were ring fenced shortly before the harshest budget in this country's history.
10. Explain why people who leech huge sums off the people they claim to be working for are justified in cutting off the lifeblood of those with next to nothing.
11. Show how the recession has impacted on YOUR life.
12. Give a breakdown of the sacrifices YOU have been forced to make since this recession started.
13. If you and your colleagues are actually representatives of the Irish people, please explain why you enjoy obscene perks, wealth and benefits that those people could only dream about.
14. Explain why in the 21st century, a 33 year old homeless man froze to death in Bray last week.
15. Do you deny that the upward rate of suicide in Ireland is directly linked to financial stresses?
16. Explain why Iceland is currently enjoying an economic recovery.
17. Explain why Iceland's turnaround is never referred to.
18. Explain why it is no longer 'morally wrong, unjust and unfair to tax a persons home'.
19. Explain how private banking debts are in any way my debts.
20. Explain why the welfare of banks is the priority for this government.
21. Explain how, if there is no money for basic human needs, there is always money to keep banks afloat.
22. Explain why there is always a 'legal reason' why bankers salaries cannot be reduced.
23. Explain why there is never any problem reducing everyone else's salaries.
24. Explain why no bankers have had the book thrown at them after bankrupting this country.
25. Explain how banks are still allowed to remove people from their homes.
26. If the Garda Siochana are truly 'Guardians of the Peace', explain why Gardai are used by banks to evict people, with the blessing of the state.
27. Explain why Gardai are used as a private security firm in Rossport.
28. Explain why huge reserves of gas and oil have been given to corporations with no benefit to the people of this country.
29. Explain how this country's forests can be sold off to speculators and foreign investors.
30. Explain why the website taoiseach.gov.ie has a customer charter.
31. Explain how the Department of the Taoiseach has customers.
32. Name some of these customers and what you are selling to them.
33. Explain why the government is actually a registered company, trading for profit.
34. Explain why all official organs of the state are also trading for profit.
35. Explain why most offenses against legislation carry only a monetary penalty.
36. Explain why an external, unelected financial body is allowed to dictate to the Irish government.
37. Is the Central Bank in fact a private bank?
38. Explain why public money was used to fund a 'Yes' campaign in the recent Children's Referendum.
39. Regardless of which party he is in, given Pat Rabbitte's recent comments on TV, do you deny that your own election promises were well thought out lies?
40. Do you believe that deceiving the public is the 'normal way of things'?
41. Please explain why, when in opposition you promised to turn the country around, things have in fact gotten much worse.
42. As you have broken every promise you made to the people of Ireland before the last election, please explain how you have not broken your contract with the people and therefore still have a mandate to govern.
43. Please explain why threatening the Irish people is acceptable practice to this government.
44. Explain why generations yet unborn have already been saddled with enormous debt.
45. Demonstrate how the next two generations of irish people will benefit from your policies.
46. Explain why there is always money for trips abroad for government 'representatives' and their entourages.
47. Given that Michael Noonan's trip to the Bilderburg conference (which up until recently was always apparently just a conspiracy theory) was funded by the tax payer, please provide minutes of the meetings, action items discussed and a list of all those in attendance.
48. Please provide a breakdown of Phil Hogan's achievements and contributions at the recent climate conference in Doha and the actual benefits to Ireland as a result of this taxpayer-funded trip.
49. Explain how dealings with and dictates from, foreign, unelected figures and organizations are not in conflict with Article 6.1 and Article 15.2.1 of Bunreacht na hÉireann Constitution of Ireland.
50. Explain how putting the people of Ireland into perpetual debt and poverty, at the behest of and for the benefit of, private banks is NOT a treasonous act.

On behalf of the people of this country I demand answers to ALL these question in the manner stated.

Merry Christmas"

You might consider sending this too. The more the merrier...

~Belenus

51: Dear Enda, is dress I buy too sexy for sister?

mkdon05

awec wrote: »

That isn't holding anyone to account.

It's the ramblings of a moron who thinks he's being smart while asking stupid questions.

"What qualifications do you have to lead this country". I mean come on ffs.

I wouldn't be overly confident with a teacher implementing financial policies that effect a country. I know he has advisors for help, so what is his salary for? Basically being the face of the government. Elected on the basis of a popularity contest.

It's bull****! All elected salaries should be capped circa 60k. That way we might get someone who wants to genuinely sort the country out and not jump on the gravy train that is elected life.

I wonder what salaries, expenses, perks the leaders in 1916 demanded!

BUBBLE WRAP

Someone please sum up OP's post in two lines max.

Einhard

Irishstabber wrote: »

Some people on this forum need to cop on.

Says the guy who tells people who don't agree with his thinking to stfu. Yeah, real paragon of democracy you are...

At least this guy is holding our "supreme leader" to account.

By asking shit questions? That's like saying the Gardai are holding criminals to account by sitting on their arses complaining about crime.

More than what half of you lot ever done!

Some of the questions are a bit silly but its the effort that counts.

No, it's not the effort that counts. This isn't Loser's Race in the school sport's day. This is serious stuff. Politicians need to be held to account, but equally, people who claim to speak on our behalf (ie the writer of the list) should expect to be challenged when they produce inane, idiotic screeds that would embarass a teenager.

The nonchalant attitude to the way this country is being governed by the people
of this country is disgraceful.

Yeah, yeah...and you're doing so much to change it. Tell us your solutions. I'm sure they're extremely well thought out, and exactly what this country needs.

red sean

BUBBLE WRAP wrote: »

Someone please sum up OP's post in two lines max.

(1) He/She saw this load of crap on the internet.
(2) Wants to know do you agree the writer is a moron?

Done

dollypet

Irishstabber wrote: »

Grow up and either show support of stfu.

This are my options? Thanks for letting me know

AnonoBoy

Irishstabber wrote: »

Some people on this forum need to cop on.

At least this guy is holding our "supreme leader" to account. More than what half of you lot ever done!

Nobody's holding anyone to account with this asinine ranting trying to pass itself off as serious political discussion.

To hold people to account people need to actually do something... protest, put forward ideas on how to do things better etc.

It would help as well if the OP had some understanding of how the world works. They clearly don't have a clue what they're rambling on about and the smack of Freeman nonsense off it makes it all the more ridiculous.

Your attitude of 'at least he's doing something' is silly because he's not doing anything except for writing a letter that's inviting ridicule. This letter will contribute nothing at all to the country. It will never even get to Enda Kenny as the first question alone will ensure it gets tossed in the nearest bin.

pennypocket

awec wrote: »

"What qualifications do you have to lead this country". I mean come on ffs.

A B.Ed or a H.Dip apparently.

K3lso

awec wrote: »

Can the writer of the letter demonstrate their qualifications for supposedly speaking on behalf of the people of Ireland.

If not, perhaps they can tell us which election they stood in and subsequently won that enabled them to speak on behalf of the people of Ireland?

Nobody can speak on behalf of anyone else, including the Taoiseach.

I speak for myself. Some narcissist egotistical delusional whackjob does not speak for me. I am an individual.

AnonoBoy

K3lso wrote: »

Some narcissist egotistical delusional whackjob does not speak for me.

Funnily enough one of those does speak for me.

Luckily I am in control of his mouth.

hooradiation

Irishstabber wrote: »

Some people on this forum need to cop on.

At least this guy is holding our "supreme leader" to account. More than what half of you lot ever done!

Some of the questions are a bit silly but its the effort that counts. The nonchalant attitude to the way this country is being governed by the people of this country is disgraceful.

Grow up and either show support of stfu.

Effort does not equal worth.

awec

mkdon05 wrote: »

I wouldn't be overly confident with a teacher implementing financial policies that effect a country. I know he has advisors for help, so what is his salary for? Basically being the face of the government. Elected on the basis of a popularity contest.

It's bull****! All elected salaries should be capped circa 60k. That way we might get someone who wants to genuinely sort the country out and not jump on the gravy train that is elected life.

I wonder what salaries, expenses, perks the leaders in 1916 demanded!

The salary of elected officials is not the issue. For such a job the salary is fine.

The problem is we have too many elected officials.

If you are running a country you are entitled to much more than 60 grand a year. It's easy to say that all you do is make decisions based on your advisors but that's a load of crap. There are pressures involved with that job that you nor I will ever experience.

I may not agree with their policies, but I respect anyone willing to do it and have no issue with them being well paid for it.

Wanderer2010

awec wrote: »

The salary of elected officials is not the issue. For such a job the salary is fine.

Interesting. Do you think any of our elected representatives should take a pay cut in line with how the likes of the social welfare or carers or PRSI workers have been cut. After all, they are champions of "we all have to make sacrifices". So in your opinion do you think they should take a small pay cut in order to shoulder some of the responsibility?

awec

Wanderer2010 wrote: »

Interesting. Do you think any of our elected representatives should take a pay cut in line with how the likes of the social welfare or carers or PRSI workers have been cut. After all, they are champions of "we all have to make sacrifices". So in your opinion do you think they should take a small pay cut in order to shoulder some of the responsibility?

Are carers or social welfare workers having their salary cut?

Either way, I'm not against a cut in salary, but it needs to be reasonable and intelligent.

This "cap them at 60k" or some other arbitrary figure is nothing more than begrudgery. "Ah he earns 5 times more than I do, that's totally unfair!"

Wanderer2010

Wanderer2010 wrote: »

Interesting. Do you think any of our elected representatives should take a pay cut in line with how the likes of the social welfare or carers or PRSI workers have been cut. After all, they are champions of "we all have to make sacrifices". So in your opinion do you think they should take a small pay cut in order to shoulder some of the responsibility?

They pay Income Tax, PRSI and USC like the rest of us.

Wanderer2010

awec wrote: »

Are carers or social welfare workers having their salary cut?

Either way, I'm not against a cut in salary, but it needs to be reasonable and intelligent.

This "cap them at 60k" or some other arbitrary figure is nothing more than begrudgery. "Ah he earns 5 times more than I do, that's totally unfair!"

Eh? Im talking about the fact that child welfare payments have been reduced and also the respite grant reduced. These 2 vulnerable groups have been made to shoulder some of the recovery, which we all should obviously. But Im talking about tackling the wealthy and making them share more because they can afford to pay more. They shirked at increasing the USC by 3% for anyone over 100k so the politicians and the wealthy got off scot free here.

Its not begrudery to demand that those who CAN pay more should pay more, this isnt a case of "you are on 150k a year, you shouldnt be", its more saying that anyone on that salary, INCLUDING the politcians, should pay more taxes to protect the more vulnerable parts of society. Simple common sense.

Duggys Housemate

Most of the supposed concern people have with the poor, is really with themselves.

Wanderer2010 wrote: »

Interesting. Do you think any of our elected representatives should take a pay cut in line with how the likes of the social welfare or carers or PRSI workers have been cut. After all, they are champions of "we all have to make sacrifices". So in your opinion do you think they should take a small pay cut in order to shoulder some of the responsibility?

Did they not take a pay cut? Carers have been cut, PRSI has been extended, but I dont see much going on with standard social welfare. If they did that, there would be uproar, although the squeezed middle would be more or less concerned with it's own nest, rightly enough, as it is that middle which is carrying the country.

awec

Wanderer2010 wrote: »

Eh? Im talking about the fact that child welfare payments have been reduced and also the respite grant reduced. These 2 vulnerable groups have been made to shoulder some of the recovery, which we all should obviously. But Im talking about tackling the wealthy and making them share more because they can afford to pay more. They shirked at increasing the USC by 3% for anyone over 100k so the politicians and the wealthy got off scot free here.

Its not begrudery to demand that those who CAN pay more should pay more, this isnt a case of "you are on 150k a year, you shouldnt be", its more saying that anyone on that salary, INCLUDING the politcians, should pay more taxes to protect the more vulnerable parts of society. Simple common sense.

They already pay more than everyone else. The nature of our income tax system ensures that anyone who is relatively well off is going to be paying high tax and subsidising everyone else.

Wanderer2010

awec wrote: »

They already pay more than everyone else. The nature of our income tax system ensures that anyone who is relatively well off is going to be paying high tax and subsidising everyone else.

And rightly so, but the point is that they should pay MORE in these challenging times because carers and single mothers would be more affected by a cut than someone on, say, 120k who has to pay an extra 3% USC, it was cowardice plain and simple that they didnt go after the wealthy and elite. And why? Because they are part of the wealthy and elite..

Duggys Housemate

Wanderer2010 wrote: »

Eh? Im talking about the fact that child welfare payments have been reduced and also the respite grant reduced. These 2 vulnerable groups have been made to shoulder some of the recovery, which we all should obviously. But Im talking about tackling the wealthy and making them share more because they can afford to pay more. They shirked at increasing the USC by 3% for anyone over 100k so the politicians and the wealthy got off scot free here.

Its not begrudery to demand that those who CAN pay more should pay more, this isnt a case of "you are on 150k a year, you shouldnt be", its more saying that anyone on that salary, INCLUDING the politcians, should pay more taxes to protect the more vulnerable parts of society. Simple common sense.

But labour taxes are higher here than anywhere else in Europe. This conversation is pointless, as the income tax is missed named. It is a wage tax. You are not going to get most of the income over 100k - specially well over 200k - unless you actually tax what rich people earn, which isnt wages. It's dividends. Or capital gains. etc.

I mean everybody knows that when George Soros pays less tax than his cleaner - it is because he is taxed on capital gains, and dividends - but demand that USC, and Income tax be increased on the rich. Wont work. The rich by and large don't pay PAYE, or USC, and if they are now, they won't if you increase the taxes.

Even if you were earning a high wage - like 200K - in the PAYE sector you can often be able to transfer it to a company and pay yourself dividends, taxed at 33 percent, minus expenses, of course. Expenses not available to the PAYE sector. A Vice President can become a senior external consultant.

Take for example, the typical high paid TV presenter. Not just here, but worldwide. Not paid by RTE as employees, paid as contractors into companies.

One of the ways to tax the rich is on their wealth, particularly immovable wealth, like houses.

awec

Wanderer2010 wrote: »

And rightly so, but the point is that they should pay MORE in these challenging times because carers and single mothers would be more affected by a cut than someone on, say, 120k who has to pay an extra 3% USC, it was cowardice plain and simple that they didnt go after the wealthy and elite. And why? Because they are part of the wealthy and elite..

That person earning 120 grand a year should be taxed more for having the audacity to earn 120 grand a year?

That person already pays more than the majority of others. They are not a source of income that can constantly be tapped in to just because someone on a low wage doesn't think they should have to cough up as well.

mkdon05

awec wrote: »

Are carers or social welfare workers having their salary cut?

Either way, I'm not against a cut in salary, but it needs to be reasonable and intelligent.

This "cap them at 60k" or some other arbitrary figure is nothing more than begrudgery. "Ah he earns 5 times more than I do, that's totally unfair!"

It's far from begrudgery, its about getting people in to lead the country who have the desire to do the right thing in the most equitable way and not be sidetracked by the lining of their own pockets.

You need to realise that not everybody values wealth as the compass to live there life.

If you do, you will never be a rich man.

Wanderer2010

awec wrote: »

That person earning 120 grand a year should be taxed more for having the audacity to earn 120 grand a year?

That person already pays more than the majority of others. They are not a source of income that can constantly be tapped in to just because someone on a low wage doesn't think they should have to cough up as well.

So carers should be forced to be down over 300quid a year, turning to loan sharks, already depleted family members and banks etc desperate for help to keep a house heated whilst their ill son/daughter/mother etc is suffering, just so that the person who earns high money can get 100% of his or her wages? Your pro-rich attitude really sickens me in light of the recent cuts. Again, its about who should shoulder more and our government have decided that instead of making wealthy people pay a bit more (just a small tax increase would have matched cutting the carers) they have turned the axe on carers who already work 24/7 and save the country millions by caring for relatives at home..

CruelCoin

Wanderer2010 wrote: »

Its not begrudery to demand that those who CAN pay more should pay more, this isnt a case of "you are on 150k a year, you shouldnt be", its more saying that anyone on that salary, INCLUDING the politcians, should pay more taxes to protect the more vulnerable parts of society. Simple common sense.

Why should making a success of yourself be penalised?

Socialism has nothing to do with common sense.

Common sense would be more along the line of "i earns its i keeps its"

AnonoBoy

I just realised that the OP has just copied and pasted this from somewhere else online.

Apologies OP. I thought you had written it. I take back my comments about you and apply them to whoever did write the letter.

dttq

BUBBLE WRAP wrote: »

Someone please sum up OP's post in two lines max.

Enda yeh bleedin gobsh!te, what are yeh doin bout dis n da. An why haven't yeh answered me bleedin emails?

Yours, Belenus, keyboard revolutionary front, 9th infantry battalion division

Duggys Housemate

mkdon05 wrote: »

It's far from begrudgery, its about getting people in to lead the country who have the desire to do the right thing in the most equitable way and not be sidetracked by the lining of their own pockets.

You need to realise that not everybody values wealth as the compass to live there life.

If you do, you will never be a rich man.

In many ways, compared to say CEOS, they are paid a pittance.

Mr. Nice

Lemonperv wrote: »

We're not the laughing stock of Europe. If you read international magazines, they find much that is commendable in Ireland's actions in the last few years.

Would you like low taxes and fantastic public services? I would but unfortunately that's impossible so we'll all have to grow up and deal with this.

They find "much that is commendable" because Ireland is kow-towing to the Germans and others, and doing what it's been told to do.
Ireland already has (super) low taxes - for corporations, but not for workers...

pennypocket

awec wrote: »

That person earning 120 grand a year should be taxed more for having the audacity to earn 120 grand a year?

That person already pays more than the majority of others. They are not a source of income that can constantly be tapped in to just because someone on a low wage doesn't think they should have to cough up as well.

We are apparently, as a democratic, first world nation, committed to a progressive income tax system. So yes, those on higher incomes should pay more. In the 1980s such individuals paid a combined income tax of up to 66 per cent on taxable income. Today it is considerably less and the tax burden falls heavily in proportional terms on the less well paid. Although, arguably our biggest tax losses (as in the UK) is via the multinationals which sluice their global incomes through Ireland (the 'double Irish'), through which we deservedly have earned our tax haven status. The corporate tax rate may officially be 12.5 per cent (one of the lowest in Europe) but these companies pay much less in real terms.

pennypocket

CruelCoin wrote: »

Why should making a success of yourself be penalised?

Socialism has nothing to do with common sense.

Common sense would be more along the line of "i earns its i keeps its"

I commend to you the estimable Elizabeth Warren. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20110042-503544.html

Valetta

Wanderer2010 wrote: »

So carers should be forced to be down over 300quid a year, turning to loan sharks, already depleted family members and banks etc desperate for help to keep a house heated whilst their ill son/daughter/mother etc is suffering, just so that the person who earns high money can get 100% of his or her wages? Your pro-rich attitude really sickens me in light of the recent cuts. Again, its about who should shoulder more and our government have decided that instead of making wealthy people pay a bit more (just a small tax increase would have matched cutting the carers) they have turned the axe on carers who already work 24/7 and save the country millions by caring for relatives at home..

Who gets 100% of his or her wages?

Are there no politicians that are also carers?

Do politicians not have children?

Why do you make out that politicians have not been affected by the budget?

pennypocket

Valetta wrote: »

Who gets 100% of his or her wages?

Are there no politicians that are also carers?

Do politicians not have children?

Why do you make out that politicians have not been affected by the budget?

Why, oh why won't somebody think of the politicians!!!

pennypocket

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

In many ways, compared to say CEOS, they are paid a pittance.

And, conversely, why should the Taoiseach and his cabinet be paid more than CEOs? Did you see the Panorama programme on the Barclays' brothers last night? Even the CEOs do not deserve the multi-millions they are paid. But that is in the ha'penny place when it compares to tax foregone and mis-patriated in this country. I would also wager that the majority of the defenders of the highly paid on this thread earn barely above minimum wage or CPA agreement rates themselves. Sad. We really have swallowed the Kool Aid.

Duggys Housemate

pennypocket wrote: »

We are apparently, as a democratic, first world nation, committed to a progressive income tax system. So yes, those on higher incomes should pay more. In the 1980s such individuals paid a combined income tax of up to 66 per cent on taxable income. Today it is considerably less and the tax burden falls heavily in proportional terms on the less well paid. Although, arguably our biggest tax losses (as in the UK) is via the multinationals which sluice their global incomes through Ireland (the 'double Irish'), through which we deservedly have earned our tax haven status. The corporate tax rate may officially be 12.5 per cent (one of the lowest in Europe) but these companies pay much less in real terms.

That 66% hit only the PAYE sector and people on median, or slightly above income. Anybody who could avoided or evaded. The PAYE sector couldn't.

Even the unions - to their credit - thought that was lunacy. They bargained for tax reductions in line with moderate wage demands.

Edit : and tax doesn't fall disproportionately on the poor. It falls disproportionately on middle to high income PAYE workers i.e middle income groups.

Duggys Housemate

pennypocket wrote: »

And, conversely, why should the Taoiseach and his cabinet be paid more than CEOs? Did you see the Panorama programme on the Barclays' brothers last night? Even the CEOs do not deserve the multi-millions they are paid. But that is in the ha'penny place when it compares to tax foregone and mis-patriated in this country. I would also wager that the majority of the defenders of the highly paid on this thread earn barely above minimum wage or CPA agreement rates themselves. Sad. We really have swallowed the Kool Aid.

If I was born in a world where the highest earner was the prime minister I would think it somewhat sane.
Partly I think the relative low pay is what makes us despise politicians. If we had a guy up there with a salary of 1 million and options tied to GDP and he was *really good* and managed to get a deal with the Germans in our favour thus kickstarting growth we wouldn't mind at all, no more than investors hate Warren Buffet.

We pay relative peanuts, get relative monkeys, and complain about the monkeys.

Mr. Nice

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

We pay relative peanuts, get relative monkeys, and complain about the monkeys.

Irish politicians are grossly overpaid, look at Inda Kinny's salary relative to other world leaders.
And that's without expenses, benefits, pensions etc.
I bet half the chancers in the Dail can't believe their luck - mostly gob****e schoolteachers and members of "political dynasties" (doubly true for Inda) who are now set for life.

Duggys Housemate

Mr. Nice wrote: »

Irish politicians are grossly overpaid, look at Inda Kinny's salary relative to other world leaders.
And that's without expenses, benefits, pensions etc.
I bet half the chancers in the Dail can't believe their luck - mostly gob****e schoolteachers and members of "political dynasties" (doubly true for Inda) who are now set for life.

Firstly you are missing the huge amount of money that an American or UK president can make after their tenure. You are also missing larger benefits in kind - Bertie as minister for finance in most countries wouldn't have needed the house payment as he would have a state bought house to live in. Top ministers in the UK get country estates. Once in you are a certain millionaire.

This attracts a certain calibre of talent. You are right about teachers - although teachers can be as smart as any professional there are too many of them in the Dail. I notice people are more accepting about lawyers though. They ate often millionaires.

What we are not getting is the kind of guy who has the ambition and talent to become a millionaire as a politician. They are running companies not talking to merkel.

pennypocket

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

That 66% hit only the PAYE sector and people on median, or slightly above income. Anybody who could avoided or evaded. The PAYE sector couldn't.

Even the unions - to their credit - thought that was lunacy. They bargained for tax reductions in line with moderate wage demands.

Edit : and tax doesn't fall disproportionately on the poor. It falls disproportionately on middle to high income PAYE workers i.e middle income groups.

Then why this? http://www.finfacts.ie/irishfinancenews/article_1018349.shtml
It really does fall disproportionally on lower earners, tax is waged not just on income, but on every item a household purchases. If you think the contrary, please supply the evidence for your claims.

pennypocket

Also, from the Finfacts article:
The union congress says; "We know that the top 1% of the population made about €75 billion during the boom era. Specifically, it can be computed from revenue data that a minimum of €66 billion was made by individuals between 2002 and 2008 - - almost €10 billion a year. The top 1% in 2007 held 20% of the wealth, the top 2% held 30% and the top 5% held 40%. How can this money have disappeared because for every developer who paid over the odds for land there had to be an owner who received the money?"
So, again, who should shoulder the burdens?

Wanderer2010

Valetta wrote: »

Who gets 100% of his or her wages?

Are there no politicians that are also carers?

Do politicians not have children?

Why do you make out that politicians have not been affected by the budget?

Put it this way, politicians are on a lot of money so any cut is negligible to them, whereas a lot of carers are barely making ends meet so it makes sense to go after the wealthier sections but this will never be done because the country is a cess pool of corruption and cronyism.

pennypocket

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

If I was born in a world where the highest earner was the prime minister I would think it somewhat sane.
Partly I think the relative low pay is what makes us despise politicians. If we had a guy up there with a salary of 1 million and options tied to GDP and he was *really good* and managed to get a deal with the Germans in our favour thus kickstarting growth we wouldn't mind at all, no more than investors hate Warren Buffet.

We pay relative peanuts, get relative monkeys, and complain about the monkeys.

200 thousand is not peanuts. Whatever happened to public service? You can say what you like about the early Free State leaders (such as Dev and his ilk), but at least they were not in it for the money.

Duggys Housemate

pennypocket wrote: »

Then why this? http://www.finfacts.ie/irishfinancenews/article_1018349.shtml
It really does fall disproportionally on lower earners, tax is waged not just on income, but on every item a household purchases. If you think the contrary, please supply the evidence for your claims.

That's just stupidity. As I said before a wage tax is not an income tax. You wont get the vast majority of people above 170k with a 65% tax because they won't earn it as wages, even if they are now.

As for "every item a household purchases"

a) we know the income tax figures fall disproportionately on the middle income PAYE worker as you earn 16k single and 24k married before paying a red cent. It's up to you to prove that, proportionately, VAT makes up the difference.
b) factor into your equation the absence of VAT on many items - particularly necessities.

Duggys Housemate

pennypocket wrote: »

Also, from the Finfacts article:
The union congress says; "We know that the top 1% of the population made about €75 billion during the boom era. Specifically, it can be computed from revenue data that a minimum of €66 billion was made by individuals between 2002 and 2008 - - almost €10 billion a year. The top 1% in 2007 held 20% of the wealth, the top 2% held 30% and the top 5% held 40%. How can this money have disappeared because for every developer who paid over the odds for land there had to be an owner who received the money?"
So, again, who should shoulder the burdens?

Lol. That's right the top 1% earn wages. This is the third time I have said this. The rich developers paid whatever taxes you pay on capital gains, or dividends. The 1% who owned 20% of thee boomtime wealth included - maybe largely, was only - property. The best tax there is a property tax. It seems the muppets in the ICTU want to go after the top 1% but are opposed to a wealth tax. Good luck with that one.

pennypocket

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

That's just stupidity. As I said before a wage tax is not an income tax. You wont get the vast majority of people above 170k with a 65% tax because they won't earn it as wages, even if they are now.

As for "every item a household purchases"

a) we know the income tax figures fall disproportionately on the middle income PAYE worker as you earn 16k single and 24k married before paying a red cent. It's up to you to prove that, proportionately, VAT makes up the difference.
b) factor into your equation the absence of VAT on many items - particularly necessities.

What difference? As I said, taxes fall proportionally higher on those on lower incomes. Proportionally means as a percentage of income. You think 16k (now taxable) is a high income in this high cost (with growing inflation) economy and they should pay more?

Duggys Housemate

by the way I very much support a tax on the rich and what they earn. Just stop taxing labour.

pennypocket

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

Lol. That's right the top 1% earn wages. This is the third time I have said this. The rich developers paid whatever taxes you pay on capital gains, or dividends. The 1% who owned 20% of thee boomtime wealth included - maybe largely, was only - property. The best tax there is a property tax. It seems the muppets in the ICTU want to go after the top 1% but are opposed to a wealth tax. Good luck with that one.

I think the suggestion is a wealth/land tax. Never mind that those on high incomes can always find the ways not to pay tax on inheritable income/capital gains, i.e. that is set up trusts in offshore locations to avoid such penalties. For obvious reasons progress in that area will not happen.

Duggys Housemate

pennypocket wrote: »

What difference? As I said, taxes fall proportionally higher on those on lower incomes. Proportionally means as a percentage of income. You think 16k (now taxable) is a high income in this high cost (with growing inflation) economy and they should pay more?

You need to prove that people who don't pay anything on 24k income pay more in VAT as a proportion of their income to make up for the 40% marginal paid by workers who earn slightly above median income, and who also pay VAT.

Otherwise I have no idea what you are taking about.

Duggys Housemate

pennypocket wrote: »

I think the suggestion is a wealth/land tax. For obvious reasons that will not happen.

Not in that link.

pennypocket

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

Not in that link.

I leave it there. Wealth taxes include assessments of income.

pennypocket

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

You need to prove that people who don't pay anything on 24k income pay more in VAT as a proportion of their income to make up for the 40% marginal paid by workers who earn slightly above median income, and who also pay VAT.

Otherwise I have no idea what you are taking about.

Plus, someone on 24k doesn't pay more in VAT on items purchased than anyone else. Proportionally they pay more tax as a percentage of what they earn and consume in the first place. I don't need to prove anything.