Billionaires and Millionaires who keep welfare.

ScumLord

awec wrote: »

Well that's not right.

How many "poor" people went out and bought ridiculous mortgages that they never should have even considered?

Well if you take wealth as an average over a lifetime rather than having money for a few years. All of them.

Chuck Stone

melekalikimaka wrote: »

high tax payers should recieve every benefit they are entitled to, they subsidies the bottoms feeders of society enough

When the bottom feeders get close to causing the economic damage the parasites at the 'top' have we'll really have a problem.

Valetta

Chuck Stone wrote: »

This useless sound-bite? Lol, if that's what you call an explanation then you need to do a lot more thinking around the subject.



This completely ignores what they're earning, what they get out of the state and what proportion of their wealth they put back in.



In proportion to their revenue or as Adam Smith (The Capitalists Fanboy's Oracle they know little about) says perhaps something greater.



In simple terms; the more you have the more you are getting out of the system.

You're advocating a wealth tax, which is completely different to what's being discussed.

High earners pay a higher proportion of their income in tax compared to lower earners, which is as it should be.

I've done plenty of thinking around the subject. :rolleyes:

Duggys Housemate

melekalikimaka wrote: »

high tax payers should recieve every benefit they are entitled to, they subsidies the bottoms feeders of society enough

Not all the rich are high tax payers, however.

Chuck Stone

Valetta wrote: »

You're advocating a wealth tax, which is completely different to what's being discussed.

You don't get to decide the parameters of the debate and even if you did want to focus on income tax alone it would be reductive and dishonest.

High earners pay a higher proportion of their income in tax compared to lower earners, which is as it should be.

Looking at income tax alone is pointless.

I've done plenty of thinking around the subject. :rolleyes:

And you're advocating that people who are wealthy enough to be paying 100K a year in taxes should be entitled to Child Benefit? Cool story bro.

Duggys Housemate

Valetta wrote: »

You're advocating a wealth tax, which is completely different to what's being discussed.

High earners pay a higher proportion of their income in tax compared to lower earners, which is as it should be.

I've done plenty of thinking around the subject. :rolleyes:

He isn't proposing a wealth tax. Like a lot of people, however, he thinks the rich earn wages.

Chuck Stone

Chuck Stone wrote: »

In proportion to their revenue or as Adam Smith (The Capitalists Fanboy's Oracle they know little about) says perhaps something greater.

In simple terms; the more you have the more you are getting out of the system.

Total bull. It is very unreasonable to expect higher earners to contribute more than they already are. They already contribute proportionally more and massive amounts in actual terms.

A person on 100k already pays the same as about 18 people on 25k. 18 people for fecks sake and people want them to pay more. Whats the point in doing well if you have to hand it all back.

The people who get the most out of the system are the people who don't work at all not the higher earners.

Derpington95

RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE .

smcgiff

Chuck Stone wrote: »

When the bottom feeders get close to causing the economic damage the parasites at the 'top' have we'll really have a problem.

And if it wasn't for those at the top, who'd pay for the those at the bottom?

There's a point where increasing tax has a negative effect on tax take. It's basic economics.

Chuck Stone

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

he thinks the rich earn wages.

I'm quite aware that wages for rich people is often little more than a footnote on how they acquire and maintain their wealth.

mikeym

The childrens allowance isn't means tested so whats the point in posting stuff that everyone knows about.

Chuck Stone

smcgiff wrote: »

And if it wasn't for those at the top, who'd pay for the those at the bottom?

Did you see the news last night? The guy who lost his pension from investing in one of the banks while unsecured bondholders get their billions back? Who's paying for who? Ever hear the advert 'BoI (or is it AIB?) supporting communities' - it makes me feel sick. It's the community who are supporting the banks yet we are sold the idea it is us who needs them. What a joke.

There's a point where increasing tax has a negative effect on tax take.

Yes.

It's basic economics.

This is one of the most abused sound-bites in common parlance. There's nothing basic about economics. That's why many countries are in such an economic mess.

miss no stars

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Did you see the news last night? The guy who lost his pension from investing in one of the banks while unsecured bondholders get their billions back? Who's paying for who? Ever hear the ad 'BoI (or is it AIB?) supporting communities' - it makes me feel sick. It's the community who are supporting the banks yet we are sold the idea it is us who needs them. What a joke.

Look, the problem is the perception of what wealthy is. For instance 100k is lumped in with millionaires. People on 100k have lost their pensions too and are NOT wealthy. Comfortable, but not wealthy. After tax and paying their mortgage and health insurance (because you get NOTHING from the state..) and life assurance etc etc etc, 100k gives you enough to support a family of 4, keep them warm and clothed, run a car and have a holiday once every couple of years.

And millionaires? There's an awful lot of begrudgery against people who do well. People who've gone by the book and made their money and pay whatever tax is owed should at least get their fcuking childrens allowance. They get feck all else! No dental checks, no grants for when the kids go to college, no welfare if they become unemployed. And people fairly say "but they can afford to pay all that". Yeah, they can. But what gets ignored is that they PAY PROPORTIONATELY MORE TAX AND GET LESS BACK. Not just proportionately less, actually less.

smcgiff

Chuck Stone wrote: »

This is one of the most abused sound-bites in common parlance. There's nothing basic about economics. That's why many countries are in such an economic mess.

I dunno - I think Dickens summed it up fairly simply.


"Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen six, result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery."

orestes

Omar187 wrote: »

Well my philosophy is that the people who put our country in this mess are the so-called elite ie - Billionares and Millionares.
So they should pay more to try and fix this mess.
Because 100% the poor folks in our country who are struggling to make ends meet, did NOT put us in this mess.

That's not a philosophy, it's an opinion, and a laughably uninformed one at that.

Duggys Housemate

miss no stars wrote: »

Look, the problem is the perception of what wealthy is. For instance 100k is lumped in with millionaires. People on 100k have lost their pensions too and are NOT wealthy. Comfortable, but not wealthy. After tax and paying their mortgage and health insurance (because you get NOTHING from the state..) and life assurance etc etc etc, 100k gives you enough to support a family of 4, keep them warm and clothed, run a car and have a holiday once every couple of years.

And millionaires? There's an awful lot of begrudgery against people who do well. People who've gone by the book and made their money and pay whatever tax is owed should at least get their fcuking childrens allowance. They get feck all else! No dental checks, no grants for when the kids go to college, no welfare if they become unemployed. And people fairly say "but they can afford to pay all that". Yeah, they can. But what gets ignored is that they PAY PROPORTIONATELY MORE TAX AND GET LESS BACK. Not just proportionately less, actually less.

Your first argument is correct. 100k is not rich. In fact the guy with 450K in the bank was probably a high earner ( also he was an investor).

Millionaires, and ( especially billionaires) however are not necessarily

1) Paying even as much tax as cleaners proportionately.
2) not always ( often never) entrepreneurs. Bankers aren't rich because of risk taking, but because of the opposite - there is no risk as the tax payer will bail it out.

Chuck Stone

miss no stars wrote: »

Look, the problem is the perception of what wealthy is. For instance 100k is lumped in with millionaires. People on 100k have lost their pensions too and are NOT wealthy. Comfortable, but not wealthy. After tax and paying their mortgage and health insurance (because you get NOTHING from the state..) and life assurance etc etc etc, 100k gives you enough to support a family of 4, keep them warm and clothed, run a car and have a holiday once every couple of years.

I agree. I'm not claiming 100K PA for a family of four is rich.

And millionaires? There's an awful lot of begrudgery against people who do well. People who've gone by the book and made their money and pay whatever tax is owed should at least get their fcuking childrens allowance.

When I read people advocating that millionaires should receive welfare payments I really get pangs of despair. This is the power of well funded far-right propaganda at work. It's the slave asking if he can have his shackles tightened and can he do few extra hours gratis - it really is.

bleg

Gradual phasing out of child benefit and reallocate the money elsewhere to direct services - school breakfasts and lunches, books, uniforms etc... Get rid of the cash payment.

Encourage family planning and contraceptive use in disadvantaged areas. Legalise abortion.

miss no stars

Chuck Stone wrote: »

When I read people advocating that millionaires should receive welfare payments I really get pangs of despair. This is the power of well funded far-right propaganda at work. It's the slave asking if he can have his shackles tightened and can he do few extra hours gratis - it really is.

So you reckon that if you're rich, by whatever yardstick you care to use, the state should take a hefty chunk of what you have and not even give the payment that's intended for the children (who aren't rich, they happen to have parents who are rich)? Or think of it another way - those who have kids and can't really afford them get medical cards, family income supplement, childrens allowance etc etc. They don't pay when the kids go to the doctor. The rich people pay when the kids go to the doctor. It's like the state saying "parents might be rich, but every child should be treated equally so there'll be some money goes to every kid"

mister bishi

millionaires claiming dole??

THERE DEAD RIGHT!!!

sure why not if ya can get away with it..

EVERY MAN FOR HIMSELF
all for one
and one for me

Chuck Stone

miss no stars wrote: »

So you reckon that if you're rich, by whatever yardstick you care to use, the state should take a hefty chunk of what you have.

A 'chunk' commensurate with revenue/wealth/income and benefits they enjoy from the state.

and not even give the payment that's intended for the children

It's a welfare payment and is supposed to alleviate hardship. Why in the name of fuck should someone who is wealthy receive it?

(who aren't rich, they happen to have parents who are rich)?

Ah yeh, de poor little babbies runnin' around in de rags wit de mammy and daddy off to de Spain in de Mercedes leevin 'dem at home eatin' de grass wit de hunger.

Stop it.

Or think of it another way - those who have kids and can't really afford them get medical cards, family income supplement, childrens allowance etc etc. They don't pay when the kids go to the doctor.

It's a problem I agree (look at what I wrote earlier, people on welfare shouldn't be encouraged to have kids) but saying 'shure the rich should get it too' is an absolutely mental way of dealing with the problem.

Chuck Stone

bleg wrote: »

Gradual phasing out of child benefit and reallocate the money elsewhere to direct services - school breakfasts and lunches, books, uniforms etc... Get rid of the cash payment.

I've argued before that money spent by the state in other areas would give us a far greater return if it were spent on world class primary schools with small classes and lots of support. Catch and thwart problems in the primary school service before they become a drain on every other state service.

Encourage family planning and contraceptive use in disadvantaged areas. Legalise abortion.

Yep. Cut off point for CA and council houses with a limit of three bedrooms might be worth investigating too.

Chuck Stone

Chuck Stone wrote: »

A 'chunk' commensurate with revenue/wealth/income and benefits they enjoy from the state.

What benefits exactly do they enjoy? Its the people on welfare who enjoy the most benefits. Free houses, medical cards, dole etc etc. This is all already funded by the tax money of people with good incomes. Also who buys new cars, eats in restaurants, buys expensive electronic equipment etc etc? Keeping people in jobs and paying vast amounts in VAT and other indirect taxes.

Why do you think its fair for them to pay more, really though how can you really think its fair for someone to hand over well in excess of 50% of their money. The rate is already nearly 50% which is too high as it is.

Its total bol*ocks and complete and utter begrudgery.

Duckjob

€100k is the magic figure where you stop being a normal citizen and become a greedy fatcat. Regardless of what you did you earn your €100k+ , how much tax you are paying, how hard you may have worked, how many people you may have employed, you should now have any surplus assets stripped/taxed until that you are no better off than your career-benefit-living comrade next door.

This is the gospel of the Left.

Fighting Irish

Omar187 wrote: »

Not enough.

:rolleyes:

Fighting Irish

Omar187 wrote: »

What's paying tax got to do with Keeping welfare from a stone broke country when you have Millions or Billions.?
That's not cool.

what's the limit so?

Chuck Stone

Eliza Lazy Romance wrote: »

What benefits exactly do they enjoy?

Businesses benefit from good infrastructure. Motorways, ports, airports etc benefit commerce. An educated populace also benefit business. Courts, police, prisons, customs officials contribute to a stable society and help to enforce copyrights patents and underpin limited liability - with out that there would be a lot less capital accumulation. These are all socialised costs.

The more you get from the system the greater stake you have in its smooth running, ergo, the more you are required to put back in. If you were profiting in a business do you think that investing less-and-less would ensure greater return? No. Why does this logic fail people when it comes to investing in the state in which they live?

Also who buys new cars, eats in restaurants, buys expensive electronic equipment etc etc? Keeping people in jobs and paying vast amounts in VAT and other indirect taxes.

The luxury the wealthy have is the opportunity to not buy expensive things. VAT is a flat tax and affects those on low incomes most proportionately. So you'd be better off leaving that out of your argument.

Why do you think its fair for them to pay more, really though how can you really think its fair for someone to hand over well in excess of 50% of their money. The rate is already nearly 50% which is too high as it is.

I agree that the people in the middle are the most squeezed.

utter begrudgery.

When you run out of arguments just stick your fingers in your ears and sing the 'la-la-la-begrudgery-la-la-la' song. I don't think many would begrudge anyone who has made their wealth on the back of their own initiative and hard work. It's the rent seekers that are the problem - did you know that only 3% of the top 130,000 millionaires and billionaires in the US are actual entrepreneurs? The rest are in finance and management.

oldyouth

The child benefit scheme is designed so that everyone is entitled to it, no matter what their circumstances. It is not a fair system. I personally think that Michael O'Leary is doing more good by continuing to accept it, while ridiculing it at the same time. It keeps the topic in the public domain, so perhaps it will eventually be corrected.

Chuck Stone

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Businesses benefit from good infrastructure. Motorways, ports, airports etc benefit commerce. An educated populace also benefit business. Courts, police, prisons, customs officials contribute to a stable society and help to enforce copyrights patents and underpin limited liability - with out that there would be a lot less capital accumulation. These are all socialised costs.

The more you get from the system the greater stake you have in its smooth running, ergo, the more you are required to put back in. If you were profiting in a business do you think that investing less-and-less would ensure greater return? No. Why does this logic fail people when it comes to investing in the state in which they live?

They already pay more than their fair share towards all this and are subsidising all the lower tax payers who also use all the above facilities. People on good money are entitled to keep a good percentage of it to enjoy their lives they cannot and should not be expected to further subsidise lower tax payers.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

The luxury the wealthy have is the opportunity to not buy expensive things. VAT is a flat tax and affects those on low incomes most proportionately. So you'd be better off leaving that out of your argument.

And take away that luxury by over taxation and jobs will be lost and vat revenue etc will fall significantly

Chuck Stone wrote: »

When you run out of arguments just stick your fingers in your ears and sing the 'la-la-la-begrudgery-la-la-la' song. I don't think many would begrudge anyone who has made their wealth on the back of their own initiative and hard work. It's the rent seekers that are the problem - did you know that only 3% of the top 130,000 millionaires and billionaires in the US are actual entrepreneurs? The rest are in finance and management.

It's totally irrelevant to me how they make their money someone working for a company on good money is as entitled to it as any entrepreneur.

Valetta

Chuck Stone wrote: »

And you're advocating that people who are wealthy enough to be paying 100K a year in taxes should be entitled to Child Benefit? Cool story bro.

Nowhere have I said that.

Chuck Stone

Eliza Lazy Romance wrote: »

It's totally irrelevant to me how they make their money someone working for a company on good money is as entitled to it as any entrepreneur.

Entrepreneurship should be encouraged. Rent seeking (manipulating the economic environment to ensure privilege) should be illegal. The system is set up in such a way that it gets manipulated to squeeze wealth and the profits of labour upwards. Trickle down economics has been shown be bollocksology.

Wealth doesn't trickle down. It trickles up and gets offshored and ends up being useless to the real economy.

Valetta

Chuck Stone wrote: »

did you know that only 3% of the top 130,000 millionaires and billionaires in the US are actual entrepreneurs? The rest are in finance and management.

What on earth does that mean?

Have you any idea of what an entrepreneur is?

Chuck Stone

Valetta wrote: »

Nowhere have I said that.

Oh. You're trying to weasel out of it now?

Valetta wrote: »

How much tax do they pay?

Omar187 wrote: »

What's paying tax got to do with Keeping welfare

Valetta wrote: »

It's got everything to do with it.

If someone pays €100,000 in taxes each year, and receives €3,120 (two children) in child benefit, that means they make a net contribution to the state of €96,880.

Valetta

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Oh. You're trying to weasel out of it now?

You forgot the rest of my post.

melekalikimaka

alot of chip on shoulder people on here. if someone pays 20k tax a year, and another pays 100k, wtf should the person who pays 5 times the tax recieve less benefits from it? Ridiculous mentality or the struggling classes

Chuck Stone

Valetta wrote: »

You forgot the rest if my post.

I put in the parts that showed your 'where did I say that' was said by you.

Look, engage my points individually with a proper rebuttals or just stop quoting me.

Valetta

Chuck Stone wrote: »

I

Look, engage my points individually with a proper rebuttals or just stop quoting me.

Who are you to tell me what to do?

Chuck Stone

Valetta wrote: »

Who are you to tell me what to do?

It's the nature of a reasoned discussion. What I mean is don't expect anything but curt replies or none at all if you're going to engage in little but obfuscation.

melekalikimaka wrote: »

if someone pays 20k tax a year, and another pays 100k, wtf should the person who pays 5 times the tax recieve less benefits from it? Ridiculous mentality or the struggling classes

This is reductive blabber tbh that completely ignores any counter-argument put forward. Are you really trying to make the case that someone who has the revenue/income to pay 100K PA in taxes should be just as entitled to benefits as someone on a fraction of that?

Jesus. ****ing. Christ.

melekalikimaka

Chuck Stone wrote: »

This is reductive blabber tbh that completely ignores any counter-argument put forward. Are you really trying to make the case that someone who has the revenue/income to pay 100K PA in taxes should be just as entitled to benefits as someone on a fraction of that?

Jesus. ****ing. Christ.

entitled is the key word here, so since you chose entitled, yes i do.

Chuck Stone

melekalikimaka wrote: »

entitled is the key word here, so since you chose entitled, yes i do.

Okay. That's completely nuts but you're entitled to hold completely nuts views while totally ignoring any reasoned argument to the contrary.

melekalikimaka

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Okay. That's completely nuts but you're entitled to hold completely nuts views while totally ignoring any reasoned argument to the contrary.

:rolleyes:

du Maurier

Chuck Stone wrote: »

This useless sound-bite? Lol, if that's what you call an explanation then you need to do a lot more thinking around the subject.



This completely ignores what they're earning, what they get out of the state and what proportion of their wealth they put back in.



In proportion to their revenue or as Adam Smith (The Capitalists Fanboy's Oracle they know little about) says perhaps something greater.



In simple terms; the more you have the more you are getting out of the system.

To be fair, your retorts were also general aphorisms, hardly expansive in their own right.

Chuck Stone

melekalikimaka wrote: »

:rolleyes:

I see....

I can't say discussing this matter with someone who purposefully ignores counter-points, repeats a view without even trying to justify it and uses the dreaded rolleyes smiley is someone who I'm too interested in wasting my time trying to engage in mature discussion.

melekalikimaka

Chuck Stone wrote: »

I see....

I can't say discussing this matter with someone who purposefully ignores counter-points, repeats a view without even trying to justify it and uses the dreaded rolleyes smiley is someone who I'm too interested in wasting my time trying to engage in mature discussion.

i can't really be too pushed trying to debate with you, I can't see it going anywhere, watching you get worked up it fun tho, i'm only holding on here to see if that chip falls off your shoulder

Chuck Stone

du Maurier wrote: »

To be fair, your retorts were also general aphorisms, hardly expansive in their own right.

Better to keep it simple methinks. If there are points that need teased out I'd be happy to play ball on it.

du Maurier

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Better to keep it simple methinks. If there are points that need teased out I'd be happy to play ball on it.

Heh! True, I suppose. That was a page or so back - it appears you've settled into your stride now:).

Chuck Stone

melekalikimaka wrote: »

i can't really be too pushed trying to debate with you, I can't see it going anywhere,

Great. We're in agreement.

watching you get worked up it fun tho,

I'm quite calm actually.

i'm only holding on here to see if that chip falls off your shoulder

Already covered here.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

When you run out of arguments just stick your fingers in your ears and sing the 'la-la-la-begrudgery-la-la-la' song. I don't think many would begrudge anyone who has made their wealth on the back of their own initiative and hard work.

Have a nice evening.

Duggys Housemate

Eliza Lazy Romance wrote: »

What benefits exactly do they enjoy? Its the people on welfare who enjoy the most benefits. Free houses, medical cards, dole etc etc. This is all already funded by the tax money of people with good incomes. Also who buys new cars, eats in restaurants, buys expensive electronic equipment etc etc? Keeping people in jobs and paying vast amounts in VAT and other indirect taxes.

Why do you think its fair for them to pay more, really though how can you really think its fair for someone to hand over well in excess of 50% of their money. The rate is already nearly 50% which is too high as it is.

Its total bol*ocks and complete and utter begrudgery.

We're talking about the real rich not wage earners on 100k. The real rich pay a much smaller %.

The real subsidy of the super rich is not welfare it's the implicit and explicit bank guarantees. This subsidises losses and privatises profits. It guarantees that capital needn't take a risk , why invest in a company or startup when casino gambling can never lose.

The children's allowance is small beer.

Chuck Stone

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

The real subsidy of the super rich is not welfare it's the implicit and explicit bank guarantees. This subsidises losses and privatises profits. It guarantees that capital needn't take a risk , why invest in a company or startup when casino gambling can never lose.

Corporate welfare. A massive transfer of wealth from the lower and middle class to the rich.

R0ot

cletus van damme wrote: »

Do you actually know what a person on 100 takes home?, they're well off but certainly not rich assuming they're supporting a family.
In a lot of cases the child payment is needed.

100k pre tax is just some mythical figure plucked out of the sky by the left.

In a lot of cases it's needed out of pure luxury, I can say I NEED the current child benefit we get from the state for my 2 kids (and I am nowhere near 100k gross salary) but I know if it was to be cut completely or partially tomorrow I could make savings of one less night out/luxury purchase.

I didn't pluck this figure from anywhere else but my own head.