Budget Day - The Official After Hours Thread - (Ireland's undisputed Voice of Reason)

mozattack

Uriel. wrote: »

I know what you mean.

I know a few public servants.

One of them has his own private security detail. I think he only mostly uses them when he heads down to PS HQ to pick up his wages (gets paid cash I believe). He's struggling big time since the cuts though. He had to put one of his 3 security guys on half time.

My brother's friend is a teacher. Nice chap, but definitely not right in the head. To be honest I blame the fact that he owns seven 5 bed houses and spends one night a week in each - all that moving around couldn't be conducive to healthy living.

My neighbour is a Garda, hardly ever see him though, he worked over time last St. Stephens' day and he gets the compulsory 12 month expenses paid trip to Abu Dhabi. Hope to meet him for a few drinks at Christmas before he gets back to the slog.

All this rain is worrying me though I got to tell you, my best friend, a Clerical Officer in Social Welfare was due to pick up his new ferrari this morning, it'll be ruined on him. Considering our roads here I told him several times not to waste his monthly bonus on the car, but he wouldn't listen.

Must have too much time on hands if can afford to waste time writing such drivel.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

jank wrote: »

Has democracy failed? Has the free market failed? News to me.

Democacy has most certainly failed.

There are three probelms.

One - it assumes people want what's best for society - they do not, they want what's best for themselves. Case in point, the Fianna Fail won election when they proceeded to bankrupt the country. Policians also want whats best for them and not what's best for scoeity, second case in point, the fiscal debt crisis in the US. Third case in point - Burleconi in Italy.

Two - there is no choice - in most cases the most likely parties are very similar. You think Fine Gael would have done the same? Probably - but what then for democracy?

Three - media corruption and vested interests- case in point the recetn asutralian elections and the Rupert Murdoch bias. How can you call it free and fair when one side is being bankrupt to the hilt and the otehr side is getting villifieed in the midea for all the problems created by an unequal society?

All in all, democracy is an illusion created so that anyone who has a chance of power will have vested interersts and not those of society.


In conclusion: let me turn the question around - can you name one modern society where democracy has crearted a free, fair and just environment FOR ALL CITIZENS that you would be very happy to live in?

mozattack

Gannon Quick Beech wrote: »

Teacher, nurses, Gardai etc should be well paid and should get good pensions.

Some people need to get over this begrudgery of other peoples wages especially when in most cases they are well deserved.

Public sector workers wages are down a lot on what they were a few years ago but some people won't be happy unless some of the most important jobs in the country are being worked for free.

Okay so €72k per annum for being a P.E. teacher is reasonable? It is outlandish.

He is close to retirement so pension will be €40k plus from 60 onwards (and only rising)

Some more examples:

€62k for a 39 year old woodwork teacher.
€60k for a 40 year old "" " ""

€37k per annum pension plus a portion of state pension (yes!) for a 70 year old ex-teacher who also earned circa €6k per annum subbing since "retiring" 10 years ago.

These are facts by the way.

seamus

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

In conclusion: let me turn the question around - can you name one modern society where democracy has crearted a free, fair and just environment FOR ALL CITIZENS that you would be very happy to live in?

Can you name any society in history whose system of governance created a free, fair and just environment for millions of citizens?

I don't think anyone in their right mind would argue modern democracy is a perfect system, flawless and everlasting. But there's a distinct lack of alternatives.

The one thing which democracy does that most other systems don't is account for the fact that people are inherently selfish and attempts to turn use "group wisdom" to turn individual selfishness into group altruism. Most other systems of governance invest too much trust in the individual to do the right thing for the whole.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

seamus wrote: »

Can you name any society in history whose system of governance created a free, fair and just environment for millions of citizens?

I don't think anyone in their right mind would argue modern democracy is a perfect system, flawless and everlasting. But there's a distinct lack of alternatives.

That was my original point. There IS no perfect system because they're based on people. But, as I said earlier, the Scandanavians have come closed and they did so by high taxes and high standards of social services. Certainly not be telling people that they're on their own.

seamus

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

That was my original point.

Sorry, I didn't follow the whole back-and-forth

ash23

jank wrote: »

Couple of points.

If you are young and have a mortgage then you should have appropriate insurance.
If they had funds in a pension then funds are paid out due to death. Said funds can be used for funeral expenses.

What you are saying is the tax payer should pay for a funeral of a person who may die before their time. That is not reasonable or fair for the tax payer.

I dont have a mortgage, don't have kids or any loans what-soever. In fact I am in the black my almost 6 figures in savings, yet even I have life insurance which will pay about over 600k in the event I die. I don't want my fiancé or future wife having financial issues in the event I pass away and I certainly don't want the state to pay for it. Life insurance for someone young is very very cheap.

Bully for you. I bought a house at 23 and the only insurance I could afford at that time was mortgage protection as I also had a small child. My intention was to increase it but then my partner left and I was a single parent so money was tight and I had to choose what security I could afford and I went for a pension. Then I was diagnosed with a lifelong debilitating illness. So the life insurance is no longer possible to change even though I'm only 30.

Plans don't always work out and sh1t happens that's not always within a persons control. Your life worked out as intended but it's foolish of you to think that it was always in your control or that it can't go awry without any input from you.

My taxes pay for lots of things people could plan for or prevent or pay for themselves if they planned far enough in advance. Why should I pay for under 5s to have gp visits or for people who don't pay private health insurance? Because I live in a socialist country, that's why. One with a system that helps those in need. And I've enough life experiences to realise that I might be the one in need at any point in time.

thick_skin

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

That was my original point. There IS no perfect system because they're based on people. But, as I said earlier, the Scandanavians have come closed and they did so by high taxes and high standards of social services. Certainly not be telling people that they're on their own.

were not swedes

we don't have a collective minded approach to things


this country is about buying off sectional interests who guarantee the most votes and the less politically powerful can sing for it and don't fool yourself into thinking these wealthy pensioners who are yelling human rights abuse due to loosing the medical card would loose a wink of sleep for the under 24 who is down to 100 euro per week and with little option but a ticket to Australia or Canada

were not scandanavia that's why big government wont ever work here

K-9

jank wrote: »

Has democracy failed? Has the free market failed? News to me.

The rich are getting richer and the poor poorer, so no, the free market hasn't failed.

thick_skin

K-9 wrote: »

The rich are getting richer and the poor poorer, so no, the free market hasn't failed.

what does the above unoriginal slogan actually mean ?

Lyaiera

seamus wrote: »

The one thing which democracy does that most other systems don't is account for the fact that people are inherently selfish and attempts to turn use "group wisdom" to turn individual selfishness into group altruism. Most other systems of governance invest too much trust in the individual to do the right thing for the whole.

That was the whole argument. That this "you're on your own" attitude is the complete opposite of what a modern society is. The whole point of what we have at the moment is that no-one should be without the basic dignities every human is entitled to.

strobe

Might all be meaningless if the US don't get their act together lickety split.
(don't think I've ever used the term 'lickety slpit' before... hmmm.)
Talk about democracy having a hiccup. :eek:

thick_skin

Lyaiera wrote: »

That was the whole argument. That this "you're on your own" attitude is the complete opposite of what a modern society is. The whole point of what we have at the moment is that no-one should be without the basic dignities every human is entitled to.

that's the trouble with the left , they think they own the definition of what a society should be

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

thick_skin wrote: »

were not swedes

we don't have a collective minded approach to things

Hey - I was asked for what I thought worked and I showed somethign that worked.

The rest of your argument doesn't really add up:

this country is about buying off sectional interests who guarantee the most votes and the less politically powerful can sing for it and don't fool yourself into thinking these wealthy pensioners who are yelling human rights abuse due to loosing the medical card would loose a wink of sleep for the under 24 who is down to 100 euro per week and with little option but a ticket to Australia or Canada

Are you in favour of all this or against it? It sums up my argument as to why the system isn't working: people only give a **** about themselves and go all out to vilify everyone else with the implication that they deserve it.

were not scandanavia that's why big government wont ever work here

"We're not Scandavia, therefore..."

That's not actually a reason...

Lyaiera

thick_skin wrote: »

that's the trouble with the left , they think they own the definition of what a society should be

Where did I say anything about what a modern society should be? I said what it is.

thick_skin

Lyaiera wrote: »

Where did I say anything about what a modern society should be? I said what it is.

what it is is entirely subjective

K-9

thick_skin wrote: »

what does the above unoriginal slogan actually mean ?

Well seeing as we are interested in the truth, it has been shown that the rich are getting richer throughout the developed world during this crisis, but that's how free markets work so true capitalists would see that as a good thing.

The truth tends to tend get unoriginal when it's repeated, because well, it's facts!

jank

K-9 wrote: »

The rich are getting richer and the poor poorer, so no, the free market hasn't failed.

Sorry but that is just populist misunderstood nonsense which I am sure goes down a treat for those that hate the rich.

thick_skin

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Hey - I was asked for what I thought worked and I showed somethign that worked.

The rest of your argument doesn't really add up:


Are you in favour of all this or against it? It sums up my argument as to why the system isn't working: people only give a **** about themselves and go all out to vilify everyone else with the implication that they deserve it.



"We're not Scandavia, therefore..."

That's not actually a reason...

irish people see the state as something to suck off , if its not doling out goodies , we have no love for it at all , scandanavians see it as a two way relationship

what you pour in , you take back out

Lyaiera

thick_skin wrote: »

what it is is entirely subjective

It's not really. We have laws, treaties and constitutions setting out exactly what it is.

thick_skin

Lyaiera wrote: »

It's not really. We have laws, treaties and constitutions setting out exactly what it is.

none of which state anything about unconditionally showering people with freebies which though politically lucrative are entirely unaffordable

Lyaiera

thick_skin wrote: »

none of which state anything about unconditionally showering people with freebies which though politically lucrative are entirely unaffordable

The idea that people are being showered with freebies is entirely subjective.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

thick_skin wrote: »

irish people see the state as something to suck off , if its not doling out goodies , we have no love for it at all , scandanavians see it as a two way relationship

what you pour in , you take back out

Which is a fair point. I'm not sure I agree with it though: I think it's more a case of the Irish not trusting the governemnt to redistribute the finances fairly, and gvien recent administrations, who could blame them?

But my point is still that it takes the people to make a system work.

seamus

thick_skin wrote: »

irish people see the state as something to suck off , if its not doling out goodies , we have no love for it at all , scandanavians see it as a two way relationship

Do you think Scandanavian countries don't have problems with leeches and fraudsters in their welfare system? Of course they do.
The Scandanavians pay much higher overall taxes than we do for this privilege, they just seem to be more accepting of its necessity than we are. Perhaps because their government is more accountable or something.

There is a general assumption in Ireland that when the government takes money off you, it goes straight up a government minister's nose and we see nothing for it.

Which is clearly wrong, but that's not to say the money is well spent either. A focus on local governance over national governance and money taken through property and local taxes rather than national taxes would probably see people actually doing something to demand value for their taxes. At the moment we bitch and whine and try to avoid paying taxes rather than try to improve spending efficiency.

jank

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Democacy has most certainly failed.

There are three probelms.

One - it assumes people want what's best for society - they do not, they want what's best for themselves. Case in point, the Fianna Fail won election when they proceeded to bankrupt the country. Policians also want whats best for them and not what's best for scoeity, second case in point, the fiscal debt crisis in the US. Third case in point - Burleconi in Italy.

You make a good case for making government small as people cant be trusted to elect politicians who have wider interests other than their own at heart.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Two - there is no choice - in most cases the most likely parties are very similar. You think Fine Gael would have done the same? Probably - but what then for democracy?

Again this is why we need government to stop telling us how to live our lives, stop taxing us for what ever grand scheme they up their sleve to win/buy votes. An other case for small government.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Three - media corruption and vested interests- case in point the recetn asutralian elections and the Rupert Murdoch bias. How can you call it free and fair when one side is being bankrupt to the hilt and the otehr side is getting villifieed in the midea for all the problems created by an unequal society?

Take such wide ranging control away from government and they lose the power to appease special interests. You get a much fairer system that way.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

In conclusion: let me turn the question around - can you name one modern society where democracy has crearted a free, fair and just environment FOR ALL CITIZENS that you would be very happy to live in?

Free, fair and just? See that may mean different things to you and me. I think more open economies are free, fair and just. Those like the US, Hong Kong, Switzerland, Australia. You may point to Sweden or Norway as free fair and just.

K-9

jank wrote: »

Sorry but that is just populist misunderstood nonsense which I am sure goes down a treat for those that hate the rich.

Yeah, I take youtube as gospel for the truth, right wingers love their truthiness.

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/09/10/the-rich-get-richer-through-the-recovery/?_r=0

One study and there's loads more on google!

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

jank wrote: »

You make a good case for making government small as people cant be trusted to elect politicians who have wider interests other than their own at heart.



Again this is why we need government to stop telling us how to live our lives, stop taxing us for what ever grand scheme they up their sleve to win/buy votes. An other case for small government.



Take such wide ranging control away from government and they lose the power to appease special interests. You get a much fairer system that way.




Free, fair and just? See that may mean different things to you and me. I think more open economies are free, fair and just. Those like the US, Hong Kong, Switzerland, Australia. You may point to Sweden or Norway as free fair and just.

I specified "for all citizens" for that reason.

The problem with all your points is that the weak will be exploited. The common trick by the advocates of small government is to poitn at such people and say that they're there for a reason and it's their own fault. The world is just, the system works.

Except it's not true. It's just somethign they say to help them sleep at night, hence me bringing up the just world fallacy back at the start.

jank

ash23 wrote: »

Bully for you. I bought a house at 23 and the only insurance I could afford at that time was mortgage protection as I also had a small child. My intention was to increase it but then my partner left and I was a single parent so money was tight and I had to choose what security I could afford and I went for a pension. Then I was diagnosed with a lifelong debilitating illness. So the life insurance is no longer possible to change even though I'm only 30.

Plans don't always work out and sh1t happens that's not always within a persons control. Your life worked out as intended but it's foolish of you to think that it was always in your control or that it can't go awry without any input from you.

My taxes pay for lots of things people could plan for or prevent or pay for themselves if they planned far enough in advance. Why should I pay for under 5s to have gp visits or for people who don't pay private health insurance? Because I live in a socialist country, that's why. One with a system that helps those in need. And I've enough life experiences to realise that I might be the one in need at any point in time.

That is the problem right there. You are OK, sorry expect that it is OK for the state to always have your back no matter what life throws at you. Why did you buy a house at 23? That was your own choice nobody else's. If you could have afforded a deposit for a house then you could have offered a hundred odd euro for basic life insurance. The very fact that the you are OK that the state provides free GP care to everyone under 5 while we are borrowing 1 billion a month shows the mentality of why we got yourselves in the mess in the first place. Sure why not extend it to everyone and their dog, sure we live in a socialist country do we not. Are people with vast resources people in need as they get free GP care too for their 5 year olds? The problem with that is that it has to be paid for. Things ALWAYS have to be paid for at the end of the day.

jank

K-9 wrote: »

Yeah, I take youtube as gospel for the truth, right wingers love their truthiness.

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/09/10/the-rich-get-richer-through-the-recovery/?_r=0

One study and there's loads more on google!

It is a well known cliche and fallacy. It does not take into account income mobility nor who make up the 'rich' or the 'poor'. What you are suggestion therefore is that capitalism is a zero sum game.

http://www.nydivide.org/2011/10/fallacy-of-rich-getting-richer-and-poor.html

There are various ways of measuring income inequality but a more fundamental distinction is between inequality at a given time- however that might be measured- and inequality over a lifetime, which is what is implied in discussions of "classes" of "the rich" and "the poor" or the "haves" and "have-nots". Given the widespread movement of individuals from one income level to another in the course of a lifetime, it is hardly surprising that lifetime inequality is less than inequality as measured at any given time. Moreover, medical interns are well aware that they are on their way to becoming doctors, as people in other entry-level jobs do not expect to stay at that level for life. Yet measurements of income inequality as of a given time are what dominate discussions of income "disparities" or "inequities" in the media, in politics, and in academia. Moreover, a succession of such measurements of inequality in the population as a whole over a period of years still misses the progression of individuals to higher income brackets over time.

To say that the bottom 20 percent of households are "falling further behind" those in the upper income brackets- as is often said in the media, in politics, and among the intelligentsia- is not to say that any given flesh-and-blood individuals are falling further behind, since most people in the bottom 20 percent move ahead over time to rise into higher income brackets. Moreover, even when an abstract statistical category is falling behind other abstract statistical categories, that does not necessarily represent a declining real per capita income, even among those people transiently within that category. The fact that the share of the bottom 20 percent of households declined from 4 percent of all income in 1985 to 3.5 percent in 2001 did not prevent the real income of households in these brackets from rising- quite aside from the movement of actual people out of the bottom 20 percent between the two years.

Even when discussions of "the rich" are in fact discussions of people who have large accumulations of wealth- as distinguished from high levels of current income- much of what is said or assumed is incorrect. In the United States, at least, most of the people who are wealthy did not inherit that wealth as part of a wealthy class. When Forbest magazine's annual list of the 400 richest people first appeared in 1982, people with inherited wealth were 21 percent of that 400- which is to say, nearly four-fifths of these rich people earned the money themselves. By 2006, fewer than 2 percent of the 400 wealthiest people on the Forbes magazine list were there because of inherited wealth. Despite the old saying that "the rich get richer and the poor get poorer," the number of billionaires in the world declined from more than a thousand to less than eight hundred in 2008, while the number of American millionaires fell from 9.2 million to 6.7 million.

K-9

jank wrote: »

It is a well known cliche and fallacy. It does not take into account income mobility nor who make up the 'rich' or the 'poor'. What you are suggestion therefore is that capitalism is a zero sum game.

http://www.nydivide.org/2011/10/fallacy-of-rich-getting-richer-and-poor.html

Well I'd expect the lowest 20% to have a better standard of living these days than the same section 20 years ago and I'd take people moving up and indeed down sections as a given, otherwise capitalism really has totally failed and collapsed! The problem is the top 1% are getting wealthier which given so many capitalists say wealth trickles down....................doesn't seem to be happening.

That study I linked to is over a 100 year period and indeed recognised that the richest section of society did indeed suffer badly initially, it seems a pretty well rounded piece overall. It really shouldn't come as a shock even to the most fervent free marketeer that the bottom sections of society have suffered more from the crisis, it's common sense really.

There are big doubts if trickle down economics actually works.